"Changing "collecting" mindset impact on manufacturers?" Topic

So, there is a slow turning of the general mindset it seems. A few years ago any mention of downsizing was greeted with shock and some silly nonsense about never letting go of anything. More and more of late, it seems a lot of us are realizing the irrationality of having vast numbers of figures – especially unpainted figures.

I wonder what impact this is having on the mindsets of those who manufacture new figures?

A specific 'for instance' for me is Blue Moon's announced but not yet reality Boxer Rebellion range in 18mm. Is it just a range that is on a deep back burner, or did they make a decision the range wasn't going to be cost effective, or did they take note of some of the 'big buyers' changing mindsets and decide not to go forward with the range based on that? I know I've been one of the 'big buyers' in times past – and this is one range I actually hope to see. But I've also reduced my hobby purchasing to a drastic degree after realizing how many figures I have and how much time it will take to paint them all (or cost to have them painted). Though with this particular range the responses to its announcement on TMP were so much larger than many other things that I've been surprised it hasn't yet seen the light of day. But it was also announced around the same time others – and I – started discussing our changing mindsets.

And, I'm sure, my specific example can be applied in many different directions to other ranges and suppliers. Of course, this has to be balanced with all the newly appearing items and ranges.

I'm just curious whether a clearly changing mindset for at least some of us is impacting decision making on the manufacturing side? Frankly, I'd be surprised if it hasn't. Or maybe there are so many newer and younger buyers that it doesn't make that much difference. Just curious.

EMW, funny you should mention that, as I was wondering the same think last night, but did not get around to making a post about it.

I think the tough economy of the past decade has had a major impact. I would say MOST gamers I know have made one or more changes to their buying habits:

1) Spending less in general – they all realize they have THOUSANDS of dollars in unpainted lead. Time to get out a brush, and maybe unload some on Ebay or at flea markets

2) Avoid grandiose plans. They start new periods with small, manageable forces – a brigade of SYW for example – and buy and paint in batches. No more "buy everything I need at once."

3) Add to games rather than build new. So they spend $50 USD adding to their Gangsters – which they already have plenty to game with – but they add a new faction, unit or vehicle. Instead of spending $50 USD on a project that is only 10% along figure wise, and they still need terrain, a few vehicles, and to settle on rules….

I don't see much evidence for the "tough economy" argument. The hobby businesses have gotten immensely bigger during this supposedly tough economy. This was the same period that saw the rise of Battlefront/FoW, the huge expansion of expensive big-box Sci-Fi gaming like X-Wing, the rise of Perry Bros, Slitherine, Warlord, PSC, and others. The tough economy, as far as I can see, has been a boom time in terms of selling lots of new, big, shiny, expensive gaming goodies.

-

There are only a few periods/themes that require vast armies and huge collections. Typically: Ancients and Horse/Musket. With the other topics in gaming you can generally get by with a smallish collection.*

I think what you're seeing is that the guys who play Ancients and Horse/Musket have probably bought all the figures they're going to buy. And since there are very few new players coming in to those periods, we've reached a saturation point. It's the same old guys with the same old figures and they probably don't "need" much new, and are finally getting around to realizing that.

Obviously if those areas of the hobby were recruiting lots of new guys, it wouldn't be a problem, but they're probably stagnant or dying out, so it doesn't make sense for manufacturers to keep sinking money into expansive new lines for them.

There are other trends that shape this, too. For example, the trend toward a complete "boxed set" game in which you get everything in one purchase: the rules, game tools, board, and figures. That can only work if you don't need a lot of figures in the box. Those games are aimed at the "new guys" or at least new to that topic.

* That said, I doubt anybody will ever go broke casting T-34s and Shermans!

Another factor might be related to the rise and popularity of skirmish level games that require only 6-20 figures per side. They're a popular option for gamers disenchanted with larger rule sets and companies that tend to reissue rules year after year.

"More and more of late, it seems a lot of us are realizing the irrationality of having vast numbers of figures – especially unpainted figures"

Look here! We don't have to stand for that sort of dirty talk, you know!

we have seen the opposite gamers buying lots of vehicles for various armies especially cold war 20mm!

Now, now, Shaun. I did tell you those BRDMs I've just ordered were the last Soviet vehicles I needed…

Oddly, when I was flogging 10mil stuff with Wargames South things went better in economic downturns. I still reckon war gaming is a cheap hobby and if they can't spend on exotic holidays and flash cars punters turn to toy soldiers for a bit of cheer instead. But who really knows.

The bottom line for me is 'how much lead can I push around the table without games becoming a dice rolling exercise?' Using Neil Thomas Napoleonic rules as an example, I've found the limit to be around 15-18 units, even with their simplicity. So I tend to use a baseline of 12 infantry units plus 6 supporting arms as my army maximum for horse and musket. My Cold War orbats are here so you can see how I plan more modern stuff:

link

baseline of 12 infantry units plus 6 supporting arms

Not a bad baseline. Depending on the complexity of the rules vis-à-vis units (binary 'dead or alive', casualty caps, rosters, etc), I found it to be a 'Rule of Six': newbies in convention chaos with a modicum of miniature gaming experience can handle 5 or 6 units without a problem, the average gamer can handle a dozen, experienced gamers who played this particular set at least once up to 18, and true grognards with many games of particular rules under their belt up to 24 units.

Oh, a 'unit' can be a single stand or a collection of stands, although if there are specific formations that need to be learned, you might trend the number of units down a tad.

I'm trying to remember the most units I ever commanded in a game…I'm guessing about 24 or so, maybe more, in a big DBA game back when. To eliminate units faster, each recoil gave a cap with a -1 DM. Even Blade and Pike units wore down and were crunched without the 6-1 die roll.

Of the fewest units? Easy: One. Close Action ship. WWI airplane.

I build armies for both/all sides in all my collections and aim to have troops for my preferred 4 plyers/side!

Sadly, I was seduced by the many, many sixteen player games we had on a regular basis back in the day and so built my far too many collections with that in mind. But, oh, do I have some nice collections of figures – that are not likely to ever see the top of a table. I've settled on three collections as the mainstay and maybe three secondaries – now if I can just resist three tertiary collections!

I think the motivator for down sizing is related to time more than money

Amen, mcwong.

I don't see much evidence for the "tough economy" argument. The hobby businesses have gotten immensely bigger during this supposedly tough economy.

Not arguing that there is or has been a "tough economy" in the recent past, but it is a characteristic feature of recessions and depressions to see leisure spending increase. One theory on this is that during "tough times" there is no perceived value in saving (I'll never afford a better house/car/etc. My money will buy me less tomorrow than today. The government will seize any gains I make. Capital assets don't grow in value. And so on.), so you might as well give in to immediate gratification with funds when you have them.

Forged in Battle (West Wind) has recently launched its vast, new, very comprehensive War and Empire 15mm Ancients range, Garth. It looks like a bold attempt to capitalise on the success of FoW. Has that company misread the market?