Just got a copy of the 1997 GW price guide - thought I would do a comparison of a few items - sorry if this exists already somewhere...

I started 40k in 1992, when I was 12... I couldn't afford much then, which made me think about people (including me) who find the prices today rather expensive.

(please ignore GW expecting you to have a bigger army etc - it's just an interesting comparison - personally I just enjoy making and painting the models).


Blood Claws (10 models)____________20_______23_______0.78%
Wolf Guard Terminators (5 models)_____25_______28_______0.63%
Blood Angel Dreadnought____________25_______28_______0.63%
Tactical Squad (10 models)___________20_______25_______1.25%
Azrael_____________________________7______12.3______3.18%
40k Box Set________________________50_______65_______1.47%
Codex Tyranids_____________________15_______25_______2.88%
Yarrick____________________________7________11_______2.54%
Codex Orks_________________________15_______30_______3.93%
Razorback__________________________20_______25_______1.25%
Basic Paint pot_____________________1.25_______2.55_____4.04%
Metallic Paint pot___________________1.75_______2.55_____2.11%
Spray Paint Undercoat________________5________10.4_____4.15%


I was really surprised by this - the prices have not really gone up at all, especially taking inflation into account.

So what do those percentages mean?

Are you sure with your data? I clearly recall standard 16 HE warriors box being 20€ (~15 in today GBP) at the time I started, that is to say around 1999-2000. It's now 30€, which is quite more than the actual inflation of the eurozone since its about +50% of price increase.

Is that the percent increase in price divided by 18 years difference in price?

That's gotta be, yearly percentage price increase? But flat divisor, not compounded?

edit: Actually I have no idea where those percentages came from. I can't make 'em work as divisors.

It is, he's using the average of the price change (e.g., 21.5 rather than 20).

Huh.. OP can you post a pic of the guide?

@John Wirral: Can you check a few items and add to the original post?

I believe the following items are EXACTLY THE SAME as back in 1997 (finecast aside). Lord Azrael (already posted) is a good example.

1. Eldrad, Phoenix Lords
2. Space Marine Bike

Not sure if Rhino MKII was released by 1997. It might not have been. Khorne Berserkers, Catachans are also very old kits that have not seen an update.

Quick look at inflation rates and £1 today was £1.68 in 1997.

Blood Claws (10 models)____________20_______23_______0.78% Wolf Guard Terminators (5 models)__25_______28_______0.63% Blood Angel Dreadnought____________25_______28_______0.63%

Are we also comparing metal with plastic here?

One of the events that really soured my feelings towards GW, was when they started charging metal prices for plastic. For the longest time I wanted them to switch over to plastic to make the hobby more affordable (I actually used to believe their BS about fluctuating tin prices). But when they finally did start making the transition, the price of plastic kits suddenly shot up to be the same price as the old metal kits, and then exceeded it. Brazenly refusing to pass any of their savings onto customers, is when I stopped seeing them as a friendly grass-roots hobby company, and started to see them as the greedy soulless corporate gits that I see them as today.

 Smacks wrote:
Blood Claws (10 models)____________20_______23_______0.78% Wolf Guard Terminators (5 models)__25_______28_______0.63% Blood Angel Dreadnought____________25_______28_______0.63%

Are we also comparing metal with plastic here?

One of the events that really soured my feelings towards GW, was when they started charging metal prices for plastic. For the longest time I wanted them to switch over to plastic to make the hobby more affordable (I actually used to believe their BS about fluctuating tin prices). But when they finally did start making the transition, the price of plastic kits suddenly shot up to be the same price as the old metal kits, and then exceeded it. Brazenly refusing to pass any of their savings onto customers, is when I stopped seeing them as a friendly grass-roots hobby company, and started to see them as the greedy soulless corporate gits that I see them as today.

GW haven't been a grass roots hobby company since the float. But the startling price increases for their plastics certainly drove me further from the GW fold. its the single figures that are the worst.

The first things I bought from GW were three boxes of WHFB Dark Elves (Warriors, Corsairs and Executioners). It was around 2003, I don't exactly remember the year now. 25€ each. Warriors were a plastic kit, 16 models. The others had 10 metal models each.

That means the warriors were 1.56€ per model, while corsairs and executioners were 2.5€ pero model. Not cheap at all, but reasonable prices.

12, perhaps 13 years after that, plastic warriors have the same price but the new kit comes in boxes of 10. Meanwhile both Corsairs and Executioners got new plastic kits, the Corsairs are now 21€ and the Executioners 40€.

That means the following, regarding price per model.

Kit ------------ 2003 ------- 2015 ----- price variation (%)
Warriors ---- 1.56€ ------- 2.5€ --------- +60%
Corsairs ----- 2.5€ -------- 2.1€ -------- -16%
Execs -------- 2.5€ --------- 4€ ---------- +60%

Inflation around here has risen by an average of (roughly) 2% per year since 2003. So I guess in 12 years, to keep up with inflation, the prices should have risen by around 25%. But the Warriors and Executioners price has actually skyrocketed by a 60%, which is specially insane in the case of the Executioners, which were a metal kit in 2003 and went the plastic route later.

