PDA

View Full Version : Are multiple Marine Codexes good business?



barrangas
20-07-2010, 16:34
This is just me being curious and seeing if there might be some economic proof to indicate one way or the other. Is it good business to release multiple SM codexes that are very similar to each other? I don't care about whether or not the multiple codexes alienate people or not, I'm curious if it makes GW more $$$.

On the one hand an SM player with a complete SM army might be willing to buy the codex and some models to "Play as...". They've got an army already that can stand in for the 4 other SM codexes, so picking up a unique unit like Sanquinary Guard or Thunderwolf Cav isn't that much of a stretch and GW makes some money off of some one who doesn't really need anything for their army.

On the other hand, it's not like the player has to spend money on a new army that they got tempted into, as most already have the basics down. Sure there will be people who call foul when some one fields a painted UM army as SW, but ultimately it doesn't really matter mechanically. With their opponents ok they can say that a tac bike squad is TWC or Vanguard are a Death Company and play with no money expenditure required.

Sure there will be those who do buy an entire new army but ultimately its not necessary to play 5 armies with one, so it makes me wonder if this is cost effective for GW or not.

Wolf 11x
20-07-2010, 16:37
I think it works because non SM players are more likely to build a Space Marine variant army. I know plenty of people who love BTs, DA, Space Wolves, BA, and Chaos, but dislike regular beakies.

ehlijen
20-07-2010, 16:40
I'm pretty sure that despite what some might say about GW's buisness acumen, they wouldn't have made those extra codices if they didn't think it was worth it.

Space marines sell. If making slightly different space marines sells more, that's a good thing, in a buisness sense.
Me, I'd prefer they can all varient codices and made more actually unique races, but I realise that that is wishful thinking.

Vedar
20-07-2010, 16:42
Yes it does. I know people with Multiple SM armies. I know a guy who has a full Dark Angels, (old) Space Wolves and Chaos Armies. I would not do it, but it happens.

Bookwrak
20-07-2010, 17:21
Sure there will be those who do buy an entire new army but ultimately its not necessary to play 5 armies with one, so it makes me wonder if this is cost effective for GW or not.
If it wasn't, they wouldn't do it. If I remember the sales breakdown right, Space Marines account for half of GW's total sales. People like the PA and so GW is capitalizing on that. It gives people more incentive to buy the standard models shared across all the ranges, like rhinos, land raiders, (all the vehicles, really), and to a lesser extend models like scouts, tac marines, assault marines, and terminators.

Kozbot
20-07-2010, 17:37
Bookwrak has it right. You can look at it as having to do 'an entire marine codex' or look at it as getting an entire army by releasing one or two boxed sets and a handful of metal minis. Unlike Orks, or Eldar, or Dark Eldar the variant space marine armies all use the same vehicles and a lot of the same kits. This allows GW to further leverage existing kits that are already some of their best selling.

GW isn't stupid, if they were they would have gone out of business. If Eldar sold as well as marines we'd be getting different craftworld codexes instead of variant marines.

Bunnahabhain
20-07-2010, 17:46
Marines get variant codexs, so they stay up to date, and sell, so they get the variant codex, so stay up to date, and sell, and.....

We don't know if other races got the same level of support as marines, if they would sell as well, and support so many variant lists. We know that the variant marine lists must make money, or they wouldn't get done.

We also don't know if fewer marine lists, and keeping other races up to date, better supported with models, etc would lead to a significant fall in marine sales, and/or a significant increase in non- marine sales. Presumably GW don't, or they would have done it.

Personally, I believe better written rules, and a less marine-centric release schedule, with fewer marine books would be a better game, with better game play, and that would increase sales overall.

Wolf 11x
20-07-2010, 17:55
I think one major Marine codex with sections allowing the variant armies would be better. The prime examples being the 3rd ed. Chaos Codex and previous Eldar codex.

It's just a shame that Tactical squads are rubbish. ;) I think that's the main reason every prefers SWs & BA.

Zweischneid
20-07-2010, 17:57
Personally, I believe better written rules, and a less marine-centric release schedule, with fewer marine books would be a better game, with better game play, and that would increase sales overall.

Well. That logic goes backwards too. If a better game means more $$$, than more $$$ means the game improves. Thus, GW can improve the game by pushing what sells. Besides that, it also has the best game currently on the market, because no other miniature wargame product really rivals Warhammer 40K atm :rolleyes:

Blink
20-07-2010, 19:24
If a better game means more $$$, than more $$$ means the game improves.

That... no. No that is not how it works at all. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted, meaning "a better game means more money" is NOT the same thing as "more money means a better game."

