# New Miniatures...  Info?



## Aluvial (Feb 4, 2009)

The new format for the D&D miniatures still has me scratching my head...

There are 40 monsters... how many are rare? Do they still have rares? I know that 8 are visible. How many cases would I need? I usually buy 3 and am usually short 1 rare.... the new distribution is confusing me.

What about the character packs? How many do you think I would need for a full set? There are 3 visibles in each pack... do I only need one of each? Or more?

Any help... I'm pre-ordering soon.


----------



## Keith Robinson (Feb 5, 2009)

Aluvial said:


> There are 40 monsters... how many are rare? Do they still have rares? I know that 8 are visible.




Apparantly the distribution for the MM Delves (40 figures per set) is 8 Visible, 8 Common, 8 Uncommon, 16 Rare and you get 8 boosters per case.  Also (apparantly) cases will come with 1 each of the 8 visible minis (I've also heard that you'll be able to buy cases based on the inidividual visibles - so cases of 8 aboleths, etc).




Aluvial said:


> What about the character packs? How many do you think I would need for a full set? There are 3 visibles in each pack... do I only need one of each? Or more?




I've no idea for the method for cases for the character sets.  However, there are six packs I believe (arcane heroes 1, arcane heroes 2, divine heroes, martial heroes 1, martial heroes 2, and primal heroes).  Each contains three visible figures and that's it (so no random minis unseen inside the box.

As for how many to buy or how many you need, only you can decide that!

You can find a thread here on the UK Minis website with lots of pics, plus a set list and few other bits.

HTH


----------



## CharlesRyan (Feb 5, 2009)

Aluvial said:


> What about the character packs? How many do you think I would need for a full set? There are 3 visibles in each pack... do I only need one of each? Or more?




The Heroes SKUs are not blind or randomized. The 3 visibles are the three minis in the pack. Buy one each of all six packs, and you have all of the minis.

I believe the Heroes packs come in assortment cases; one case contains one of each SKU. But don't quote me on that.

Hope that helps!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 5, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> The Heroes SKUs are not blind or randomized. The 3 visibles are the three minis in the pack. Buy one each of all six packs, and you have all of the minis.
> 
> I believe the Heroes packs come in assortment cases; one case contains one of each SKU. But don't quote me on that.
> 
> Hope that helps!




Haha, I just did anyway.


----------



## Nebulous (Feb 5, 2009)

So, will we still be able to buy this individually from places like Auggies?


----------



## Zaukrie (Feb 5, 2009)

I'd guess yes, but I'm not sure how Auggie will do it. The reduction in randomness and the price increase increases his costs considerably. I'd guess, only guess, that the days of 19 cent commons is gone. His issue is that if they have any of the visibles that are bad/sucky/hard to sell, he could be in trouble in terms of getting rid of them. The visibles are uncommon (it is unclear to me if you can also get the visible as an uncommon in a random slot).


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Feb 5, 2009)

Nebulous said:


> So, will we still be able to buy this individually from places like Auggies?




I just asked, and he says yes. He's uncertain however as to where to place the increased cost (besides at the customer's end  )


----------



## Nebulous (Feb 5, 2009)

Well, the way i see it, even if the cost rises, there's 20 less miniatures in the set to buy from, so the end price will probably come out about the same. Maybe. We'll see.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Feb 5, 2009)

Zaukrie said:


> I'd guess yes, but I'm not sure how Auggie will do it. The reduction in randomness and the price increase increases his costs considerably. I'd guess, only guess, that the days of 19 cent commons is gone. His issue is that if they have any of the visibles that are bad/sucky/hard to sell, he could be in trouble in terms of getting rid of them. The visibles are uncommon (it is unclear to me if you can also get the visible as an uncommon in a random slot).



If it's true that you can buy a case of eight boosters all with the same visible figure, shouldn't Auggie be able to avoid buying more of the visible figures that don't sell?  If so, then the reduction in randomness shouldn't increase prices any further than the inherent price increase determined by WotC.  (I'm assuming that the non-visible figures are distributed independently of the visible ones.)

Edit: My understanding is that the visible figures are separate from the common, uncommon, and rare ones.  They essentially added a fourth category.


----------



## Aluvial (Feb 6, 2009)

The Kyngdoms said:


> I've no idea for the method for cases for the character sets. However, there are six packs I believe (arcane heroes 1, arcane heroes 2, divine heroes, martial heroes 1, martial heroes 2, and primal heroes). Each contains three visible figures and that's it (so no random minis unseen inside the box.




What is the price point for the Hereos sets with only 3 each?  Why can't I find it anywhere?


----------



## Keith Robinson (Feb 7, 2009)

Aluvial said:


> What is the price point for the Hereos sets with only 3 each?  Why can't I find it anywhere?




You can see the prices here - so $10.99 for the Heroes sets and $14.99 for the delve boosters.  That is a significant price rise from the present random boosters.  Previously, the average price for a single non-huge figure came in at $1.87 (based on the current RRP of $14.99), but for the future sets it will work out at $3.66 per Hero fugure and $3.00 per Delve figure.  So, the cost of a hero figure has all but doubled.

All of the above relies on those released prices as actually being the final RRP, of course.


----------



## Aluvial (Feb 7, 2009)

Wow... the greed is evident. They are really trying to grab hold of the aftermarket pricing... 

Which... if they had thought about it, they could have been doing all along by selling the individual miniatures at a higher price point...

Amazing. 

And yet, I have a plastic-crack mini addiction so bad... I'm really bad off now... I even ordered so WOW minis to bring some joy to my ever-shrinking heart...

My wife is going to have a melt down! 

Aluvial


----------



## thalmin (Feb 7, 2009)

Not quite so greedy as you may think. WotC stated one of the reasons for the change was increased production costs. We saw a decrease in painting quality the last few sets. With the new pricing, WotC says the figures will get an increase in the painting steps. So the figures should look better


----------



## Aluvial (Feb 7, 2009)

thalmin said:


> Not quite so greedy as you may think. WotC stated one of the reasons for the change was increased production costs. We saw a decrease in painting quality the last few sets. With the new pricing, WotC says the figures will get an increase in the painting steps. So the figures should look better



Did they say how many painting steps?  The last big increase was due to transportation costs.  Fuel is down... 

Look at the pictures...  I'll wait to see with my own eyes before I'm totally convinced, but really...  $3.00+ a minis is steep...  it is a piece of plastic!

Beautiful, beautiful plastic...  I love that smell.  the way they bend on a really warm day after sitting in the sun...  how they talk to one another...

But hey, when demand is up, raise prices...  I can't say I blame them, but it is greedy.


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Feb 7, 2009)

Reaper prepaints range in price from $1.99 to $6.49 each, and they don't come with any sort of card. And I'm hoping for better quality than Reaper's, but either way, it doesn't seem over the top to me. Amazon lists PHB Heroes packs for ~$8, btw.


----------



## Keith Robinson (Feb 7, 2009)

thalmin said:


> one of the reasons for the change was increased production costs. We saw a decrease in painting quality the last few sets. With the new pricing, WotC says the figures will get an increase in the painting steps. So the figures should look better




You mean, like these, which were recently displayed at DDXP?











And here's an uncommon (which may be a desirable figure, but is still a very basic paint job):






I see no difference in quality here and the commons are as bad as anything I've seen.  Compare them to these commons from GoL:












Also, here's the alternate paint master for the rust monster, which is kinda what I was expecting for the price hike:






While many of the rares 'seem' reasonable enough (though at this stage it is difficult to really set them apart from the rares we were getting anyway), I was expecting a higher standard for commons and uncommons.

Another interesting comparison is the goliath barbarian.  When WotC announced all the changes, here's one of the pics they used to show us how much imporved the quality was going to be:






But here's the one that is being shown now and can be clearly seen in the pack:






I know which one I'd prefer


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Feb 7, 2009)

The photos from GoL, as well as the Goliath photo, are paint masters, not production models. I think that Goblin is pretty amazing for a common. I'm curious, which rares have you seen? I've seen the picture of the Beholder on the back of the booster, but that's it. The visibles aren't rares.


----------



## Nebulous (Feb 7, 2009)

Yeah, that grimlock is pretty bad.  Fortunately, you can slap a coat of dark ink on it and it will look 100% better and requires no painting skills.


----------



## Keith Robinson (Feb 7, 2009)

JohnnyQuest said:


> Reaper prepaints range in price from $1.99 to $6.49 each, and they don't come with any sort of card. And I'm hoping for better quality than Reaper's, but either way, it doesn't seem over the top to me.




Don't expect everyone to blindly follow WotC's lead.  WotC dumped big time on the skirmishers and dumped big time on ddm collectors and those that had invested heavily in purchasing their minis line, so it should be no surprise that people are now taking a cautious and sceptical approach to a company that has, in the opinion of many, acted in a cynical manner with total disregard for those that had spent considerable money and time supporting them.



JohnnyQuest said:


> Amazon lists PHB Heroes packs for ~$8, btw.




I was using RRP for a price comparison on a level playing field.  The old 8 figure random boosters were also cheaper on Amazon.


----------



## Keith Robinson (Feb 7, 2009)

JohnnyQuest said:


> The photos from GoL, as well as the Goliath photo, are paint masters, not production models.




True, but I have all the minis I mentioned and they're all fantastic commons and I can't really see any difference between what I own and those images.  They're fantastic commons and what I was expecting from the new sets, given the price rise.

As for the goliath, other than the sculpt there's no comparison between the two figures.  It's typical cynical WotC marketing IMO.



JohnnyQuest said:


> I think that Goblin is pretty amazing for a common.




Well, each to their own, though I think 'amazing' is stretching it by anyone's imagination.  For me, it's a very poor sculpt (the face is very poorly defined, for example) and the painting is just plain poor. 



JohnnyQuest said:


> I'm curious, which rares have you seen? I've seen the picture of the Beholder on the back of the booster, but that's it. The visibles aren't rares.




Sorry, I meant the visibles.  I haven't see the rares.