On the other hand, the Corsairs kit is actually cheaper, after all these years, than the previous metal models, which makes sense since plastic kits should always be cheaper than metal ones. So we could say the Corsairs price has evolved in a logical way (and surprise surprise, they're right now one of the cheapest kits in the entire GW range) while the Warriors have go significantly more expensive and the Executioners case is simple and pure insanity.

It would have been as simple as doing the same with the three kits as they did with the Corsairs, but due to some reason they chose not to.

Some things are downright crazy cheaper than they used to be. For example: Chaos Knights. Chaos Knights in 6th cost $50 for 5. They're now fully in plastic, have options for hand weapons OR lances, and are larger/more intricate. They also cost $17 less. Mounted Marauders are the same: they were $40 for 5, now they're $29, I believe. Or $25. Don't remember. Either way, huge change. And lets look at the metal infantry: Empire swordsmen used to be $6 for 2, metal, monopose. Now they're $29 for 10, plastic, with options to be swordsmen, spearmen, or halberdiers. And that box has only recently gone to $29. It used to be $22 when it first came out. Sure, the material cost is lower. But the mold costs are higher when you use plastic. So in all these cases, costs have dropped. Some a lot, some barely any, but they've gone down. I can discuss Empire Greatswords or any of the High Elf elite infantry as well, if anyone wants, going from $50 for 10 down to $41 for 10. So if we pay attention to inflation, costs for things switching from metal to plastic has all dropped. Somebody better with inflation costs than I can determine how much. The only things that look to have actually increased in cost at all are things that were previously in plastic and have gotten new sculpts or have kept the same sculpts and had minor price increases (although slightly higher than inflation should be).

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Some things are downright crazy cheaper than they used to be. For example: Chaos Knights. Chaos Knights in 6th cost $50 for 5. They're now fully in plastic, have options for hand weapons OR lances, and are larger/more intricate. They also cost $17 less. Mounted Marauders are the same: they were $40 for 5, now they're $29, I believe. Or $25. Don't remember. Either way, huge change. And lets look at the metal infantry: Empire swordsmen used to be $6 for 2, metal, monopose. Now they're $29 for 10, plastic, with options to be swordsmen, spearmen, or halberdiers. And that box has only recently gone to $29. It used to be $22 when it first came out. Sure, the material cost is lower. But the mold costs are higher when you use plastic. So in all these cases, costs have dropped. Some a lot, some barely any, but they've gone down. I can discuss Empire Greatswords or any of the High Elf elite infantry as well, if anyone wants, going from $50 for 10 down to $41 for 10. So if we pay attention to inflation, costs for things switching from metal to plastic has all dropped. Somebody better with inflation costs than I can determine how much. The only things that look to have actually increased in cost at all are things that were previously in plastic and have gotten new sculpts or have kept the same sculpts and had minor price increases (although slightly higher than inflation should be).

What are you talking about?

Greatswords and elite elven infantry units in 6th edition came in boxes of 10 for 25€. Their prices have actually skyrocketed despite being switched to plastic. I also remember the cavalry boxes (metal horsemen, plastic horses) with 5 models at roughly the same price.

Nice try taking only the blister prices into account.

I'm going with American dollars. The Greatswords actually went from 10 men at $40 to 5 men for $25, then switched to plastic at 10 for $41.25. I know exactly how much they used to cost. And 6th edition knights have ALWAYS been $50 for 5, $10 for 1, since they came out. the 5th edition ones may have been cheaper, but I don't remember. If I want to discuss the plastic/metal hybrids for Empire, well, THOSE were $20 for 16. They've definitely gone up a bit. But I was talking strictly metal only on every infantry unit I've listed.

I'm surely no GW apologist-but every unit I listed prior to being switched to full plastic has either gone down in price a little bit or a lot. Every unit I listed. Again, American prices. I have no information on what they used to cost in various spots in Europe.

Not because I don't care, I just never had access to the data.

 keezus wrote:
@John Wirral: Can you check a few items and add to the original post?

I believe the following items are EXACTLY THE SAME as back in 1997 (finecast aside). Lord Azrael (already posted) is a good example.

1. Eldrad, Phoenix Lords
2. Space Marine Bike

Not sure if Rhino MKII was released by 1997. It might not have been. Khorne Berserkers, Catachans are also very old kits that have not seen an update.

The SM Bike has had a teeny tiny update to make the Rider's torso and legs and ball and socket joint like the rest of the SM line. Other than that it's exactly the same kit.

The current Rhino was released in.... I want to say 2001-2002. Berserkers and Catachans were released in 1999.

 Smacks wrote:
Blood Claws (10 models)____________20_______23_______0.78% Wolf Guard Terminators (5 models)__25_______28_______0.63% Blood Angel Dreadnought____________25_______28_______0.63%

Are we also comparing metal with plastic here?

One of the events that really soured my feelings towards GW, was when they started charging metal prices for plastic. For the longest time I wanted them to switch over to plastic to make the hobby more affordable (I actually used to believe their BS about fluctuating tin prices). But when they finally did start making the transition, the price of plastic kits suddenly shot up to be the same price as the old metal kits, and then exceeded it. Brazenly refusing to pass any of their savings onto customers, is when I stopped seeing them as a friendly grass-roots hobby company, and started to see them as the greedy soulless corporate gits that I see them as today.