Vaktathi
20-07-2010, 19:41
Overall, I highly doubt that 7 different marine books (SM, BA, BT, CSM, DA, DH, SW) is better for business than 3 or 4. Having books for say, Loyalist chapters, Chaos Marines, and something akin to a "special" marines book (e.g. Daemonhunters, recent Renegades, etc) would probably have gotten the same effect.

Having multiple marine books allows players to always have the option of using an up to date codex for their models whereas other armies will have to wait much longer for updates. It also keeps Marine hype generally high and in peoples minds given that there is a marine army released at least once a year.


That said, it's also cannibalizing sales tremendously (especially amongst marine armies), and reducing available development studio and marketing resources available to other armies, meaning those players aren't investing as much, and quickly lead to a jaded playerbase.

barrangas
20-07-2010, 21:38
Overall, I highly doubt that 7 different marine books (SM, BA, BT, CSM, DA, DH, SW) is better for business than 3 or 4. Having books for say, Loyalist chapters, Chaos Marines, and something akin to a "special" marines book (e.g. Daemonhunters, recent Renegades, etc) would probably have gotten the same effect.

I wasn't using DH or CSM as an example as both have different backgrounds and had very different options... or chaos did until 4th ed :(.

DA seems like it would work out ok as you have the option of the Death and Ravenwings. These get people to buy more terminators and bikes. I suppose BA give people a reason to buy more assault squads. From what I remember of BT and SW, they can easily be emulated by existing SM armies.

azimaith
20-07-2010, 21:44
They're about as profitable as a new guitar hero (or are people playing rockband now) is.

You write a new codex, sell it, sell even more of the same models from the same molds you have, maybe make some new ones. Its a huge difference than making all new models. This is like selling someone a 96' car, then a 97' car, and a 98' car when all your changing between the years is the paint color, instruction manual, and number of cup holders.

I'm not sure GW would float without it.

insectum7
20-07-2010, 22:04
Well. That logic goes backwards too. If a better game means more $$$, than more $$$ means the game improves. Thus, GW can improve the game by pushing what sells. Besides that, it also has the best game currently on the market, because no other miniature wargame product really rivals Warhammer 40K atm :rolleyes:

That... wha... no. Success doesn't inherently make anything better than any other thing. Popularity doesn't make anything better than any other thing. Brittney Spears did not become popular by being the best singer. 40K is the most popular because it has been a well marketed, solid product (not best, SOLID) for over 20 years of growth.

Success in this case is not gained by being the best game. That's far too simplistic. Success is gained because of a whole multitude of factors, of which the actual game is only one. The game happens to be GOOD ENOUGH to reinforce the whole hobby which includes the story as expressed in codexes, magazines and books, in additon to products such as the miniatures, tabletop supplies, paints and the occasional video game.

I think there is potential for improvement with the game/codexes, and I'm unsure if it would really hurt GW to be a little less pushy about the marines. I honestly think it would be better for the game as a whole if it were a little more diverse. But that seems like an unproven assertion, finance-wise, so it may be a hard thing to push at a board meeting concerned about quarterly growth.

Zweischneid
20-07-2010, 22:38
I honestly think it would be better for the game as a whole if it were a little more diverse. But that seems like an unproven assertion, finance-wise, so it may be a hard thing to push at a board meeting concerned about quarterly growth.

Fair enough. That is your assessment.

For the sake of the argument, I could go on the record saying that I think the game would be "better" if they'd drop all that irritating Xenos and focus exclusively on guys in power armour. More balance, more customization, less spiky ears!

By whose vision of a "better" game should GW then improve the game? Yours? Mine? Someone elses entirely? Or, what measurments of "better" are possibly out there that do not follow the arbitrary aesthetics of one guy or another?

insectum7
21-07-2010, 00:29
Fair enough. That is your assessment.

For the sake of the argument, I could go on the record saying that I think the game would be "better" if they'd drop all that irritating Xenos and focus exclusively on guys in power armour. More balance, more customization, less spiky ears!

By whose vision of a "better" game should GW then improve the game? Yours? Mine? Someone elses entirely? Or, what measurments of "better" are possibly out there that do not follow the arbitrary aesthetics of one guy or another?


Well, it's true, if everyone just used one codex then the playing field would certainly be equal. Those are often pretty interesting games in their own right, actually.

It is very true that "better" is often a relatively subjective sort of thing. I like that you made this assertion, it forces me to try to define why my "better" is "better", so to speak. :)

By "better" I think I mean an improved relationship between army selection/creation, the game itself and the story/fluff. A very important part of the hobby is the making of your army list. Many people wind up making their lists in response to the sort of opponents they are likely to face however, and Marine armies are so popular that it influences what people take in their army.