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Feb 7, 2009)

The Kyngdoms said:


> Don't expect everyone to blindly follow WotC's lead.




Thanks for the advice. If I may offer some to you, if you're going to make assumptions about someone's motivation, attribute the best motive possible. I don't expect anyone, including myself, to blindly follow WotC's lead. I do think that WotC's new prices are in the ballpark compared to Reaper pre-paints, and I'm hoping for better quality. If I don't get it, I won't be buying.

I agree that the random boosters were cheaper. That makes sense to me.


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Feb 7, 2009)

The Kyngdoms said:


> Well, each to their own, though I think 'amazing' is stretching it by anyone's imagination. For me, it's a very poor sculpt (the face is very poorly defined, for example) and the painting is just plain poor.




Sure, to each their own; I can agree to disagree on this point. I will say that the Goblin's picture prompted several people at the seminar and online to declare it the best looking common ever produced, so at least I'm not alone in my insanity -- or is that blindness? Sometimes I can't tell


----------



## Keith Robinson (Feb 7, 2009)

JohnnyQuest said:


> Thanks for the advice. If I may offer some to you, if you're going to make assumptions about someone's motivation, attribute the best motive possible.




Sorry, Johhny, the 'blind' comment wasn't aimed at you - it was just a general term for people who have been stuffed by wotc.  Since I quoted you, however, I can see why it would come across that way, but it wasn't my intention.


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Feb 7, 2009)

No problem -- thanks very much for explaining


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 8, 2009)

Aluvial said:


> Wow... the greed is evident. They are really trying to grab hold of the aftermarket pricing...




No, the greed is not evident.  Unless you consider the simple desire of a company to turn a profit greed.

The original sales model for D&D Miniatures, completely random packaging, worked well for years . . . but its time had come.  Not only were production costs rising, but interest in the skirmish game was dying and sales of the minatures was going down with each new set.

There are still fans of the skirmish game of course, and many fans (skirmishers, collecters, and RPG fans) were perfectly happy with the completely random model.  The completely random model helped keep prices down and SKU counts down to make the product more attractive to retail.

But there was/is a vocal (and perhaps even significant) group of fans who absolutely hated the completely random packaging.  While I personally bought into the miniatures early, I too have grown tired of the completely random and blind packaging . . . . I hated spending $15 and _maybe_ getting a handfull of minis that I wanted.

So WotC decided that rather than continue with a model that was no longer working or simply canceling the product line, they would try and reinvigorate the line to appeal to today's market.

I'm excited for the new packaging, for my PC mini needs I can see and buy exactly what I want!  For my monster needs, I'll get at least one large mini that I want (the visible one) for my $15.  I'm happy with the increased paint quality (assuming that it does actually increase) and I'm not happy with the increased cost . . . but I understand why the cost had to go up.

It's not greed, it's reality.


----------



## avin (Feb 8, 2009)

Goblin's gonna probably look better in hand but, geez, it has no face... I like it anyway.

The increased paintsteps, sorry, that doesn't look true so far, at least for commons and uncommons. 

Masterwork Goliath as sample was misleading and unfair. Wotc should never use a masterwork as example of things to come.

I understand that prices would go up someday, the wrong part is to taunt us with something we will never see.

Full Plate Tank was right.


----------



## Aristotle (Feb 9, 2009)

Paint quality and sculpt interest were sketchy when the minis line first started, but the portability and cost was enough to get me buying... then the quality rose (pretty sharply imho) and I was more than happy to pay increased prices for the quality... The past couple sets have felt, with a few exceptions, like a huge step back and this next round is more of the same as far as I've seen so far. 

I don't expect them all to look as nice as the paint masters... but a resemblance would be cool.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 9, 2009)

I agree on the resemblance part.

I mean, even if the goliath didn't look as good as the 'master', why did they change the color combo? The new one looks bad.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Feb 9, 2009)

Aluvial said:


> Wow... the greed is evident.




It's not greed; it's Merric's law. Plain and simple.

Randomization reduces cost. Period. Remove randomization and cost goes up. Period.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 9, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> It's not greed; it's Merric's law. Plain and simple.
> 
> Randomization reduces cost. Period. Remove randomization and cost goes up. Period.




So they need to make things more random! Hell, when you go in the store, the game owner should roll a d8 and that's how many figures you get. It's all suprises up in WoTC house!


----------



## Pbartender (Feb 9, 2009)

Aluvial said:


> Look at the pictures...  I'll wait to see with my own eyes before I'm totally convinced, but really...  $3.00+ a minis is steep...  it is a piece of plastic




You don't buy many toys for kids, do you?



Compare to Scheich plastic figurines...  They are a much larger scale (about 1:20) than D&D and are "hand-painted", and so they can have much more detailed sculpts and paint jobs.  They are also not random.  However, a single mounted knight costs $15.00, and a pack of three generic foot soldiers costs about $18.00.  A single animal, such as a dog, a horse or a tiger, costs about $6.00.

And of course, as with D&D minis, the ones displayed on the website are the best of the bunch.  The actual models you find in the store suffer from all the same weapon-bending, and misaligned details in the paint that D&D minis suffer from.


----------



## Jhaelen (Feb 9, 2009)

avin said:


> Masterwork Goliath as sample was misleading and unfair. Wotc should never use a masterwork as example of things to come.



Yup, that was a bad move. Maybe all they had available at the time were the masters.


avin said:


> Full Plate Tank was right.



No, just no. 
FPT is the epitome of everything that is wrong in this world.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Feb 9, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> It's not greed; it's Merric's law. Plain and simple.
> 
> Randomization reduces cost. Period. Remove randomization and cost goes up. Period.




So they can also reduce the costs on the rulebooks by randomizing which ones you buy. Sign me up.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 9, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> avin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't get this.  Who or what is Full Plate Tank?


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Feb 9, 2009)

I'm more than willing to pay higher prices for higher quality...

But what we're seeing so far is not higher quality.


----------



## avin (Feb 9, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> I don't get this.  Who or what is Full Plate Tank?




Full Plate Tank was a guy at Wotc that constantly pissed moderators. He complained all the time and took forever until he got the ban hammer. 

He always said that the promised "increased paint steps" won't make difference, miniatures would stay the same. If I record well he said we would never see that Goliath, but I may be wrong here.

From what we can see so far, on Common and Uncommon minis, unfortunately he was right.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Feb 9, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> No, the greed is not evident.  Unless you consider the simple desire of a company to turn a profit greed.
> 
> The original sales model for D&D Miniatures, completely random packaging, worked well for years . . . but its time had come.  Not only were production costs rising, but interest in the skirmish game was dying and sales of the minatures was going down with each new set.




While sales may have been decreasing, just focusing on the random aspect was a bit odd for me. WotC sort of ignored:
1) the drop in quality
2) the change to DDM2
3) the switch to D&D4e

There were a lot of changes around the same time, and they used sliding sales to justify killing the line while it was still profitable and move to a new model.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 9, 2009)

avin said:


> Full Plate Tank was a guy at Wotc that constantly pissed moderators. He complained all the time and took forever until he got the ban hammer.
> 
> He always said that the promised "increased paint steps" won't make difference, miniatures would stay the same. If I record well he said we would never see that Goliath, but I may be wrong here.
> 
> From what we can see so far, on Common and Uncommon minis, unfortunately he was right.



Thanks.  I didn't get the reference.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Feb 9, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> So they can also reduce the costs on the rulebooks by randomizing which ones you buy. Sign me up.




If the rulebook product model was similar to that of miniatures (scores of individual items; average consumer buys many individual items), then, yes, randomization could reduce costs.

People think product cost = materials + labour + R&D/overhead. Yes, that's correct, but there's one other big factor: sales efficiency. If you only sell 80% of what you make, that remaining 20% that you landfill is part of the cost of the 80% that did get sold.

Randomization increases sales efficiency. When you only produce 3 booster releases a year, you only have to get the numbers right 3 times. (And product similarity makes it pretty easy to get the numbers right every time.)

When you produce, say, 42 separate miniatures SKUs in a year, you have to get the numbers right 42 times. (And since the products are distinctly different, getting them right is a real challenge. Guessing which of the Heroes SKUs is going to be insanely popular and which is going to languish in the shelf is virtually impossible on a regular basis.) Every item that doesn't sell through 100% is a tax on those that do sell.

It may be counterintuitive, but it's not greed. Reduced randomization = higher cost.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 9, 2009)

Well... quality would also increase sales efficiency.

Good miniature selection would also increase sales efficiency. (We've got this new core race but you know, let's forget about actually making a few commons of it. We need those slots for dwarves and elves because they're core races...)

Keeping the figures in scale to each other would also increase sales efficiency (halflings, dwarves, hobgoblins, bugbears, ogres, etc... I'm looking at you.)


----------



## Pbartender (Feb 9, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> When you produce, say, 42 separate miniatures SKUs in a year, you have to get the numbers right 42 times. (And since the products are distinctly different, getting them right is a real challenge. Guessing which of the Heroes SKUs is going to be insanely popular and which is going to languish in the shelf is virtually impossible on a regular basis.) Every item that doesn't sell through 100% is a tax on those that do sell.




My wife works in retail, and you see this a lot in toy merchandizing...  Star Wars Episode I hits the screens and the Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan and Darth Maul action figures fairly fly off the shelves and sell out in a week and a half.  Six months later, all the Amidala, Jar-Jar and Palace Guard #3 action figures are languishing on a clearance rack for 75% off.


It makes me wonder, though...  They've already gone sort of half-way, with non-random PC packs, and a single visible Large creature in each monster pack.  I wonder if it would be worthwhile for them to take some of the (more or less) guaranteed sellers and make themed packs out of them.  

For example, something like a non-random goblin pack with 1 of each non-minion, and a half-dozen of the minions... or something similar.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 9, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> For example, something like a non-random goblin pack with 1 of each non-minion, and a half-dozen of the minions... or something similar.




That will be D&D minis 3.0.

