Which is the exact kind of garbage "codex creep" that we're supposed to avoid with a primarily digital game medium and yet...
And we do avoid it, for the most part. Even with recent releases old armies don't lag behind when it comes to power level. They do lag behind - a bit - when it comes to fun factor. This also varies from army to army. I don't like it, but the situation slowly changes for the better. The problem is still there, but it's being slowly adressed and will likely continue to do so.
Know an easier way to address it? Slow down the releases of new books and skills and actually take the time to: A) Update older models with new models and updated/revised profiles. B) Repackage and actually clean up the generally ridiculous SKU nonsense.
I reckon their current strategy yields better results in their estimation. New factions and profiles will always be a huge incentive for new players to get into the hobby and old players to invest heavily into something that looks and plays differently then what they're used to.
We'll never actually know one way or the other, since they don't release numbers publicly. And I highly doubt they have that kind of information even really available to them in any meaningful way.
But it all has to be done NOW, and in a way that pleases everyone, be it in CB, the forums, FB, where ever!
I think they do. It's hard to run any kind of company without looking into some numbers, and they're not obliged to share their business data with us. I do agree that more packed release schedule might mean trouble down the road, but I'm not terribly concerned. As I've said, it changes for the better now. And either way it's not my decision to make. So the best I can do is to voice my opinion, and then sit back and enjoy the game. Actually I've had a pleasant game with MO today. A year ago I was ready to sell the sectorial off, now I'm having fun playing it. Make of that what you will ;)
Additionally, without the long term vision for the company, that data would be nigh on meaningless. It has to have a context as to where one plans to go for it to make sense. As you noted, we don't have that context, and can merely enjoy or not what they present, and when you do, mention it, and when we don't, mention it in a constructive and professional way, rather than harp on it ad infinitum.
I'm absolutely fine with them not sharing numbers with us--but I just don't think they have any real way to get the numbers that would actually matter. From what I've experienced? Most retailers get their CB through distributors not CB themselves. That they're finally going to be a NA2 so we can get some real traction on changes for PanO? Huzzah! ;)
Looking forward to A! Soldiers of Fortune potentially gettting metal resculpts ... I’d like to see Kaplan get some love from all the upcoming NA2 madness though.
They probably do look at the sales data and Army Builder data as best they can, and then take the results with a pinch of salt, derive the best business plan they can based on what they can do and what the data suggests while using their own experience in the industry, and try to avoid over-focusing on anything risky. Which is all a responsible business owner with the livelihoods of their workers at stake can do, really. CB isn't a "family run company" but it is owned by the management staff, it's a personal love for them, and the staff often are friends and family. I have my criticisms of what they do but at they same time they've earned my time for the decisions they've made in general, and it's not like they're a faceless corporation or anything.
If we are talking about how CB makes their money though the sales to the distributors are what matter to them directly
I've never put much stock in their "We look at Army Builder data" bit. I would expect to see a bit more occasional weirdness for releases if true. Maybe it's regionally based for what they'll look at(favoring Europe over elsewhere), but it just doesn't spike in the weird ways you would expect.
Which won't really give CB data that would matter in regards to anything beyond "X model is popular" or "Y sells out fast".
Maybe it does, and that's why sometimes we do actually see vaguely odd releases, but also sometimes they talk about the data and I think "whaaaa? That's really what people are using?!?" On the other hand of course, they have that data, I don't, sure to me it feels like one troop profile is never seen and another one is all the time, but that's merely anecdotal. I think that they probably use the data in a broad sense because it's not necessarily super reliable or representative, but also it is definitely one way to look at what people are buying, using etc. Like most things along those lines, a holistic approach is good. Army Builder data, sales figures, online discussion, what they personally want to push, what is feasible on a practical and business level etc.
Forgive my curiosity but how does that differ from the info they'd get from dealing directly with the shops selling their product?
Sure it does. Restocks are a huge indicator of sales volume. As is we sold a bunch of this at first (meaning stores stocked it) and now nothing (no one is buying so stores do not need restocks).
Are people really demanding to see a private company's financial and sales data because they think they are entitled to it? Are you INSANE? No company, in any industry opens itself to open evaluation by anyone with a competing idea or to unwarranted and UNEDUCATED scrutiny. Especially by its own customers. What madness is happening here? Stay in your lane folks. You aren't owed anything from CB except what it chooses to share.