This is not necessarily bad for the game itself, however it begins to feel a little off when people are also into the story of the universe. In the story, marines fight aliens and renegades, and often aliens and renegades who are less outright tough than marines, but who nevertheless either have some nasty tricks up their sleeve, or just sheer numbers to go on. The fun part of the marine story to many people, is that the marines are a tight group of elite guys who can take on these exotic threats or tremendous hordes. That's the sort of relationship attempted in most of the codecies, and the relationship actually is there, arguably to varying degrees of success. The problem is that particular relationship is extremely under-represented on the actual tabletop, because marine armies are so prevalent. So instead of the heroic marines fighting the tremendous horde in an asymetrical but evenly matched conflict, you have heroic marines fighting other types of heroic marines, which is markedly less dramatic, and actually quite dissapointing for a lot of people who enjoy the diversity of the universe.

I was extremely happy with many of the last bunch of codecies. Orks and Imperial Guard got cheaper as guys, and the basic marine got a bit more expensive. Both the Eldar and Tyranid codex can be capably played in several ways, which is great for exotic aliens. Chaos Marines felt different than the Loyalists because the basic guy came with a chainsword for a little CC bonus, and had the option of nasty cult marines along with some other goodies. The marine codex gave the full range of equipment expected of a tac-trooper, along with Combat Squads and Combat Tactics, for a nice bonus when fighting hordes. To me it seemed that there was a good attempt to make the marines even more outnumbered and feel a little more elite.

This doesn't play out at the local club though, Marines make up more than half of the armies. They are routinely fighting each other with lots of special units and often a minimum of troops to actually hold objectives. People build their armies balanced specifically to deal with the over-prevalence of the marine threat. There are lots of vehicles and less infantry on the table making the game less nice to look at. I think this recent experience is not dissimilar to that of many players, and it's disappointing compared to the potential that the game actually has.

GrogDaTyrant
21-07-2010, 02:20
I think it works because non SM players are more likely to build a Space Marine variant army. I know plenty of people who loves BTs, DA, Space Wolves, BA, and Chaos, but dislike regular beakies.

Don't bet on it. The vast majority of non-SM players in my area have no inclination of whatsoever to build a BT, DA, SW, or BA army. In fact, several of my friends quit 40k outright and now play Warmahordes or Fantasy exclusively, simply due to them being sick of being force-fed marines.



The problem is that particular relationship is extremely under-represented on the actual tabletop, because marine armies are so prevalent. So instead of the heroic marines fighting the tremendous horde in an asymetrical but evenly matched conflict, you have heroic marines fighting other types of heroic marines, which is markedly less dramatic, and actually quite dissapointing for a lot of people who enjoy the diversity of the universe.

To me, it seems more accurate for it to be termed along the lines of: The few and far between "hordes" of threats to the humanity having to fend off a tidal wave of marines with the rare odd regiment of guard.

Dead7
21-07-2010, 03:02
i think that gw may be going a bit far with marines lately. they may be able to push them on people fairly easily but as you all must have noticed they are making a lot of their customers upset and if they do not stop im sure they will begin to loose a large amount of their currently loyal customers. if this keeps up much longer im switching games, and im sure many more will. they have to decide if they want to try to keep making money off of their older loyal customers or their young customers who are more numerous but less likley to stay.

as far as how marines on the tt do not represent the fluff, i think that is a big problem with all armies. the troops just are not good enough to warrent taking for any reason other than objectives at this point. imo troops should be out and out the strongest units in an army where elites, fa and hs should be more of specialists, not quite as strong but very useful in certain ways, that way you would have mostly troops with the rest as support for how you want to play.

night2501
21-07-2010, 03:32
is good business???

all i know is that I play tau, and I have not bough anything tau related in the last 4 or 5 years? in fact anything form GW at all, why? cause the only thing they release is SM, with the odd xenos in between
and yea from the other side of the table marines of the different flavor are oh so different... the only ones able to really tell the difference are the ones playing them... and i was sick of playing against the same stat line with slight differences every time...

so, people is not buying xenos cause we get not support, sicne we donīt buy GW focus more on marines that sell, less support on xenos, less people buy them... and you got the full circle, sure SM are the star sellers, but maybe focusing on them a bit less might allow for actually make more cash taking a part of the market is currently unexploited!

second, marines vs marines, guard versus marines, xenos verus marines, marines versus bad marines, green marines vs blue marines, withe marines vs black marines, rainbow marines versus hello kitty marines... is boring and get ridiculous fast, in the grim future there is only SM ...

I think is bad business... how many flavors of marines you actually need... we are only missing the legion marines that are a horde... wait we got that already I think ...