"Well, we broke down and listened to the audience...."


----------



## crazy_cat (Feb 9, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> For example, something like a non-random goblin pack with 1 of each non-minion, and a half-dozen of the minions... or something similar.



If they could do these at a decent price I'd be interested.

Hypothetically, if I played 4e I'd also be interested if they did packs themed on modules as they released them - containing all the rare (non standard, as you'd get the standard ones in the themed packs already suggested) minis necessary to run the module.

As it is I'll have to make do with the minis as they are and just pick up those that interest me, and continue playing Pathfinder/3.5.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 9, 2009)

Apparently that's impossible based on the different lead times. Don't forget the troll king is coming out down the line and that adventure has been out how long now?


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 9, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> That will be D&D minis 3.0.
> 
> "Well, we broke down and listened to the audience...."




A better faux-quote would be, "Well, we broke down and listened to the loud, squeaky wheels in the audience that in no way represented a majority of our customers . . . ."


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 9, 2009)

Vocenoctum said:


> While sales may have been decreasing, just focusing on the random aspect was a bit odd for me. WotC sort of ignored:
> 1) the drop in quality
> 2) the change to DDM2
> 3) the switch to D&D4e
> ...




The drop in quality almost certainly reduced demand, but it was also a consequence of increased costs.  Somewhat of a Catch-22 for WotC.

The rule set changes to DDM2 and D&D4 may or may not have hurt sales, but it is kind of hard to go backwards on that sort of stuff.

WotC probably could have squeezed out two to three more sets on the old model, and actually had at least one set in the pipeline almost ready to go, with a few more in various design stages . . . whether they had kept the old model for a few more sets or made the changes they did, it was a risk either way.  They decided to attempt a bold reinvigoration of the line, rather than let it die a slow, agonizing death.  Whether their choices will save DDM or not, we can only wait and see.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Feb 10, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Well... quality would also increase sales efficiency.
> 
> Good miniature selection would also increase sales efficiency. (We've got this new core race but you know, let's forget about actually making a few commons of it. We need those slots for dwarves and elves because they're core races...)
> 
> Keeping the figures in scale to each other would also increase sales efficiency (halflings, dwarves, hobgoblins, bugbears, ogres, etc... I'm looking at you.)




These are all great bits of advice for making a terrific, top-selling miniatures line. I completely agree with you on all of them!

But they don't change the fact that there will inevitably be one SKU that is wildly more popular than some other SKU, even in a terrific, top-selling miniatures line.

Accurately predicting these popularity differences across dozens of SKUs is virtually impossible, and that's what really affects sales efficiency.

So doing everything right will increase sales volume, make more money for WotC, the distributors, and the retailers, and make the fans happy. But it won't affect the relationship between randomization and cost.


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Feb 10, 2009)

I haven't read this thread in detail, but I've been jumping between this and the one at Hordelings, and as a 4E RP DM/Player I'm actually pretty happy with the fixed miniatures.

I'm already prepping the wallet for a case of the monster boosters, and extras with the visible Frost Giant, and Cyclops. I just need 4 of those miniatures, and the extra random content will not hurt me.

As a DM mostly I will probably pass on a lot of the PC miniatures, but I might grab a pack here and there as needed.

Ultimately I guess WotC is gambling that there are a lot more customers out there like me than there are DDM players (which I've never played despite having a couple of hundred DDM minis). It will be interesting to see if that is true.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 10, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> A better faux-quote would be, "Well, we broke down and listened to the loud, squeaky wheels in the audience that in no way represented a majority of our customers . . . ."




And yet... they're changing the model because the old one no longer works.

And with the price increase and semi-randomness, and other quality issues already apparent... well, we'll see if it's true or not. Because me? I am a hell of a customer for WoTC. I have thousands of the things.

And I'd prefer a different model.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 10, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> These are all great bits of advice for making a terrific, top-selling miniatures line. I completely agree with you on all of them!
> 
> But they don't change the fact that there will inevitably be one SKU that is wildly more popular than some other SKU, even in a terrific, top-selling miniatures line.
> 
> ...





By doing some market research on the secondary market, WoTC could predict what would be great sellers and what wouldn't.

Supposedly, one of the things WotC has that other companies don't, because of scale, is the ability to do market research.

One could tell that giants (outside of hill), are under represented, as are dragons, dragonborn, gith, etc... as opposed to throwing a dart in the dark and hoping to hit something. One could see that often, many of the human rares are, well, worthless in comparission and stop selling them.

There is at least one company now that does minis based on preorders and when they hit a certain level, they release the figs.

In this modern era, where it's very easy to find out what your customers want, this whole, "We have to do it this way" is putting the cart in front of the horse because it's still not listening to the customer. 

Now, on the other hand, if you're saying that there are some pet minis that WoTC NEEDS to get out in the hands of poeple regardless of people wanting them, that they NEED to sell every figure on an even level (which is imposible since you'll always sell more commons except on the secondary market) etc..., well, that's a different kettle of fish.

And... well, since they are doing 'semi-random' now, they're going to hit this problem you say anyway. No matter how cool all of the visible monsters are, they're going to hit this problem anyway.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 10, 2009)

JohnnyQuest said:


> The photos from GoL, as well as the Goliath photo, are paint masters, not production models.



That may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant.  The photos posted are what my GoL Commons look like.  The implication that the quality of what we've seen of the upcoming set isn't significantly below GoL standards is really pretty silly.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 10, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> interest in the skirmish game was dying and sales of the minatures was going down with each new set.



First, interest in the skirmish game may have been dying, but it was definitely helped along in its demise by WotC.

Second, quality of the minis was way, _way_ down.  After a minor rebellion a few sets back, there was an uptick in quality for a single set, then another sharp decline (which, IMO, continued through the last set).  You can call it chicken-and-the-egg if you like, but I collected multiple cases of the first 14 sets, and didn't bother to even collect all of the models in each set after that.  And "lack of quality" was why.



Dire Bare said:


> It's not greed, it's reality.



Those two things are very far from mutually exclusive.

Personally, I think "greed" is a bad word.  Someone else used "cynical," which I think is closer.  I believe that WotC has become dishonest in its marketing over the last couple of years.  WotC used to be the White Knight of gaming, so the change, while arguably inevitable, makes me a little sad.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Feb 10, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> By doing some market research on the secondary market, WoTC could predict what would be great sellers and what wouldn't. [. . .]
> 
> In this modern era, where it's very easy to find out what your customers want, this whole, "We have to do it this way" is putting the cart in front of the horse because it's still not listening to the customer.




You seem to be making two points here:


It's easy to figure out which items will sell better than others (using modern market-research techniques)
WotC has some sort of agenda _other_ than giving their customers what they want

I don't grant either premise. The vagaries of what makes one item "click" with the public while another falls flat are exceptionally complex, especially when dealing with aesthetic issues. Besides, even if market research could overcome sales inefficiency, it isn't free. You're reducing one cost by adding another. Merric's law is upheld.

As for the second point--well, I don't really know how to address it. WotC has struggled with Merric's law just like everyone else; if they haven't delivered exactly what the public wants in one regard, it's only because they're trying to deliver in some other regard. I don't think there's anything more sinister than that!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 10, 2009)

So are you implying that no market research is being done on the minis? Are they just going to randomly start making minis then? "Here's one in the shape of poo. We hope you like it. We'd have done some research but that would have lead us to charge you more for it." ?


----------



## Sammael (Feb 10, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> You seem to be making two points here:
> 
> 
> It's easy to figure out which items will sell better than others (using modern market-research techniques)
> ...



Charles,

While it's certainly not "easy" to figure out which items will sell, there is certainly a way to do it: pick a sample population of DDM buyers and non-buyers, get them to sign NDAs, show concept art to them and ask them to evaluate the minis for (1) desirability (2) aesthetic quality (3) price they would be willing to pay.

This way, you would have a good heads up regarding the potential best-sellers and potential flops. 

Of course, for this research to be effective, sculpt and paint quality would have to follow the concept art quality. For some reason, this is often not the case with DDM.

Before WotC canned Skirmish, they had another way of increasing mini desirability: good Skirmish stats. If they're on the fence about popularity of a certain mini, all they had to do is make sure Skirmishers would want it in large quantities. 

WotC certainly does have an agenda to push certain types of minis (and creatures) down our throats. Usually, they are somebody's pet creatures (like the Dragonspawn), and that person wants them to gain "traction." This simply doesn't work. 

There is a second agenda, which is to make highly desirable creatures (Dragonborn in 4E) rare, so people have to buy lots of boosters to get them. But this is typical for randomized collectable games, so I have no problem with it.


----------



## Nebulous (Feb 10, 2009)

Sammael said:


> Charles,
> 
> While it's certainly not "easy" to figure out which items will sell, there is certainly a way to do it: pick a sample population of DDM buyers and non-buyers, get them to sign NDAs, show concept art to them and ask them to evaluate the minis for (1) desirability (2) aesthetic quality (3) price they would be willing to pay.





Yes, that would work, but what about simply polling WotC forums and Enworld? Throw up some concept art, whatever, i don't see any reason for it to be a big secret.  If they want direct feedback, the internet can provide it in seconds. Over a few months i think there would be a workable base for what customers most want.  As an experiement, if that doesn't work or the feedback is insufficient, or worse, the general populace is still displeased wih the end result, then scrap the idea.


----------



## Sammael (Feb 10, 2009)

I very much doubt that WotC would want their competition to know which minis they'll release in the coming months.

No toy company _anywhere_ would conduct such research publically.


----------



## Jhaelen (Feb 10, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> By doing some market research on the secondary market, WoTC could predict what would be great sellers and what wouldn't.



If only it would be that easy!

While you can find out via market research which minis have the _potential_ to sell well, it's only one of many aspects that eventually decide on a mini's success. 

Apart from that, I believe market research to be both unreliable and too slow for the required production processes:
Just look at the kind of cars that have been produced in the past two years and compare it to the current demands!

