WOTC Business Strategy and miniatures

[nsruf]

Me, I was hoping that 3.5e had progressed to metric system.

Well, all these archaic measurements do sort of enhance the medieval feel of D&D

d20 Modern should have been metric, of course...

 

[Drkfathr1]

I don't have a problem with minis. It gets kind of expensive, but they do make the game a lot easier.

Counters work just fine for the cheap route.

The only problem I have with WOTC's new minis, is the random packing crap. Sure its a great business plan, forcing your customers to pay oodles and oodles and oodles of money to get the figures they need to run their game, but I have a feeling that most of us can't afford to spend that much. I'm afraid they're going to shoot themselves in the foot with this approach.

All they have to do is pack them with specific assortments and they eleminate much of the criticism (not all though of it though). I can't justify spending my money when I don't know what I'm getting. If I at least knew what I was getting out of a pack, I'd definately buy some.

 

[KenM]

I've been gaming for 20 years. I have all the minis I need. I have always used them. But I won't be picking up any new minis as I don't need them. IMO you do need something to show where characters are in relation to each other, even if its just writing on paper. I hate the totally random idea for WOTC mini's, they make packs like "elves", "orc's", ect.

 

[NPC]

I love mini's. I've been collecting them for a long time. I like painting them too.

Drkfathr1, you beat me to the punch. I feel the exact same way you do. If I want 10 orcs I want to buy 10 orcs.

 

[Numion]

Apparently many people who post on message boards have some inherent need to whine and complain about /everything/. Just look around here for people going on and on about a book they don't even have to buy. Or you can go to Games Workshop's WH 40k forums (http://www.games-workshop.com/community/40kforum.htm) and listen to people whine about *trial* rules changes. That they don't even need to use. Or perhaps go to Fox Network's webpage for their new show Banzai! (http://www.fox.com/banzai) and listen to people up in arms about a show they don't have to watch.

Or you can come here and read people whine about whines they don't have to read. You had to see this one coming

 

[rushlight]

Or you can come here and read people whine about whines they don't have to read. You had to see this one coming

Exactly!

In my (somewhat pathetic) defense, I was at work and getting /paid/ to whine. Everyone needs a hobby, eh?

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

But, you folks who criticize 3.5 as being too miniatures-dependent: Doesn't this look like a sound business strategy for WOTC?
*Sell core rulebooks to everyone
*Sell miniatures to everyone (except pogre who loves to paint)
*Let the 3rd parties sell most of the DM targeted stuff.

Item 1 and 3 are both okay (actually the reality of 3 is iffy - the crunch books are usually bought by players looking for a third-party power boost). Step 2, from the position of Hasbro is rather unfortunate.

1. The mini market is honestly too small a subset of gamers to really risk the investment.
2. You are already dealing with a highly over-supplied market. Discounting for a moment those mini lines on sale to support wargaming (Games Workshop, MageKnight) you are still dealing with more than a dozen companies ranging from the individual artist/sculptor (see next point) to mid-sized rpg companies.
3. The quality of existing product from rival groups is, quite frankly, of several orders of magnitude better than the proposed minis for D&D. This will always be the case since individual artists, who are selling directly from their homepages, manufacture smaller quantities, some will even custom build minis. And from my anceodtal experience with mini enthusiasts - quality is all-important.
4. The pricing scheme Wizards will have to undertake to make this profitable is a non-starter. Their marketing model - the randomized packs, is even less attractive. Your competitors, Topps/MageKnight excluded, are allowing their customers to buy exactly what they want - no figgling with rarities, random packs, etc.
5. I can't see why you contend that "minatures sell to everybody" when the average player will only need to buy a single miniature - the iconic representation of their character. It is the DM who must buy minis and counters for the monsters, NPCs, cohorts, and others in the campaign. Following this logic (that minis are a primarily DM-driven sales product) and the existing business model (that such optional DM-targeted product be supplied by third-parties who can take the risk and operate on the appropriate scale to match the consumer base), Hasbro's idea of producing miniatures is a contradiciton in its own business model.
6. Last point. There isn't enough unique in D&D to really require its own set of minis. Outside a couple of iconic creatures (which companies, such as REAPER, skirt with generic variations - e.g. 'spider-centaurs' and 'vulture-demons'), why should I buy (or need to buy) Hasbro-specific miniatures when Ral Partha, Reaper, etc all produce the same thing - bearded human wizard with staff?

All in all Hasbro is going into an already flooded market, their target consumer base already buys from the competitors who already support your particular rulesset/setting/genre with made-to-order or reasonably-priced, high-quality product, the size of the market and the nature of its desires makes the existing announced business model very unusual and likely a failure, and the quality of the announced product is below the existing average.

In short, the move does not make sense from the point of view of such a large corporation. Better to simply add a bit of support for mini/counter play in the rules and let the third party supply the miniatures.

- Ma'at

 

[Corinth]

Miniatures are nothing more than elaborate position markers. A pile of spare change, a bag of poker chips, scratches on a piece of scrap paper and bottle caps will do the same thing with less cost. This is why the anti-miniature arguements are so much hot air; it's a lot of whining about nothing.

 

[jasamcarl]

If you have to "absolutely don't want to play the game using minis" in order to not use them, they do seem a bit essential. Depending on what essential means to you, of course.

Besides, whatever T'Ed Stark said doesn't make it true

Me, I was hoping that 3.5e had progressed to metric system. Instead it regressed into squaric system

No, but his logic holds up. What has changed in 3.5 that makes the 5foot = 1 square formula so much more bewildering?

 

[pogre]

Re: Re: WOTC Business Strategy and miniatures

1. The mini market is honestly too small a subset of gamers to really risk the investment.

But under WOTC's strategy they are NOT selling to this subset. You and I may love to paint minis, but WOTC recognizes most gamers do not.

3. The quality of existing product from rival groups is, quite frankly, of several orders of magnitude better than the proposed minis for D&D. This will always be the case since individual artists, who are selling directly from their homepages, manufacture smaller quantities, some will even custom build minis. And from my anceodtal experience with mini enthusiasts - quality is all-important.

See - you recognize they will not be successful selling to miniature enthusiasts - surely that's not the audience they are aiming for.

5. I can't see why you contend that "minatures sell to everybody" when the average player will only need to buy a single miniature - the iconic representation of their character. It is the DM who must buy minis and counters for the monsters, NPCs, cohorts, and others in the campaign. Following this logic (that minis are a primarily DM-driven sales product) and the existing business model (that such optional DM-targeted product be supplied by third-parties who can take the risk and operate on the appropriate scale to match the consumer base), Hasbro's idea of producing miniatures is a contradiciton in its own business model.

Good point. I think they have their top designer working on the miniatures handbook. Perhaps they hope by having another miniatures game players will buy more than just their required PC figure. However, I do agree with this point.

In short, the move does not make sense from the point of view of such a large corporation. Better to simply add a bit of support for mini/counter play in the rules and let the third party supply the miniatures.

- Ma'at

Perhaps, but I think the draw of the clix crowd is just too much for HASBRO. I disagree about the rarity thing - remember I do not believe miniature enthusiasts are their market. They want folks who want something a couple steps above a marker.

Your fifth argument is strongest - it will be DMs buying most of these. That does fly-in-the-face of some of their marketing ideas - like getting out of the module publishing business. Their success will depend on player acceptance of the other game in the long term.

You have given me food for thought Ma'at.