Official posts on DDM changes

[thecasualoblivion]

One of the things that is stated and/or implied in the official statements was that interest in the skirmish game was declining at a much greater rate than the sales of the minis themselves were declining. It was always an open secret that the RPG side drove the sales of D&D Minis anyway, as the secondary market prices were always based on the desirability of minis to the RPG and not the skirmish game. The fact the skirmish game was dropped in response to declining sales to focus on the stronger part of the market(people buying minis for the RPG) is to be expected.

 

[Verys Arkon]

Count me as one that has used DDM minis exclusively for the RPG side of things. I'll be happy to see less randomization too. I buy a few boosters for the 'chance' I'll get a cool rare, but otherwise I buy individuals from my FLGS or online. I hated having to pay a premium for minis based on its DDM stat, not the mini itself. I'm guessing that since randomization hasn't been completely removed that I will still rely on the secondary market, though maybe less so.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Reaper doesn't need a license. They already publish knockoffs.

Don't underestimate the power of the D&D brand logo and official name. Especially when they publish the "official Drizzt" or "official Raistlin Majere".

Cheers, LT.

 

[The Little Raven]

Weren't there indications from WotC that 4E sales were brisk?

By August (2 months after release), Mike Mearls said that WotC had surpassed their sales expectations for 4e for the entire fiscal year 2008.

 

[Roman]

By August (2 months after release), Mike Mearls said that WotC had surpassed their sales expectations for 4e for the entire fiscal year 2008.

Thanks - I knew I heard something from WotC that 4E was selling very well, but I couldn't pin down what precisely has been said. In any case, it does belie the notion that the RPG side of the business is not doing well.

 

[Dire Bare]

hmmm... interesting stuff

The sales of D&D minis have been going down since at least 2006. Still they went ahead with developing a new edition of DDM. They must have banked on 4e boosting sales of DDM again. This did not happen.

Conventional wisdom around here has been that mini sales have been as strong if not stronger than the sales of the rpg books. If this is true, it doesn't bode well for D&D as a whole.

 

[Remathilis]

hmmm... interesting stuff

The sales of D&D minis have been going down since at least 2006. Still they went ahead with developing a new edition of DDM. They must have banked on 4e boosting sales of DDM again. This did not happen.

Conventional wisdom around here has been that mini sales have been as strong if not stronger than the sales of the rpg books. If this is true, it doesn't bode well for D&D as a whole.

Mind that DDM 2.0 was a completely different game than fourth edition, every monster, PC, and hazard needed two sets of stats; one for 4e, one for DDM. The figure was doubly worthwhile (to DDM and RPG) but at any given time the card was 1/2 useful (you either used the DDM stats or the RPG stats, and many RPG buyers didn't give a rodent's donkey about the DDM side.

So rather than develop two games, they could focus the R&D team on making one set of stats (4e compatible) and produce them with less R&D time.

I think the point is the MINI's are selling ok, but the skirmish element is suffering, so by more tightly integrating DDM with 4e, they get more out of the product.

 

[justanobody]

Almost said here that the two games aren't really in competition, but then realized you were talking about something else - they are in competition for shelf space, table space, and overall company resources.

Which is sometimes more damaging to sales than the quality of the product. The minis take up more space and are thus more visible in stores, but using them in the stores also takes up the most space and not every store has enough room for every game they carry to be played. Just too many games out their today that people are trying to support all of them without the physical resources.

 

[Ktulu]

The most common comment I see about DDM was the randomness and how as a DM they didn't like to get them. I have been a collector of DDM since Harbinger and have a collection close to 2000 minis (even after a massive culling of the collection on ebay).

As a DM I LOVED the randomness. I loved getting a monster that I'd never ran a game with before and just thinking about how I could put that into a session.

I pulled a rage drake last year and just stared. What the heck was this thing? A dragon without wings that also happens to be amount? Huh? However, I loved the sculpt and eventually created an entire story behind these creatures that now lived in the desert and were highly territorial. Had I not pulled that mini I wouldn't have ened up ever using the creature since I didn't have the MM it came in (this was before 4e and it's induction into the MM).