Anyway, back to minis:

Take for example the Aboleth mini: It's a mini that has been requested time and again and now that we finally get one, people exclaim 'phooey! It looks like a pokemon dolphin!'.

To sell well, everything about the mini must be good: the choice of mini, the sculpt, the paintjob, the colour scheme, the price, etc. This is also why they're creating design studies of a lot of minis that never make it to the customer. Finally, there are problems related to the production process (just think of the clear plastic minis that are generally more popular than the normal ones).

You cannot really plan for all this. Basically, you can only hope a mini is going to be a hit, even if market research indicates it _should_ be a top-seller!


----------



## Nebulous (Feb 10, 2009)

Sammael said:


> I very much doubt that WotC would want their competition to know which minis they'll release in the coming months.
> 
> No toy company _anywhere_ would conduct such research publically.




I admit to knowing nothing about business, but what competitors to WotC are releasing name-specific D&D monsters in a 40 set bundle?  We already know what 40 monsters are in the upcoming set, and it won't be released until May. I'm not arguing, i just don't see a direct correlation between appealing to the consumers with their input and lost potential revenue.  I know that Reaper was coming out with plastic minis, but for all i know that line is defunct.  

Regardless, if secretive NDA is the way to go, then do it. Maybe Charles will give his thoughts on that.


----------



## Dragon Snack (Feb 10, 2009)

But that Aboleth mini is pretty bad...



Nebulous said:


> ...what about simply polling WotC forums and Enworld?



Reaper has a "Minis You Would Like To See" thread on their boards (and they use it, lots of minis suggested there have been produced).  In that thread, commoners/townsfolk are always one of the most requested miniatures.  Reaper does put out Townsfolk packs every so often, but they have been very open about the fact that the sales of Townsfolk packs are consistently below average.  Just because someone asks for something on a message board doesn't mean that lots of people will pony up the cash for it.

That said, I don't think market research is as hard as some people are making it out to be.  A little thought would save us from things like Wrackspawns...


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 10, 2009)

Hell, I'm not even talking about polling.

Let's say the following 'dream sequence of Joe G Kushner' occurs.

1. We know that WoTC is rereleasing old sculpts.

2. We know that people can pre-order something.

3. WoTC does a 'Silver Edition' of D&D minis based on Pre-Orders. The first batch is from the first four sets. First 30 minis to reach X amount of pre-orders is done. If another wave hits X magic number, they get pressed at a higher price.

4. Next batch is from the next four sets. Follows the same pattern. First poeple to preorder get a price break. If enough people order after the initial price break they'll print it again but at a higher cost. 

In between there, surely market research will take place and showcase what they need to be making MORE of. 

This would not be difficult to do.

Then again, WoTC can't get their own DDI out the door so maybe this seemingly simply thing would be far beyound their abilities.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Feb 10, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> People think product cost = materials + labour + R&D/overhead. Yes, that's correct, but there's one other big factor: sales efficiency. If you only sell 80% of what you make, that remaining 20% that you landfill is part of the cost of the 80% that did get sold.
> 
> Randomization increases sales efficiency. When you only produce 3 booster releases a year, you only have to get the numbers right 3 times. (And product similarity makes it pretty easy to get the numbers right every time.)




I understand all of that. I used to help out Magnificent Egos and running a miniatures business is a real pain. One question though. How come the miniature packs for Heroscape are so much cheaper? I don't think that the quality is that much different. I would happily pay for Heroscape quality D&D minis at those prices.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Feb 10, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> If only it would be that easy!
> 
> While you can find out via market research which minis have the _potential_ to sell well, it's only one of many aspects that eventually decide on a mini's success. [. . .]
> 
> ...




I've snipped it for brevity, but basically, very well said. This is an art, not a science. Market research might move the needle on sales efficiency, but it doesn't solve the problem. And in the meantime, you've added costs--not just the MR agency's fees, but also increases in the production cycle and all the costs associated with that.

Heck, if this was easy, everyone would do it.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 10, 2009)

Everyone would do it?

You mean start up  costs have completely vanished?

Fantastic!


----------



## CharlesRyan (Feb 10, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> So are you implying that no market research is being done on the minis? Are they just going to randomly start making minis then? "Here's one in the shape of poo. We hope you like it. We'd have done some research but that would have lead us to charge you more for it." ?




Dude, do you really think that's what I'm implying?

If so, let me be clear: When I talk about market research adding cost, I'm talking about the difference in market research between the current level and the level necessary to significantly affect sales efficiency.


----------



## Zaukrie (Feb 10, 2009)

JVisgaitis said:


> I understand all of that. I used to help out Magnificent Egos and running a miniatures business is a real pain. One question though. How come the miniature packs for Heroscape are so much cheaper? I don't think that the quality is that much different. I would happily pay for Heroscape quality D&D minis at those prices.





Which ones are cheaper? Isn't the MSRP $12.99 for 3-6 minis per pack?

And, have you seen any new packs lately? Are you sure that game is getting much support? They have been lucky lately to get 1 new wave a year. Tiny, tiny number of monsters are available. I own many, and on many the quality is good. However, on many the quality is less. But, the key is, they have a much smaller number of monsters available.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 10, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> Dude, do you really think that's what I'm implying?
> 
> If so, let me be clear: When I talk about market research adding cost, I'm talking about the difference in market research between the current level and the level necessary to significantly affect sales efficiency.




It seems that you're implying that no further market research can be done. That they will continue on their road and 'hope' they get it right. 

I'm saying they should be able, even through secondary markets, to pretty quickly see what people want. They don't even have to poll people, they just need to research what's selling on the higher ends.


----------



## avin (Feb 10, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> So are you implying that no market research is being done on the minis?




Well, I seriously doubt their research points to Scooby Doo minis such as War Devil or orange Aboleths... 

If they are researching is far from here, Maxminis, Hordelings and DDMSpoilers... hehehe


----------



## Sammael (Feb 10, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> Dude, do you really think that's what I'm implying?
> 
> If so, let me be clear: When I talk about market research adding cost, I'm talking about the difference in market research between the current level and the level necessary to significantly affect sales efficiency.



Charles,

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that having an uncommon huge nightwalker (a solitary high-level creature) is not really a good idea. On the other hand, an uncommon huge treant is a great idea, because treants can sub as scenery.

That's the kind of stuff you can work out without any market research whatsoever. 

As for using a market agency, that's hardly necessary. You have the RPGA - you can use it for market research. That's better than whatever market research suggested the Wrackspawn mini was a good common. Or that the current Aboleth is what the people have been clamoring for for years.

I'm not talking out of my behind here, I've been following (and buying) DDM for years now. I stopped buying cases after the War Drums case fiasco. I stopped buying lots of boosters after the War of the Dragon Queen booster fiasco. I stopped being a completist collector after Desert of Desolation and the 4E styling of minis. If quality doesn't improve dramatically after this price hike and model change (and by all accounts, it won't), WotC will lose me as their customer completely.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Feb 10, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> It seems that you're implying that no further market research can be done. That they will continue on their road and 'hope' they get it right.



What I believe he's saying is that any further research would cost more than it would profit. If the amount of money an indepth market research effort would cost would also make the line non-profitable or at least not increase the profit... why bother?

(Especially for WotC, who can simply blame the fans when stuff fails anyway. 



> I'm saying they should be able, even through secondary markets, to pretty quickly see what people want. They don't even have to poll people, they just need to research what's selling on the higher ends.




If they just did market research by getting one of the DDM price guides and seeing which stuff sold best, at least they'd have a good start. But, the other advantage of the random method was adding in monsters that not everyone would want. Who knows anymore.

I lost interest when the mini's got ugly (in both quality and selection). I'm a minimalist 4e player now, so I certainly don't plan on getting any of the new stuff. (Least of all because of all the changes made to iconic stuff. I'll keep my old Beholder and Green Dragon, you can have the new ones.)


----------



## Zaukrie (Feb 10, 2009)

Would you rather get a rare Nightwalker?

I use my extras for:

take off the arms, base them, and call them bigby's whatever
repaint and make a fire elemental (tried, didn't like my work, then they came out with one)
break apart, repaint grey, and mount (or not) as a broken statue.

yes, that minis was not my favorite, but I'm not sure I'd want a rare one. To make the model work, some minis needed few paint steps, to pay for the better ones.

That said, i agree with your general point on quality decreasing, though I decided much earlier not to be a completist (and I won more than 2000 of these things).


----------



## CharlesRyan (Feb 10, 2009)

Vocenoctum said:


> What I believe he's saying is that any further research would cost more than it would profit.




Actually, what I'm saying is that nonrandomized minis cost more than randomized minis. They cost more because of sales inefficiency. If you fix that problem through market research, then they cost more because of market research. Either way, they cost more.

Lots of people have suggested ways that market research could be carried out on the cheap. That's great (if it were actually that simple), but generally those suggestions apply to _making D&D minis better_. There's nothing wrong with that (I'm all for it!), but that doesn't address the issue of sales inefficiency among nonrandomized SKUs. Nonrandomization costs more if D&D minis are crap, and nonrandomization costs more if D&D minis are awesome.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 10, 2009)

Then I vote for making them awesome.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Feb 10, 2009)

I wonder if the recent Star Wars mini packs are a test to see of the market will bear a pre-assorted pack of minis?


----------



## Melba Toast (Feb 10, 2009)

I fully support non-randomized PC minis.

However, from a business perspective, I'm surprised Wizards didn't think to include at least -1- random "mystery mini" with each PC pack. That would help offset the price and increase repeat purchases.

Wizards made it's fortune selling randomly assorted packaged toys and games. I'm not sure why they would want to end a good thing.


----------



## Siran Dunmorgan (Feb 11, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> It makes me wonder, though...  They've already gone sort of half-way, with non-random PC packs, and a single visible Large creature in each monster pack.  I wonder if it would be worthwhile for them to take some of the (more or less) guaranteed sellers and make themed packs out of them.
> 
> For example, something like a non-random goblin pack with 1 of each non-minion, and a half-dozen of the minions... or something similar.