BBWags
21-07-2010, 03:52
Despite the nerdrage from xenos players, I think it is rather evident for reasons already mentioned that multiple marine codexes is an INCREDIBLY sound business decision. And that was the question posed. Taking out the emotional aspect on the part of individual players, can anyone really offer an argument as to why GW should abandon SM in favor of various xenos when they can make so much money off of many models that are already widely in production, therefore the overhead is drastically reduced for each "new" marine book?

night2501
21-07-2010, 04:10
well that is a sound decision is debatable, I touched that point tough just on the surface, beside the xeno player rage XD

you see, given the current focus on marines you are focusing all your resource on ONE single objective market, you ca be the king in this segment fo the market, but you are giving up all other segments.

now the other segments might not be as important, but if the case is optimizing profit, then it might be better not to focus so much on a single segment, and giving a bit more attention to the other segments, letīs make a fictional mth example

your space marine segment with 10 players
and you have 5 other segments that have 2 players each.

the current strategy focus on getting the 10 marine players and maybe 1 other segment, maybe 2 that makes a total of 10 to 14 players.

another strategy woudl be to lessen the focus on marines a bit, maybe going down from 10 to 6 or 8 players, but then you get 1 or 2 players from every other segment, that makes a total between 11 and 18.

So from a strict business point of view, is OK to give a bigger push to your star seller, but neglecting the rest of the market might not be the best decision since you are limiting your own market! (this also counterproductive since also makes you too sensible to that segment of the market).

hope this more in depth explanation clears things out a bit more.

big squig
21-07-2010, 04:20
I think making a product that is more approachable is a better idea, and 6 variant of the same army all with their own unique rules is not very approachable.

Making one marine codex capable of building every army is not impossible. What should be selling armies like blood angles or space wolves is cool minis and cool stories. GW is a miniature company first and foremost. The mini's alone should be so awesome and so inspiring that people want to build armies with them.

BBWags
21-07-2010, 04:39
night - Now, I'm no where near an business major or an economist, but if I can score 10 customers with 1 unit of overhead costs then why would I spend 6 units of overhead cost to get a total of 12-14 customers?

The cost to profit ratio is far out of whack in that scenario...

barrangas
21-07-2010, 04:45
Despite the nerdrage from xenos players, I think it is rather evident for reasons already mentioned that multiple marine codexes is an INCREDIBLY sound business decision. And that was the question posed. Taking out the emotional aspect on the part of individual players, can anyone really offer an argument as to why GW should abandon SM in favor of various xenos when they can make so much money off of many models that are already widely in production, therefore the overhead is drastically reduced for each "new" marine book?

To clear things up, the post isn't about supporting SM over Xenos. Honestly that's not an arguement I personally want any involvement in. The question is about if it's profittable to release so many similar SM codexes.

DH provided Grey Knights and the Allies rule, which I though was a brilliant marketing tool. you could attacht GK to your existing Imperium armies or start a new one all together. From there it was only some small steps to collecting an entirely new army. I knew several people who ended up with either a new DH or Imperium army short order of picking up a few things to suppliment their forces and a few who now have IG, SM, and D H because of that codex. Hell, I picked up GK Termies to convert to chaos.

When BT came out I saw a number of players switch their armies over to BT after only picking up a few models at most, which I think was the rereleased Land Raider Crusader. Maybe if they had been even more different from the vanilla SM they might have sold more models. Right now it seems like a lot of people are playing "counts as SW" or "counts as BA" lists with out any of the models.

I suppose I could ask the question of would SM profits have been cut substantially if they had fewer codex? Lets face it, SM are a solid and forgiving army which are recommended by GW and regular players when some one is starting out. If I did ask that question it would label me as a Xenos player and get me flamed though. Also it wasn't what really made me curious about this subject.

insectum7
21-07-2010, 05:03
night - Now, I'm no where near an business major or an economist, but if I can score 10 customers with 1 unit of overhead costs then why would I spend 6 units of overhead cost to get a total of 12-14 customers?

The cost to profit ratio is far out of whack in that scenario...

Very true, but do you know those numbers are even close to being true?

Marketing and revenue data is a fairly nebulous science, things are rarely that cut and dry. It's easy to interpret the numbers representing cause and effect the wrong way. Major companies screw it up all the time.

More likely it seems that those codecies get released because they can hype something without as much mini production behind it. If all you have to make is a character or two, and some spiffy sprues that just add to existing molds, it seems much easier than re-sculpting the majority of an army.

Lexal Graves
21-07-2010, 06:33
While it does make good busniess, the last time I went to the local GW, I saw 6 games going on, SW vs BA, SM vs SM, SM vs Nids, SM vs BA (I think), SW vs SW, SM vs SM, and BA vs BA, All unpainted (outside of the nids, Which is Why I can't tell which chapter they were from). It was a depressing site to see so many Space marines.

GrogDaTyrant
21-07-2010, 06:58
More likely it seems that those codecies get released because they can hype something without as much mini production behind it. If all you have to make is a character or two, and some spiffy sprues that just add to existing molds, it seems much easier than re-sculpting the majority of an army.