I'm going to miss the DDM line, but it was a fun ride while it lasted. Hopefully the next line of minis has a high quality and great number of weird and different creatures along with those orcs & skeletons we all want tons of.

Ktulu

 

[MerricB]

Scott Rouse
Was the 8-mini for $15 model not profitable? Why the change to a 5-mini for $15 model. What exactly does WOTC see as the value-add here?

I tried to explain this in my post but I have to be careful on the level of detail I provided (publicly traded and all).

Costs were (are) climbing so to maintain the business at its current level something has to give to offset that. More times than not it was the quality of the minis in the packs (deco for example).

In the new model we are able to actually increase the quality of the minis. Some of this is driven by a higher price and some of it is driven by a reduction in costs (no skirmish development, less tooling with smaller set sizes etc).

All the minis will see an increase in quality. Highlights are:

PC packs - 3 very high quality visible non-random PC minis (similar or greater than our current rare)

MM packs - 1 high quality (similar or greater than our current rare) large monster mini and 1 high quality mini below (sometimes another large).

MM Huge packs. 1 high quality (similar or greater than our current rare) visible huge plus you get a rare below, sometimes a med and sometimes a large. You will always get a large in the huge pack.

Scott Rouse
What about the Starter Set Minis & Maps?

The starter is canceled and if appropriate those minis will go into other products.

The maps for the new starter were never created. As for the old maps we have been giving them away when we could (like on the checklist posters). I am sure we'll continue to look for ways to get maps out there but nothing has been decided yet.

Peter Lee
Ultimately, the increased price covers increased costs for manufacturing and to give a better quality product.

Every time there is a common miniature that sells on the secondary market for a 25 cents, we have a problem. I don't want consumers buying things that they perceive as disposable -- how many of you open boosters and only care about the rare miniature? That's a problem. When someone opens a case or two of miniatures, I want them to care about every single miniature that they get, not just a rare.

For the model going forward, we've increased the average paint steps per figure by 50%. Many of those paint steps are going on the visible uncommon miniature, making it look better than the average rare figure that we have now. All the rest of the figures are getting increases as well; the two commons will be closer to uncommon in quality, and the other uncommon will be closer to rare in quality.

I don't want to go into much more right now -- I'll need something to talk about in a couple of months, after all.

I'm still happy with how the paint looks on Demonweb; it is a considerable improvement over the past two sets.

I am also sad that the miniature skirmish game is ending. I've been involved with the community for a long time, and it is through that community that ultimately brought me to where I am today. I've met a ton of wonderful people over the last 5 years through a passion for the game. The RPG group that I was in back in Madison came together through the miniature game, and they ended up being very good friends of mine. I wish that I had had more opportunities to design for the game, but at least I will have my involvement with the freelancers doing the restats.

Scott Rouse
Scott, that sounds like a whole lot of clamshell packaging -- likely taking up more surface area than the other four minis in the box. It also implies that the Huges themselves will be constrained by the packaging -- no rampant Dragons with outstretched wings, but multiple Giants or whatnot in non-dynamic poses.

Sure, you probably wont see something like the white dragon from AoG but so far what I have seen looks pretty freakin good. There is a dragon that is one of the best minis poses I have ever seen and the hive mother beholder is super bad (in a good way)

Also, as long as I've got your attention...what happens to Eddie Jr.'s Championship mini (Elf Ranger w/Falcon)? And will Guillaume (now the last-ever sanctioned DDM Constructed Champion) still get to design his mini?

The Ranger will be in a martial pack and looks great.

I am not sure about Guillaume. Maybe Pete or Shoe can answer.

Scott Rouse
I am not sure we are announcing the rarity scheme at this point. There are 8 visible mini per MM set.

The sets will have monsters in them. If it is in the MM then that would be a good rule of thumb for being in the sets. Humanoid type NPCs will be of the drow, orc, duragar, goblinoid persuasion.

As for farmers and drunks I am not sure. Could be a future product like a village or town set if this proves to have potential.