Do you mean something like these?

Or, for those of you with an interest in the undead, these?

It's certainly true that the more you have of the latter, the more effective they are. 

More to the point, selling non-random miniatures seems to have worked for them for a number of years.  Production and transportation costs certainly started eating their way into profits, and massive changes in management have slowed new releases somewhat, but the model _has_ been shown to be viable, even increasing in quality over the years.

And they are a Wizards of the Coast brand, now.

—Siran Dunmorgan


----------



## Zaukrie (Feb 11, 2009)

And they are more expensive and they have almost no product coming out for two years now. Heroscape fans are convinced that their game is still thriving, I'm not convinced (and I own a ton of HS).


----------



## Scars Unseen (Feb 11, 2009)

I think I'm going to try my hand at sculpting my own minis.  Just got some old dental tools from my dentist for free and I grabbed some Studio Sculpey from my local craft store.  I'll let you know how it turns out(though I expect to be making and remaking the same thing quite a few times before i get something that is passable).


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 11, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> Dude, do you really think that's what I'm implying?
> 
> If so, let me be clear: When I talk about market research adding cost, I'm talking about the difference in market research between the current level and the level necessary to significantly affect sales efficiency.




You've been clear.  It just seems to me that some folks are just too fond of the idea that WotC is clueless and that a child could do better.  Despite lack of experience or knowledge on what it truly takes to put out a quality product.

I think it takes work to misunderstand your points as some are doing in this thread.  Of course WotC does marketing, of course WotC wants to produce product that makes fans squee . . . . sometimes they succeed at this and sometimes they fail . . . . just like every other RPG or miniatures company, or any company for that matter.

It boggles my mind how some folks in this thread are pulling the craziest stuff from "between the lines" of your posts . . . .


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 11, 2009)

Sammael said:


> It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that having an uncommon huge nightwalker (a solitary high-level creature) is not really a good idea. On the other hand, an uncommon huge treant is a great idea, because treants can sub as scenery.
> 
> That's the kind of stuff you can work out without any market research whatsoever.




Really?  You really think it's that easy?  Wow.  

Safe to say I completely disagree with you.  I hated the Nightwalker figure, but not because it was an uncommon mini, but rather because it was very silly looking.  Had that mini rocked, it would have made a sweet pull in the uncommon slot.  But, as Charles has pointed out, lots of factors go into this sort of thing.  I really doubt the WotC's guys thought, "Hey, this mini is kinda lame and no one is going to want it, so lets slot it as an uncommon."  But rather it started as what the WotC guys thought would make a fantastic bad ass mini, but unfortuneately it failed.  But hey, it's not rocket science (how insulting).



Vocenoctum said:


> If they just did market research by getting one of the DDM price guides and seeing which stuff sold best, at least they'd have a good start. But, the other advantage of the random method was adding in monsters that not everyone would want. Who knows anymore.




Researching what has sold well is important, and I'll bet dollars to donuts WotC does just that.  But ultimately, it tells you what has already sold well or poorly, not what will sell well or poorly tomorrow.


----------



## Sammael (Feb 11, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> Really?  You really think it's that easy?  Wow.
> 
> Safe to say I completely disagree with you.  I hated the Nightwalker figure, but not because it was an uncommon mini, but rather because it was very silly looking.  Had that mini rocked, it would have made a sweet pull in the uncommon slot.  But, as Charles has pointed out, lots of factors go into this sort of thing.  I really doubt the WotC's guys thought, "Hey, this mini is kinda lame and no one is going to want it, so lets slot it as an uncommon."  But rather it started as what the WotC guys thought would make a fantastic bad ass mini, but unfortuneately it failed.  But hey, it's not rocket science (how insulting).



So, what would you have done with your 5th awesome Nightwalker? You could only use one in your warband, and unless you were playing epic levels (which less than 5% of people did during 3.x), more than one or two would have been an overkill for a party to handle. Sure, you could line up 5 awesome Nightwalkers on the shelf, if you were just a collector. But how many people do you know who bought DDM just for the purpose of collecting?

For the record, I think the Nightwalker mini with a slightly better sculpt would have made a great rare. The moment Nightwalker was revealed as an uncommon huge with a 300+ point cost, it was apparent that it was a bad idea. A friend of mine _quit buying DDM altogether_ after pulling his third Nightwalker from his third GoL booster. 

No, it's not rocket science. It really isn't. And it's also not insulting. What's insulting is the implication that _WotC can't do better_. Of course they can - they've just been forced to take too many compromises recently, and the DDM line has suffered greatly for it.

Incidentally, Dire Bare, how many DDM do you own? Just curious.


----------



## Sammael (Feb 11, 2009)

By the way, I think the only reason Nightwalker exists is because it was a last-minute replacement for some other uncommon mini that didn't work out in production. That explains its wrong rarity, poor sculpt, poor paint job, and skirmish stats.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Feb 11, 2009)

I suspect the reason GoL might have had collectibility and distribution-of-miniatures issues (addressing the issue more broadly than just the Nightwalker) is because it was the first time WotC had made a Huge set. And like any of us, doing anything vaguely difficult, they didn't get it perfectly right the first time. It happens.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 11, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> I suspect the reason GoL might have had collectibility and distribution-of-miniatures issues (addressing the issue more broadly than just the Nightwalker) is because it was the first time WotC had made a Huge set. And like any of us, doing anything vaguely difficult, they didn't get it perfectly right the first time.



Or the second.  Are you forgetting the Blackguard on Nightmare fiasco in War of the Dragon Queen?


----------



## Nebulous (Feb 11, 2009)

War of the Dragon Queen was the last time i bought randomized boosters, i was absolutely sick of it.  Half a dozen purple worms and fiendish huge spiders, i was very ticked off.  After that i've just scrounged the secondary market.


----------



## Sammael (Feb 11, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> I suspect the reason GoL might have had collectibility and distribution-of-miniatures issues (addressing the issue more broadly than just the Nightwalker) is because it was the first time WotC had made a Huge set. And like any of us, doing anything vaguely difficult, they didn't get it perfectly right the first time. It happens.



I thought you were still with WotC when GoL was released?


----------



## Melba Toast (Feb 11, 2009)

Scars Unseen said:


> I think I'm going to try my hand at sculpting my own minis.  Just got some old dental tools from my dentist for free and I grabbed some Studio Sculpey from my local craft store.  I'll let you know how it turns out(though I expect to be making and remaking the same thing quite a few times before i get something that is passable).




I've been thinking about this as well.

Maybe you should start by making a mold of an existing mini.


----------



## Nebulous (Feb 11, 2009)

Melba Toast said:


> I've been thinking about this as well.
> 
> Maybe you should start by making a mold of an existing mini.




I've had a lot of success making amorphous monsters, like blobs and slimes and aboleths.  For finer details on smaller humanoids, i probably lack the skill to pull that off.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Feb 11, 2009)

Sammael said:


> I thought you were still with WotC when GoL was released?




Indeed I was, but I wasn't a primary decision-maker on minis. (In fact, GoL almost predates my time on the business side; given the long lead times on minis manufacturing, by the time I moved over from R&D most of the GoL decisions would already have been set in stone.) (And that's a point in itself: Minis take so long to make, that when you learn a lesson from a given release, you can't really implement it until two or three (or four) releases down the road.)


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 11, 2009)

Can you provide some details on the time factors involved that make it such a long process? I know I've seen 'em posted before but I be a senile bastich.


----------



## Peter Lee (Feb 11, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Can you provide some details on the time factors involved that make it such a long process? I know I've seen 'em posted before but I be a senile bastich.




Sure.

First, an art order is written, revised, and approved.
Sketches are drawn, reviewed, revised, and approved.
Sculpts are made, reviewed, revised, and approved.
Production tools are crafted while a prototype is painted as a master.
Painting tools are created.
Painted samples is reviewed, revised, and approved.
Now actual production starts, which includes casting, painting, assembly, and packing all the figures into boxes.
Then shipping massive amounts of boxes from overseas.

Let's just assume each stage takes about 2 months -- bang, there's a 16 month process right here.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Feb 11, 2009)

so...we can expect better sculpts and paint jobs in about another 16 months?


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Feb 11, 2009)

Drkfathr1 said:


> so...we can expect better sculpts and paint jobs in about another 16 months?




Heh, I think that's nearly correct, actually. We shouldn't expect the sculpts on these minis to be any better than what we've seen for the past year or so. Not only were there no promises made about sculpts, but the figures in Dangerous Delves (and some in Dungeon Lords/Legendary Evils) were produced for the old packaging scheme, rather than the new one.

Having seen the minis in hand, I'm confident that the promised 50% increase in paint/deco ops has happened.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 11, 2009)

Is there a standard time expected for the processes of production and painting tools being crafted? 







Peter Lee said:


> Sure.
> 
> First, an art order is written, revised, and approved.
> Sketches are drawn, reviewed, revised, and approved.
> ...


----------



## thalmin (Feb 11, 2009)

The following was in an email from one of my distributors. Sorry, there were no pictures.


> Here are the 1st six releases for the blister carded version of the D&D minis. The release will be out 4/21...
> 
> Martial Heroes 1
> Male Human Fighter
> ...


----------



## Imaro (Feb 11, 2009)

thalmin said:


> The following was in an email from one of my distributors. Sorry, there were no pictures.




Okay... one Dragonborn?  Are you kidding, as sought after and unique as a mini for this player race is (I mean you can sub certain elves for eladrin, and we've had a few uncommon tieflings).. and WotC creates one female Dragonborn... Even if they had to, they should have repainted one or two of the previous models...I'm actually shocked at the decision they went with here.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Okay... one Dragonborn?  Are you kidding, as sought after and unique as a mini for this player race is (I mean you can sub certain elves for eladrin, and we've had a few uncommon tieflings).. and WotC creates one female Dragonborn... Even if they had to, they should have repainted one or two of the previous models...I'm actually shocked at the decision they went with here.