For SW and BA, both sets got 2 plastic kits, and a handful of metal sculpts. That doesn't seem like much when it's compared to the complete overhaul the Orks got (mostly due to 5 years of neglect and models dated back to 2nd edition). However, it's just *slightly* below the standard release. In fact, that's on par with what the Dark Elves got in the Fantasy side of things. Typically a faction can expect 2 to 3 plastic kits of some kind, and some new metal sculpts, for a new book launch. If the army needs a serious miniature overhaul, they get fast-tracked for a 2nd or possibly even 3rd wave of new models, each of which consists of 1 to 2 plastic kits with some new metal sculpts. So basically, SW and BA ate up just as much miniature production time as the Dark Elves did, to say the least.

Now I can't speak for all regions (as I don't know what the gaming scene is across the continent), but I can tell you what I've seen in my neck of the woods during the last several marine releases. For both the SW and BA releases, the people most excited about it were pre-existing marine players. The only ones who actually bought the new models to the degree of a new army release, were pre-existing players of that specific chapter. However numerous players simply bought the codex to run their army with. Codex sales theoretically went up, but a large percentage of players in my area already tend to purchase new codices in order to know their enemy.

So the overall impact of the SW and BA releases to the gaming communities I'm most familiar with? The odd SW or BA player went for the new models, but otherwise the releases were a lot less lackluster than say the IG release and 2nd wave, or initial codex space marine release. Your mileage may vary of course... For all I know world-wide, there was a colossal influx of SW and BA players during their releases, and now their sales dwarfed every other faction and GW game combined.

Garven Dreis
21-07-2010, 07:24
The few and far between "hordes" of threats to the humanity having to fend off a tidal wave of marines with the rare odd regiment of guard.

This man speaketh the truth

Iracundus
21-07-2010, 09:26
night - Now, I'm no where near an business major or an economist, but if I can score 10 customers with 1 unit of overhead costs then why would I spend 6 units of overhead cost to get a total of 12-14 customers?

The cost to profit ratio is far out of whack in that scenario...

It is not as simple as just $ per man-hour. What development also produces is demand. Think of the Necrons or Tau. Prior to their introduction to 40K, the demand for these races was 0. By opening up a new frontier, the initial effort has built up demand where there was none before and opened up new development and income opportunities. This long term investment in increasing the market and future opportunities needs also to be factored in.

Sir_Turalyon
21-07-2010, 11:12
I think it works because non SM players are more likely to build a Space Marine variant army. I know plenty of people who loves BTs, DA, Space Wolves, BA, and Chaos, but dislike regular beakies.

Quoted for truth. I blame Ultramarines being bland on people needing Marine codices without them :D .

Other thing to notice is, GW always believed that if two armies use overlaping model ranges players who have one will buy the other. While the game balance reasons removed rules like "25% of your Imperial Guard army may be taken from Codex:Eldar because once you buy and paint them, remaining 75% of Eldar army will follow before you notice", Marines armies are still affected with it. It's easier to buy reinforcements to existing army than deciding to sart new one, after all.

Say I have a finished Marines collection using Codex:Marines battle company organization: multiple tactical / devastaror squads, enough Terminators go by with, Dreadnought or two, Sternguards, couple of assault squads, few drop pods and transports, 3 or 4 Heavy support squads, two bike squadrons in case want to run "bikes as troops" army, Legion of Damned to spice up friendly games. There is no real need to buy any more models, I have all bases covered and my whole collection is Apocalypse-sized. Then comes Codex Blood Angels, or Black Templars or whatever and I realize I have almost enough minis to run an army with it, for little more variety. Or rather, I have enough minis, but small purchase of third assault squad and extra apothecaries would make the force far more effective. And Vanguards, technically they are useful under both codices so I'm still buying them for my old army (no matter under old codex I never bothered with them). And maybe two more Dreadnoughts, would work well as BA and my marines could field them all if I use Master of the Forge (not that I ever used him). And extra Land Raider would be great under BA rules; no matter that it's useless under C:SM rules, maybe one day I'll use it in Apocalypse (along with these allied Sanguinary Guards)? And Baal Predator is too good a model not to have. Same for Mephiston. Wait a minute, how my marines collection became almost twice as big?

night2501
21-07-2010, 12:40
yep iracundus got the idea, itīs what we call diversify, a company wantīs to diversify because it has benefits, such as taking a bigger share of the market, usually getting more profit, and something important also, gives more stability, since the company is not longer so sensible to the changes in one single sector.

i m not saying focusing too much on a single product (space marines in this case) is not giving them profits, but i doubt is the best long term choice, objectively speaking.

rodmillard
23-07-2010, 09:01
From a purely economic point of view, multiple variants of marines make good sense. As has been stated, the overlap in unit choices allows existing marine players to "buy in" to the new army far more cheaply than, say, starting an allied guard army which you can field alongside your marines in Apocalyse. There were similar thought processes involved in the ally rules for Inquisition, I'm sure (I buy some allied grey knights to add to my guard, pretty soon I have enough grey knights to field a DH force with inducted guard ... hang on, if I just buy this and this I can field a pure grey knight force...)