Well Imaro, it's apparent that you don't understand that marketing costs money and there was no other way WoTC could know that dragonborn are under represented without each pack costing [Dr. Evil] One Millions Dollars [Dr. Evil]


----------



## Nai_Calus (Feb 11, 2009)

Two female Eladrin spellcasters, and a female Eladrin fighter, but no male Eladrin at all. What the hell.

One Dragonborn.

No pointy-eared divine types. 

Lame, seriously.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 12, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Well Imaro, it's apparent that you don't understand that marketing costs money and there was no other way WoTC could know that dragonborn are under represented without each pack costing [Dr. Evil] One Millions Dollars [Dr. Evil]




Well another posibility is that the supposed lack of Dragonborn minis is really just the cries of the vocal minority...


----------



## CharlesRyan (Feb 12, 2009)

I have no special insight into this, but here's a couple things that might be factors:


We know, from the initial announcement of the format change, that this first release was evolved out of an already-in-development DDM release (entitled "Feywild," I think). The sculpts they had to work with may have been artificially constrained by the content of that set.
There's another series of heroes coming out just a few months after this release. Perhaps they're planning on rectifying any imbalance in that set.

Also, I point back to my earlier points on long development time and difficulty predicting what will be popular with consumers.

Dragonborn, as a core race, are a pretty new concept. The only thing worse than not having enough of a highly popular new race in your first set of the format would be having far too many of a highly unpopular new race.

The decisions probably had to be made before there was any real consumer feedback on the popularity of dragonborn and eladrin as PC races.


----------



## Ambershanks (Feb 12, 2009)

Thing is this. 
The miniatures do.not.look.good. 
Period. 
I've seen the pics from DDXP, and have been horribly unimpressed. The paintjobs are lackluster and a good portion of the creatures don't even resemble with MM equivalents. Hippogryphs with bright blue antennae? Unicorns that are just a horse with a horn on its head? BLERG. This is a long standing problem. It started with the giant red dragon, we were told there was like, what 300 paint steps? For a Red without even a yellow belly....

Boo.

I would pay more for well painted miniatures. These are not them. 

If you want to see a miniature that looks as good online as it does in hand, take a look at Monsterpocalypse. 

I love DDM, I love having them in my game to represent the things I play with. But for the price they are asking, they are gonna have to look a heck of a lot nicer than what I've seen so far.


----------



## avin (Feb 12, 2009)

Ambershanks said:


> Hippogryphs with bright blue antennae? Unicorns that are just a horse with a horn on its head?




It's not antennaes, you'll need a picture from the side of it.

Unicorns are just horses with horns, period  (I know about goat, lion tail, etc, but I like it as a horse)...


----------



## Fifth Element (Feb 12, 2009)

Ambershanks said:


> If you want to see a miniature that looks as good online as it does in hand, take a look at Monsterpocalypse.



And how much do they cost? I believe the monster boosters retail for about $13. That gives you two versions of a single large monster.


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Feb 12, 2009)

Regarding dragonborn, it's correct that most of the first 2009 monster set (Dangerous Delves) is composed of minis from the cancelled Feywild set. At Gen Con, we were told that we wouldn't see uncommon dragonborn for a couple more sets, as it had taken time for them to be able to produce one that looked good enough but wasn't a rare in terms of production cost. So, I imagine we'll see more dragonborn in Player's Handbook Heroes: Series 2, releasing in July.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 12, 2009)

JohnnyQuest said:


> Regarding dragonborn, it's correct that most of the first 2009 monster set (Dangerous Delves) is composed of minis from the cancelled Feywild set. At Gen Con, we were told that we wouldn't see uncommon dragonborn for a couple more sets, as it had taken time for them to be able to produce one that looked good enough but wasn't a rare in terms of production cost. So, I imagine we'll see more dragonborn in Player's Handbook Heroes: Series 2, releasing in July.




I'm going to have to go... "bwah?"

If the dragonborn wasn't a core character race, and was some unique semi-unique thing of 3.5, then yeah, having it be 'good enough' would be a real problem but it's a core race. Don't make me post a pic of the Mithril Guard to showcase that in terms of potential player races that WoTC has been all over the place in terms not only of quality, but in terms of keeping miniatures in their own scale.


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Feb 12, 2009)

I guess I'll need to return that Bwah?, Joe. I honestly don't understand your point or how your post relates to mine. I agree that there has been inconsistency in quality, scale, etc. The Guard of Mithral Hall in particular is reported to hold a special place on Peter Lee's Wall of Shame.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 12, 2009)

JohnnyQuest said:


> I guess I'll need to return that Bwah?, Joe. I honestly don't understand your point or how your post relates to mine. I agree that there has been inconsistency in quality, scale, etc. The Guard of Mithral Hall in particular is reported to hold a special place on Peter Lee's Wall of Shame.




That instead of worrying about making it look as good, that 'good enough' you mentioned, that they should have focused on getting it out the door as a common. People don't expect commons to look good. They expect the core races to have some easy accessible pull from their random collectible miniatures.


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Feb 12, 2009)

Oh, okay; thanks for explaining. Personally, I'd rather have something that looks good, but that's coming from the point of view of someone who has been collecting all along and has enough dragonborn minis (given that half-dragons work fine for me). I can see why others would want something, anything to represent their PC.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 12, 2009)

Sammael said:


> So, what would you have done with your 5th awesome Nightwalker? You could only use one in your warband, and unless you were playing epic levels (which less than 5% of people did during 3.x), more than one or two would have been an overkill for a party to handle. Sure, you could line up 5 awesome Nightwalkers on the shelf, if you were just a collector. But how many people do you know who bought DDM just for the purpose of collecting?
> 
> For the record, I think the Nightwalker mini with a slightly better sculpt would have made a great rare. The moment Nightwalker was revealed as an uncommon huge with a 300+ point cost, it was apparent that it was a bad idea. A friend of mine _quit buying DDM altogether_ after pulling his third Nightwalker from his third GoL booster.




For the sake of argument, let's say that we are all in agreement that no matter how good or poor the sculpt/paint job of the nightwalker was, that it ended up being a poor choice for an uncommon slot.

Doesn't change what Charles is saying, that a company trying to gauge what their customers want and providing that is actually rocket science (or at least, quite difficult).  Do our customers want a nightwalker mini?  What rarity do we make it?  Will we get the stats "right"?  Will the concept sketch we think is cool translate into a good sculpt?  How will the paint job look? (especially on a monster that is a pure black "hole" in reality)  How will the mini fit in with the rest of the set?  Soooooo many variables.



> No, it's not rocket science. It really isn't. And it's also not insulting. What's insulting is the implication that _WotC can't do better_. Of course they can - they've just been forced to take too many compromises recently, and the DDM line has suffered greatly for it.
> 
> Incidentally, Dire Bare, how many DDM do you own? Just curious.




When you claim these sorts of issues aren't "rocket science", you are essentially saying that the folks behind the D&D minis line are idiots and that you could do better.  Heck, that a child could do better.  And that is insulting.  It's also arrogant, condescending, and flat out incorrect.  My counter-claim that it *is* rocket science does not imply that WotC can't do better, that's a ridiculous leap there.  WotC most certainly can learn from their mistakes and produce better product in the future, and I imagine that they will do just that.  If they were incapable of doing better, all of my minis would have "Harbinger" quality . . . .

I own quite a few D&D Minis, although I've never bought by the caseload.  Probably 4-5 boosters per set plus the various starter sets (and the icons).  There are many of the minis I own that I think are sucktackular, either in sculpt, paint job, or both.  There are minis that I have too much of, probably because the distribution was off (such as the nightwalker, I do have too many of those).  But overall, I think WotC has done an amazing job with the D&D Minis line, and I realize the complexity of pulling this off.

If it were easy, not "rocket science", then WotC would have a lot more competition in this area instead of just the, now defunct, WizKids.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 12, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> I have no special insight into this, but here's a couple things that might be factors:
> 
> 
> We know, from the initial announcement of the format change, that this first release was evolved out of an already-in-development DDM release (entitled "Feywild," I think). The sculpts they had to work with may have been artificially constrained by the content of that set.
> ...





I'm sorry but I don't buy this... it's backwards thinking. You create a game that is based around and tied heavily into your miniature line... You also realized awhile ago that roleplayers were your primary consumer for your minis... create commons and uncommons for another highly specialized and newly core race "tieflings" (without knowing how popular they would be with groups) but had no clue that one common or at least uncommon Dragonborn would be important to those playing the new game??? Or how about another scenario...

You realize the PC races (at least new ones when bringing out a new version of the game *will* be highly sought after and in order to push mini sales make sure that the only Dragonborn PC minis are rares. Especially since you've already produced tieflings that go for cheap in this set and earlier sets ( 2 different Tiefling Warlocks) and certain types of elves can easily substitute for eladrin. That leaves Dragonborn to be the new driver for mini sales.

EDIT:  And let's not forget about all that market research that pointed to Dragon-anything = sales... of course that could be used as an incentive if scarcity is kept at a premium.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 12, 2009)

JohnnyQuest said:


> Oh, okay; thanks for explaining. Personally, I'd rather have something that looks good, but that's coming from the point of view of someone who has been collecting all along and has enough dragonborn minis (given that half-dragons work fine for me). I can see why others would want something, anything to represent their PC.




I don't think it'd have been as bad if other companies were making them but unlike elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, etc..., the dragonborn are pretty specific to the new edition of D&D and outside of Dragonblood with their two minis and some Reaper figs, there's simply not a lot of options for a core race.


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Feb 12, 2009)

Yeah, I guess so. There are actually nearly a dozen reasonable options, IMO, but I'm not too choosy.


----------



## Nebulous (Feb 12, 2009)

I just picked up the Reaper dragonborn equivalent.  It looks fantastic...but the son of a gun cost me $11.  I don't necessarily even intend to use it as a PC; in fact, i would just as soon use it for an enemy in the game.  The fact is that my arsenal of minis doesn't have any intimidating dragon men (aside from a few old draconians), hence my decision to plunk down money for it.