A variant marine release is a "low risk" release from GW's point of view - they will recoup their development costs even if it's just from Little Timmy wanting his existing marine army to be da bestest and Old Tom the Hobbynerd buying a couple of box sets to convert models for his homebrew chapter. I don't think it should be a surprise that three out of five 5th ed releases have been marines in the current economic climate.

Compare this with the rumoured Dark Eldar release: High outlay in terms of development cost (especially given a completely new range of models), for potentially limited return. In economic terms this is the kind of risk GW can only afford to take once a year, when any potential loss will be absorbed by ... yep, the profits from Marine sales.

Armies like IG, Nids, Orks and Eldar can be considered medium risk: yes, the development costs will be higher than a marine release, but they have an established fanbase which means that the release will (at worst) break even. Grey Knights fall into this category as well, since a lot of their vehicles cross over with Marines even if their troops are less interchangeable than BT or DA would be.

This all makes sense from GW's perspective. Whether it makes for a healthy market is another matter altogether: I would say not, since the SM bubble cannot be sustained indefinitely. Sooner or later GW will run out of scope to expand their marine ranges...

ashc
23-07-2010, 09:04
I concur with exactly what robmillard says; Great for business for GW, but healthy for the game? - Questionable.

insectum7
23-07-2010, 09:40
Sooner or later GW will run out of scope to expand their marine ranges...

That's the signal to release the next edition :)

Sir_Turalyon
23-07-2010, 10:49
This all makes sense from GW's perspective. Whether it makes for a healthy market is another matter altogether: I would say not, since the SM bubble cannot be sustained indefinitely. Sooner or later GW will run out of scope to expand their marine ranges...


... and introduce new vehicles, finaly release Stormravens and Thunderwolves, buff bad units like Vanguard and give them plastic kits etc. The market is already saturated for some time, and GW's approach of nerfing units everybody already has while buffing things that can be sold yet, often with new shiny models, seems to be working. Add rules changing number of fieldable models like Blood Angels ("Buy more Land Raiders"), Spearhead ("Buy more tanks") or Apocalypse ("Buy more minis").

I wonder if it's not the purpose of rules for Stormravens or Thunderwolves - to create a shortage of models they aren't even making yet.

night2501
23-07-2010, 14:46
I concur with exactly what robmillard says; Great for business for GW, but healthy for the game? - Questionable.

Actually he said healthy for the market not for the game, which is what I been saying too, as a short term strategy it works, on long term...

Well also from the point of view of marketing, you need a strong enemy to be able to make your hero look good, if not he looks like a bully and marines versus more marines is not good for marketing ^^U

Poseidal
23-07-2010, 15:01
Perhaps the villain is more important than the Hero?

In many successful media, the Hero is often a bland figure so the reader/viewer/player can identify and imagine themselves in that position.

The Villain must be charismatic and interesting.

In Mario, people remembered Bowser, and later the Koopa Kids (who had more personality than the Mario Bros)
In Lord of the Rings, the elements of Sauron and Gollum are what make it interesting; the entire story even hinges on Gollum in the end.
Star Wars: Who is the iconic character? Darth Vader
Starcraft: People remember the Zerg rather the Terrans, you think 'Zerg Rush' with this game.
In Pac-Man, the Ghosts are the characters; they have the personalities.

With this in mind, if Marines are the protagonists, then the other factions (who are apparently the villain factions) need the attention to be successful.

And my examples above are a lot more successful/famous than Warhammer 40,000; so perhaps you can conclude that Loyalist Marines are actually holding the setting back?

ashc
23-07-2010, 15:08
Actually he said healthy for the market not for the game, which is what I been saying too, as a short term strategy it works, on long term...

Well also from the point of view of marketing, you need a strong enemy to be able to make your hero look good, if not he looks like a bully and marines versus more marines is not good for marketing ^^U

I was considering the market to essentially be those who play the game, I would think them linked, hence what I put :)

BBWags
23-07-2010, 15:49
Unfortunately, "those who play the game" is a rather indistinguishable group of people that everyone thinks THEY belong to but few others of dissenting opinion do. Take a look at my poll concerning people who own Space Marines and we will see, at least from the perspective of the warseer general discussion community, that "the people who play the game" are 80% people who at least own Space Marines. In light of that, multiple marine codexes make absolute business sense.