But for what it's worth, i agree that given how much WotC pushed dragonborn in the PHB (their picture is plastered all over the damn thing) they had plenty of leeway to incorporate an uncommon mini into the line.


----------



## Pbartender (Feb 12, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> My counter-claim that it *is* rocket science does not imply that WotC can't do better, that's a ridiculous leap there.




Remember, Charles is also saying that the costs of doing better could feasibly (from either a production or consumer standpoint) outweigh the benefits.


----------



## Sammael (Feb 12, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> When you claim these sorts of issues aren't "rocket science", you are essentially saying that the folks behind the D&D minis line are idiots and that you could do better.Heck, that a child could do better.  And that is insulting.  It's also arrogant, condescending, and flat out incorrect.



Thank you for putting a whole bunch of words in my mouth. Where I come from, saying that something "isn't rocket science" does not imply any of those things, but, hey, maybe it has a whole different meaning in your part of the world.

Could I do better? Maybe. I don't know. I haven't tried. 

Are they idiots? No. The ones I met (online) are very nice, very intelligent people. The problem is that _they didn't get to decide_. They have the whole blasted Hasbro/WotC bureaucracy above them, the marketing department, and a design process which is arcane and entirely too lengthy. I'm sure that Stephen Schubert and Peter Lee would have made the line 10x better if they were given enough leeway. But they weren't. They had to conform to what's marketable, what's profitable, what's coming up in an adventure or monster compendium, what's good for skirmish, what's some high-up's pet creature, which sculpt works in production, and so on. And then they had to deal with the fact the ever-growing list of "cost-cutting measures" from Hasbro.

Whose idea was it to put an uncommon stirge in a set with a distribution that makes uncommons only marginally less rare than rares? Marketing, I'm sure. 

Whose idea was it to have rare (instead of uncommon) dragonborn minis? Marketing again, if you ask me. 

And all these examples are extremely counter-productive. Instead of increasing miniature quality and giving people what they want, WotC marketing goes for the "gotcha" approach. Figuring that people are going to end up with a sour taste in their mouths after a bunch of "gotchas" like that, particularly when coupled with poor paint jobs and increasing prices is definitely not rocket science. But it's not the DDM team that's to blame.


----------



## crazy_cat (Feb 12, 2009)

Sammael said:


> And all these examples are extremely counter-productive. Instead of increasing miniature quality and giving people what they want, WotC marketing goes for the "gotcha" approach. Figuring that people are going to end up with a sour taste in their mouths after a bunch of "gotchas" like that, particularly when coupled with poor paint jobs and increasing prices is definitely not rocket science. But it's not the DDM team that's to blame.



Truth.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 12, 2009)




----------



## Peter Lee (Feb 12, 2009)

I can count more Dragonborn sculpts that didn't turn out than did, and as a result, they weren't produced. For example, Dungeons of Dread would have had 3, but the concept art didn't turn out. There would have been a fire-breathing one in Feywild/Heroes1 but the concept didn't work out.

This is the ultimate problem with miniatures -- I work 16 months in the future. When the set was released that would coincide with the release of the 4e Player's Handbook, the concepting stage has just started. The set that I did the art order for last January won't be released until this summer.

Not every sculpt turns out.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 12, 2009)

It's too bad that the art used in the Races and Classes preview book couldnt' be used. Some great stuff in that book.


Interesting note on material not working out though. Was it a combination of problems in terms of not working out? 3D Printers not working properly? People contracted flaking out? Something else?



Peter Lee said:


> I can count more Dragonborn sculpts that didn't turn out than did, and as a result, they weren't produced. For example, Dungeons of Dread would have had 3, but the concept art didn't turn out. There would have been a fire-breathing one in Feywild/Heroes1 but the concept didn't work out.
> 
> This is the ultimate problem with miniatures -- I work 16 months in the future. When the set was released that would coincide with the release of the 4e Player's Handbook, the concepting stage has just started. The set that I did the art order for last January won't be released until this summer.
> 
> Not every sculpt turns out.


----------



## Peter Lee (Feb 13, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Interesting note on material not working out though. Was it a combination of problems in terms of not working out? 3D Printers not working properly? People contracted flaking out? Something else?




There are lots of reasons a miniature might not get made.  Concepts change.  Sketches don't turn out or are forms that can't be produced.  Sculpts look bad, or the size ends up being extremely far off.

It's certainly not rocket science -- it's aesthetics.  At least rocket science has mathematically solvable formulae.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 13, 2009)

Is there a place where the sketeches that don't get made into miniatures go? I imagine that the ones that do wind up using the cards printed with them right?


----------



## Glyfair (Feb 13, 2009)

Nebulous said:


> I just picked up the Reaper dragonborn equivalent.



Of of curiosity, which are these?  I have been making use of the Mage Knight Draconum Whelps for some dragonborn.


----------



## Dragon Snack (Feb 13, 2009)

Reaper has a couple of Dragon-folk (Reptus and Half Dragon) in the Dark Heaven line and about half of the Reptus faction of their Warlord line are Dragon-folk...

Use their Figure Finder and put in Reptus (or Half Dragon): Reaper Miniatures :: FigureFinder


----------



## CharlesRyan (Feb 13, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> Remember, Charles is also saying that the costs of doing better could feasibly (from either a production or consumer standpoint) outweigh the benefits.




No! No! No! I have said nothing of the sort!

What I said is that nonrandomized miniatures cost more than randomized miniatures. That's all.

I've never said that WotC couldn't do better (we can all do better). And I've never said that doing better necessarily costs more (although it might).


----------



## CharlesRyan (Feb 13, 2009)

Sammael said:


> The [WotC minis people] I met (online) are very nice, very intelligent people. The problem is that _they didn't get to decide_. They have the whole blasted Hasbro/WotC bureaucracy above them, the marketing department, and a design process which is arcane and entirely too lengthy. I'm sure that Stephen Schubert and Peter Lee would have made the line 10x better if they were given enough leeway. But they weren't.




You accused Dire Bare of basing his post on inaccurate inferences; fair enough. But you're going a lot further yourself.

I don't recommend basing your beliefs (and criticisms) on assumptions about the design process within WotC's walls. Your statements above are riddled with inaccuracies.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 13, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> You accused Dire Bare of basing his post on inaccurate inferences; fair enough. But you're going a lot further yourself.
> 
> I don't recommend basing your beliefs (and criticisms) on assumptions about the design process within WotC's walls. Your statements above are riddled with inaccuracies.




Would it only have been X5 better?


----------



## Sammael (Feb 13, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> You accused Dire Bare of basing his post on inaccurate inferences; fair enough. But you're going a lot further yourself.
> 
> I don't recommend basing your beliefs (and criticisms) on assumptions about the design process within WotC's walls. Your statements above are riddled with inaccuracies.



And, naturally, because of your NDA (how long are those things in effect, anyway? even the CIA opens up its archives after so many years...), you cannot tell me exactly what content was inaccurate.

After spending upward of 5000 dollars on D&D miniatures, following the line intently for years, and participating in competitive events, I thought I had it right. Obviously not. I apologize. 

Let's talk specifics: for instance, who is responsible for the creation of the Spawn of Tiamat? Who thought it was a good idea to include a metric ton of them over the course of several sets instead of some other minis which were in great demand? Is this not a matter of "traction?" If the mini design process is so disconnected from the other design processes, how come they came out in sets promptly after Monster Manual IV (which wasted almost 40 pages on the said Spawn of Tiamat, including such gems as the Whitespawn Iceskidder)? Why was one of the precious huge slots in War of the Dragon Queen used up on something so bizarre as the Bluespawn Godslayer (usually referred to as "The Blue Barney")?

I have many more questions, but I'll wait until I get some answers to the above ones before I ask them.

EDIT: Obviously, if communication between WotC and the fans were better, I wouldn't have to base my beliefs on wrong assumptions. While you were there, communication was _great_. Everyone just had to post "WOOF!" and you answered people's questions promptly (including several of my own questions).


----------



## Peter Lee (Feb 13, 2009)

The Spawn of Tiamat probably came from someone in R&D thinking, "Wouldn't it be cool to have a new type of monster related to dragons?"

The Dragonborn probably came from someone in R&D thinking, "Wouldn't it be cool to have a new type of PC related to dragons?"

Now -- tell me how many miniatures to make of each before you've seen any concept art?  Hindsight makes things a lot easier.  I don't unfortunately have that luxury -- I'm sure there will be figures coming out in the next year that you'll hate.  Hopefully there will be more that you like than you hate.

So much of the process is subjective, and ideas that seem strong in the conceptual stage may not turn out to be as cool once realized.  Anything can sink a good idea -- bad art, bad mechanics, bad delivery, lack of context, etc.  It's also subjective for the consumer -- some people like the dragonspawn, some don't.

There are a ton of lines I walk when creating a miniature set list:
  -appeal to new collectors
  -appeal to established collectors
  -appeal to new fans of D&D
  -appeal to D&D fans that can name all the lords of hell
  -aimed to support the core books
  -aimed to support books currently being released
  -monster innovation

For miniatures, the hardest two are to support books currently being released and to do monster innovation.  You can imagine how difficult it may be to do any sort of monster innovation coordinated with a release schedule.  (Look at the hatred towards the Wrackspawn, and then look at it's monster entry in MM4; I think it's a pretty cool monster, but not the greatest miniature ever made.)

There isn't anyone breathing down my neck telling me what to make.  I do have people suggesting good miniatures, and I need final approval of a set list to make sure it's in line with the overall department's direction.  Mostly, it's discussions with people in and outside the department on what would be cool.  (I frequently read the message boards for ideas.)


----------



## SlyFlourish (Feb 14, 2009)

"-appeal to D&D fans that can name all the lords of hell"

Baphomet, Baal, Mephistopheles, Graz'zt, Azmodius...gah! only five! (digs out his Fiendish Codex 2).