ReveredChaplainDrake
23-07-2010, 15:49
I think what really hurts the game is that the elite, skill army is the most effective beginner army. Marines need to be about as tough to play as Grey Knights, or at least some kind of finesse army.

IMHO, with all GW's penchant for Orkish behavior, all the Orky humor in the game, the fact that every race has a Dakka-something-or-other, and that shouting "WAAAAAGH!" really loud is a sure-fire sign that something 40k-ish (or at least WHFB-ish) is about to happen, you'd think Orks would be the go-to starter army. Or possibly IG, if you insist on playing the good guy. Not only would it make the Marines all the more epic as they ought to be, but think of all the money they could make off infantry hordes and massive tank kits. If the main 40k army was IG, Baneblades and their variants might not just sell better, but might get converted into something usable in standard games. Seen all those new IG kits that GW put out this year? Imagine how well those would sell if everybody played IG. And so on. It just boggles the mind as to why GW would market their superhuman special forces as the idiot-proof army.

BBWags
23-07-2010, 15:59
Why market them as the beginner army? Because they are characterized as epic, uber-elite no-one-stands-in-our-way foul dudes. And who DOESN'T want to play as such a character? Yes, there are many who don't. But the great majority of people LOVE the idea of doing so. So if GW established IG as their official lead-in army, that doesn't mean people will actually play it as such...

Xarius
23-07-2010, 15:59
i think that the idea may have to do with:

child comes in, starts ultramarines. Child gets more experienced at hobby and wants to do something different but being a child cant afford loads of new armies. Child buys varient codex and cconverts models.

I do cry a bit inside when i see thick layers of paint and various cobbled together bits from different chapters on one marine.

electricblooz
23-07-2010, 18:10
It was a depressing site to see so many Space marines.

Why?

I recognize you're speaking in hyperbole and that you did not actually go into cynical depression when you saw this sight, but why would the site of 12 individuals, doing what they want to do, be such an issue? It's not like playing SM or variants thereof is a mortal sin. With the exception of the type on type games, it's not like the players were facing mirror images of their own army (i.e. lack of variety in opponent play styles).

Lexal Graves
23-07-2010, 21:03
Why?

I recognize you're speaking in hyperbole and that you did not actually go into cynical depression when you saw this sight, but why would the site of 12 individuals, doing what they want to do, be such an issue? It's not like playing SM or variants thereof is a mortal sin. With the exception of the type on type games, it's not like the players were facing mirror images of their own army (i.e. lack of variety in opponent play styles).

I Guess I expect at least a little variation between armies. I didn't expect a perfect variety, but not a single Tau army? No Eldar? Not even Chaos? Just 11 Space marines, and not even painted. It's like going to play street fighter and everyone playing Ryu, it just gets old real quick.

madprophet
23-07-2010, 22:04
I would like to see codexes for each of the Chaos legions as well as the main loyalist chapters simply because it would encourage more personality among Marine armies. But even without such books I would really like to see some creativity in the marine armies I face on the tabletop.

I am not a marine player - I prefer my Valhallan guardsmen. I created some extensive background for them which inspired some conversions which makes my army unique. I would like Marine players (of which there are many) to move in that direction for variety's sake. An excellent example of what I am talking about is at www.fightingtigersofveda.com where the author does a super job of making vanilla marines interesting!

Dead7
23-07-2010, 22:41
i would like all of the marine codexs combined into one super-dex which is big enough to hold all of the current chapter rules, and the same kind of thing for chaos legions, eldar craftworlds ect.

BBWags
23-07-2010, 23:34
I would like Marine players (of which there are many) to move in that direction for variety's sake.

Please believe my sincerity when I commend you for the hard work you have put into your conversions to make a unique army. I'm sure that helps you enjoy your games all the more and I think that is great.

But when people start saying "I would like..." other players to do thus and such, there is just no grounds for that. I mean, yeah, if we keep that to ourselves as a personal desire and hope, then that's fine. But what happens in reality is people take this perspective and then project that onto other people and either become annoyed with them or think less of them because they don't fit the standard that has been set. When it comes down to it, this is a personal hobby. If I enjoy myself just fine with a standard army without any conversions whatsoever, then no one should think less of me for it. Or at least, don't act as if I have some moral failing simply because I haven't done my army the way you think I ought.

This isn't directed at madprophet specifically, there are a lot of people who feel this way, and honestly I think this view is just as detrimental to the game as a ton of players who don't paint their armies or who proxy a lot. Call it minimalist vs. elitist, I dunno.


i would like all of the marine codexs combined into one super-dex which is big enough to hold all of the current chapter rules, and the same kind of thing for chaos legions, eldar craftworlds ect.

Let's please not go down that road . . . :-)

night2501
24-07-2010, 01:27
Unfortunately, "those who play the game" is a rather indistinguishable group of people that everyone thinks THEY belong to but few others of dissenting opinion do. Take a look at my poll concerning people who own Space Marines and we will see, at least from the perspective of the warseer general discussion community, that "the people who play the game" are 80% people who at least own Space Marines. In light of that, multiple marine codexes make absolute business sense.

the problem is, that right now you have a market of X where 80% of them play marines, with a non marine centric approach, you might maybe have a market of 2X where 40% play marines, and you would get, a bigger fan base, diversify your sales making you less sensible to changes, and probably makign more profits.

but points as how risky the inversion is, are to be taken into account too...

and there is the point of view of marketing too...

taking all into account is hard to say if the decision so far is good or bad, but based on my little experience and study I would say that on the long run, is a bad business decision.

electricblooz
24-07-2010, 03:52
the problem is, that right now you have a market of X where 80% of them play marines, with a non marine centric approach, you might maybe have a market of 2X where 40% play marines, and you would get, a bigger fan base, diversify your sales making you less sensible to changes, and probably makign more profits.

but points as how risky the inversion is, are to be taken into account too...

and there is the point of view of marketing too...

taking all into account is hard to say if the decision so far is good or bad, but based on my little experience and study I would say that on the long run, is a bad business decision.

Without access to GW's full financials AND their market segmentation data, you really can't say anything other than GW sure believes that their SM saturation strategy is the best strategy.

I can say that I have secondhand knowledge of GW's marketing plan (at least the plan as of 2 years ago) and the folks here who have hypothesized that GW are focusing on younger buyers are largely correct. Given that, I'd be willing to bet that GW has marketing and focus-group data that show that the uber-human paradigm is more appealing to their target age group then other concepts; hence, the preponderence SM codeces makes perfect sense.

Dead7
24-07-2010, 04:19
sure sm sell the best, but too much will (and possibly is) creating a backlash from their older base. i can not see 40k being successful on kids alone.

night2501
24-07-2010, 04:51
Without access to GW's full financials AND their market segmentation data, you really can't say anything other than GW sure believes that their SM saturation strategy is the best strategy.

I can say that I have secondhand knowledge of GW's marketing plan (at least the plan as of 2 years ago) and the folks here who have hypothesized that GW are focusing on younger buyers are largely correct. Given that, I'd be willing to bet that GW has marketing and focus-group data that show that the uber-human paradigm is more appealing to their target age group then other concepts; hence, the preponderence SM codeces makes perfect sense.

yes, is true, i m just assuming, i donīt have any hard data to support what I say, so i m exploring this from a general point of view and the usual strategies used in the market, and the common ideas used in economy, and form this point of view GW decisions do not look that good.

now the decision to focus on younger players is that a decision, not data supporting the fact, they did take that decision with some data to back it up, like focus group that another story, but it would be more interesting to know how or why they choose the younger segment.
-did they notice the younger segment wanted marines, and since they had marines they where going marinecentric decided to focus on this group?
-did they decided to focus on a younger group and notice marines where more well liked? , how did they described the different armies, this would make a great different in a study with youngsters.

and on other points
was this focus group taken form a very particular segment and form just one nation, did they do the focus group only on the nation of the biggest sellers, did the focus group had access to GW propaganda?

focus group and all are good but you must know how to interpret the results, specially since GW has been marine centric for far longer than a couple of years, and also this only make more evident what I been saying so far.

this only makes you really sensible to changes in the target market!, ok you aim for the younger market, but you do not intend to keep most of them on the long term, yes you sell a lot of new minis for each new generation, most of them marines, if ONE generation, does not like marines for X motive but like tyranids for example, your whole market crumbles right there, ok it might just go down.

and on the long term there WILL be changes.

again I think GW strategy is ok as a short term strategy but fails on the long term, so i would expect to see a change on strategy soon...

but well all this are just opinions...

FabricatorGeneralMike
24-07-2010, 05:40
When I worked there marines/chaosmarines, outsold every other 40k army put together. This was true for most of Canada. I don't know how it is in the rest of the world, but if you give it to them; they will buy it.

Personally, I have a SoB army, I would love to do a Elysian army, and I would like to get around to doing a Crimson Fist army. Either Vet heavy, or just after the heresy around the time after the Iron Cage. I think that would be rather neat IMHO. Of course YMMV ;)

barrangas
24-07-2010, 05:59
I think I'm going to try to shut this thread down. I wanted to see if people thought that marketing several very similar SM codexes was profittable or not, and hopefully scare up some info on it. It's degenerated into whether or not GW should market SM any more or less, which wasn't what I wanted. Thanks for the imput though.