----------



## Sammael (Feb 14, 2009)

Thanks very much for the extensive reply, Peter!

By the way,

(Zariel), Bel, Dispater, Mammon, (Geryon), Levistus, Belial, Fierna, (Moloch), (Malagarde), Glasya, Baalzebul, Mephistopheles, Asmodeus.

(names in parentheses are former Lords of the Nine)

My own list goes like this: Bel, Dispater, Mammon, Levistus, Belial, Lilith, Baalzebul, Mephistopheles, Asmodeus.


----------



## SlyFlourish (Feb 14, 2009)

Ugh, I didn't get any of them right. I need my D&D card revoked.


----------



## Drawback (Feb 14, 2009)

Peter Lee said:


> -aimed to support the core books
> -aimed to support books currently being released
> -monster innovation




You work for WotC? Then can I make suggestions?

1. Release a monster pack at the same time you'll release Monster Manual 3. (You've got a bit more than a year, you could have the time) _This would support books "currently being released"._

2. Release miniatures "accessory packs" for the players. What's that? Well, a wizard would LOVE to put a "Cloud of Dagger" miniature on the map for instance. 
A shaman would love to have transparent "spirit miniatures".
A DM would love to use "traps miniatures". 
You get what I mean now. Minis for sustained zones and long duration powers would be great. A "MARKED MINI" (you'd add that under the base)!
_This would support core books and help new players get interesting minis._

3. Make sure that monsters that can be summoned (like from the upcoming ARCANE POWER) can be found in your miniature line (through monster packs or my "so-called" accessory packs.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 14, 2009)

4E Tokens: Litko Aerosystems, Inc.

Some good stuff there including bloodied tokens.


----------



## Drawback (Feb 14, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> 4E Tokens: Litko Aerosystems, Inc.
> 
> Some good stuff there including bloodied tokens.




Yeah, I know that (order pending by the way). But I don't believe 14 years old D&D newbies have the knowledge of this company.

Thus, Likto doesn't deliver an equivalent of my "accessory packs" to the D&D community at large. I think there's a fairly good market WotC should try to grab.

Of course, I'm happy to get stuff from Litko and Dwarven Forge... And some WotC minis.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 14, 2009)

Drawback said:


> Yeah, I know that (order pending by the way). But I don't believe 14 years old D&D newbies have the knowledge of this company.
> 
> Thus, Likto doesn't deliver an equivalent of my "accessory packs" to the D&D community at large. I think there's a fairly good market WotC should try to grab.
> 
> Of course, I'm happy to get stuff from Litko and Dwarven Forge... And some WotC minis.




I agree with you.

I think that they (WoTC) have missed out on doing inexpensive plastic terrain, something to carry the figs in and other potential fits where the secondary market has picked up. That's essentially money right out of WoTC pocket but if they feel it's not worth it, god bless the secondary market for seeing a need and filling it.


----------



## Pbartender (Feb 14, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> What I said is that nonrandomized miniatures cost more than randomized miniatures. That's all.
> 
> I've never said that WotC couldn't do better (we can all do better). And I've never said that doing better necessarily costs more (although it might).




My apologies...  It was poorly worded, then.

My point is that, from a business standpoint, if the costs (of researching which minis people want to buy so you can sell non-randomized packs, or adding more detailed sculpt and paint steps, for example) outweigh the benefits (of making certain there's fewer unsellable SKUs on the shelves by increasing sales), then there's little point in the company pursuing the prospect.

While you didn't explicitly say it (again, I misspoke there), all of your previous posts taken together strongly imply it.

I'm not necessarily saying that it's a good or bad thing...  It just is.  I can't fault a company for wanting to make a profit.  They've got to pay the bills, too.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Feb 16, 2009)

Sammael said:


> And, naturally, because of your NDA (how long are those things in effect, anyway? even the CIA opens up its archives after so many years...), you cannot tell me exactly what content was inaccurate.




Hi, Sammael--

I'm not under NDA, and I never have been. But I won't talk specifics because, frankly, it's not my place.

I'm also not going to directly answer your specific questions, because Peter knows a lot more about it than I do, and gave a great answer that I really couldn't add anything to.

I will say this: If you don't like WotC's creative output (and I think this applies to any other company as well), that's fine. Feedback positive and negative is a natural part of the creative process, and I'm pretty sure Peter and Shoe are glad to have it.

But when you put the blame on bureaucracy and corporate suits and higher-ups' "pets" and so on, you basically say that Peter and Shoe are hapless lapdogs. You relegate every person at WotC whose name you know or have heard to the position of minion. You say they have no responsibility for the complex decisions they make every day, and have no right to take pride in the products that blossom from their fertile minds and hard work.

If you want to know who's responsible for this mini or that decision, start with the good folk from R&D and Brand who read and respond to posts on ENWorld all the time. WotC may be a big company, but it's made up of real people who care passionately about the products they put out, and you have their ear. Inventing mythologies of invisible corporate droids just undermines your points and the conversation in general.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 16, 2009)

For what it's worth, as someone who has _never_ hesitated to bitch about DDM when bitching is warranted ...

I kinda like the spawn of Tiamat, and have used several of them in my game.  Most recently, in fact, I used whitespawn iceskidders!  As a mini, the redspawn arcanis is very, very cool, IMO.  I even used the Wrackspawn as qu'th maren, or however the hell you spell those things.  (Wrackspawn are at least monstrous, and pretty hideous looking, if not great minis.  That automatically puts their usability miles ahead of crap like the Guard of Mithral Hall.)

Personally, I got far more sick of duplicate monsters than I did of niche monsters.  I tend to use niche monsters for inspiration.  Duplicates just became annoying.


----------



## Sammael (Feb 16, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> But when you put the blame on bureaucracy and corporate suits and higher-ups' "pets" and so on, you basically say that Peter and Shoe are hapless lapdogs. You relegate every person at WotC whose name you know or have heard to the position of minion. You say they have no responsibility for the complex decisions they make every day, and have no right to take pride in the products that blossom from their fertile minds and hard work.



Of course Peter and Shoe (and others I do or do not know) are not "hapless lapdogs." But even in the small software company I work for (as the lead developer), where I have a lot of freedom to do my job as I see fit, my ideas sometimes get shot down by my boss. Sometimes things don't work out the way I want them to because the company resources have to be diverted in other ways. Sometimes, a big bad bug slips through our design and QA because of some company decision which I had no influence over. Sometimes, our users send me angry e-mails, telling us that our software is "terrible" and "awful" because of the things I didn't (and couldn't) control.  And I only have two people (the company's co-founders) above me. So, is there no middle ground between "minion" (which word I never uttered or even thought of) and "free-willed artist?" Is it not true that, for all the creative freedom they enjoy, they still have to conform to certain corporate standards, business plans, and directions? All I'm saying is that it seems to me (and you're telling me I'm wrong) that those things are influencing the quality of products more now that they used to. 

Incidentally, I have quite a few friends in the computer gaming industry who used to work extensively with WotC on licensed properties. The stories they told me about the way WotC operated in those projects are quite different, but maybe WotC has a different policy towards external licensees.

Some former WotC employees also stated, in public, that they felt very constrained, for instance, by the directions they received from the Novels department. They felt that their creativity in creating role-playing products was hindered by the limitations imposed by novels.

Ultimately, I am very interested in the workings of the company, because it seems (from your words) so different from other corporations I am more familiar with (by virtue of having worked with them). For instance, if the R&D is not happy with how a sculpt turns out, who has the final word on whether it gets made or not? When paint steps get removed, who decides _which_ paint steps? I am not asking for names, I'm asking for more details of the process. I know it's long and arduous and things don't always turn out how they should. I appreciate the hard work. But can you also appreciate that minis now cost more (fact) and look worse (my personal opinion shared by many others) than they used to a couple of years ago and that I, as a customer, find that to be unacceptable? I guess I'm looking for someone to blame and I _don't_ want to blame Peter or Shoe because I know they're doing their best. But you're telling me they are the only ones responsible...


----------



## Sammael (Feb 16, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> As a mini, the redspawn arcanis is very, very cool, IMO.



FWIW, I use the Redspawn Arcaniss mini as a Khaasta stand-in. Other humanoid spawn can pass as half-dragons (which I use very sparingly in my campaigns, as the concept doesn't sit all that well with me).

On the other hand, I have no use whatsover for the Redspawn Firebelcher, Bluespawn Godslayer or Bluespawn Stormlizard. At least the small Ambusher can pass as a chameleon or something.


----------



## avin (Feb 16, 2009)

Peter Lee said:


> You can imagine how difficult it may be to do any sort of monster innovation coordinated with a release schedule.




So, what about the Arcanoloth (now "Raavasta"): it's a new monster for Motp but an old pal from older editions... gogogogo


----------



## Aluvial (Feb 16, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> But when you put the blame on bureaucracy..., you basically say that Peter and Shoe are hapless lapdogs. You relegate every person at WotC whose name you know or have heard to the position of minion.



Naaa-Haaa!  One Hit Point!


----------



## Peter Lee (Feb 16, 2009)

avin said:


> So, what about the Arcanoloth (now "Raavasta"): it's a new monster for Motp but an old pal from older editions... gogogogo




I will do the Raavasta, but unfortunately not in 2009.  It's on the short list for the next art order.


----------



## Fifth Element (Feb 16, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> As a mini, the redspawn arcanis is very, very cool, IMO.



Have to agree with this. In my last campaign I used it for a mace-wielding dragonborn warlock. The mini is so awesome I was looking for opportunities to use him just to put the plastic on the table.

A greenspawn zealot was his paladin cohort, and is a pretty cool mini too.


----------



## avin (Feb 17, 2009)

Peter Lee said:


> I will do the Raavasta, but unfortunately not in 2009.  It's on the short list for the next art order.




/cry

Changing subjects, not your department, but I hope they give similar treatment (creating a new race) for Ultroloths. Would be disrespectful making it to a mere "demon"...


----------