Yeah, 1997 means we're comparing the end of 2nd edition (when almost everything was metal and army sizes were small) to now (where almost everything is plastic and army sizes are huge).

Back in 2nd editon, yes, a box of Wolf Guard or Blood Claws was a massive investment, it also constituted most of an army in your typical game. These days they are only a fraction of what most people would consider an army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 keezus wrote:
@John Wirral: Can you check a few items and add to the original post?

I believe the following items are EXACTLY THE SAME as back in 1997 (finecast aside). Lord Azrael (already posted) is a good example.

1. Eldrad, Phoenix Lords
2. Space Marine Bike

Not sure if Rhino MKII was released by 1997. It might not have been. Khorne Berserkers, Catachans are also very old kits that have not seen an update.

The SM Bike has had a teeny tiny update to make the Rider's torso and legs and ball and socket joint like the rest of the SM line. Other than that it's exactly the same kit.

The current Rhino was released in.... I want to say 2001-2002. Berserkers and Catachans were released in 1999.

I'm struggling to think of things that haven't been updated since then. Some of the Space Wolf characters I know go back that far (Ragnar, Ulric and the PA Njal). There might be more stuff in WHFB that goes back that far but still not a lot, the Wolves that Goblins ride on go back to 1992, but the riders might be newer. The Goblin Wolf Chariot I think goes back to the mid 90's but I could be wrong.

Most of the stuff in 1997 was metal
http://www.solegends.com/citcat1997usb40k/index.htm

When metal models went to finecast and plastics, I hated it because the metal models, I thought, were better. Now, though, I think the plastic models are far superior (meaning, the quality of plastics has dramatically increased). I wouldn't want to go back, putting cost aside, though I get a kick out of painting a metal mini every now and then.

Today's plastics are much cheaper to mass produce than metal, but the molds are expensive to tool.

Also, keep in mind that PP and Wyrd's plastics are really expensive too. I recently bought a Nephilim Warrior, and that was a relatively small model for $19. Also, a Shionobi something or the other for Malifaux -- the price escapes me, but it was not cheap.

2011 IIRC Cadian Shock Troops sold 20 per box for $50 which was $2.5 per model, then they repackaged the Cadian Shock Troops sells 10 man per box at $48 which is $4.8 per model, that was an overnight increase 94%

So there you have it. Price rise GW style.

 Achaylus72 wrote:
2011 IIRC Cadian Shock Troops sold 20 per box for $50 which was $2.5 per model, then they repackaged the Cadian Shock Troops sells 10 man per box at $48 which is $4.8 per model, that was an overnight increase 94%

So there you have it. Price rise GW style.

I think they were actually $35 upon repackaging but quickly jumped back up in the very next annual price rise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also recall a few years ago High Elf White Lions and Phoenix Guard at $35 for 5 metal, then being released in plastic. Everyone was excited until they came out at $69 for 10.

The plastic conversion saved us a whole 10 cents per model

 Talys wrote:
When metal models went to finecast and plastics, I hated it because the metal models, I thought, were better. Now, though, I think the plastic models are far superior (meaning, the quality of plastics has dramatically increased). I wouldn't want to go back, putting cost aside, though I get a kick out of painting a metal mini every now and then.

Today's plastics are much cheaper to mass produce than metal, but the molds are expensive to tool.

Also, keep in mind that PP and Wyrd's plastics are really expensive too. I recently bought a Nephilim Warrior, and that was a relatively small model for $19. Also, a Shionobi something or the other for Malifaux -- the price escapes me, but it was not cheap.

Totally untrue, 30 years ago Tamyia quoted in Fine Scale Modeller that it cost $2 Million US Dollars to produce tooling for the average plastic kit, today GW spends between 50,000GP to 100,000GP. Cost of Tooling has dramatically fallen.

2011 when they (GW) used expensive metals as an excuse to go over to Finecast, has fallen flat, commodity prices have slipped dramatically in the years since, meaning that it is much cheaper to produce metal than Finecast, also the molds aren't that expensive, not for a multi million pound company like GW. The switch-over from metal to Finecast was done to screw over customers, consider this Finecast is more expensive than the metals it replaced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Achaylus72 wrote:
2011 IIRC Cadian Shock Troops sold 20 per box for $50 which was $2.5 per model, then they repackaged the Cadian Shock Troops sells 10 man per box at $48 which is $4.8 per model, that was an overnight increase 94%

So there you have it. Price rise GW style.

I think they were actually $35 upon repackaging but quickly jumped back up in the very next annual price rise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also recall a few years ago High Elf White Lions and Phoenix Guard at $35 for 5 metal, then being released in plastic. Everyone was excited until they came out at $69 for 10.

The plastic conversion saved us a whole 10 cents per model

I have the advert at home but the last price before repackaging was $50, for 20 models. At the time I had just began an Imperial Guard Army and had to call quits on the project because the 94% price rise.

@Achaylus72 - I think you're misunderstanding me.

When GW first went from Metal to Finecast and plastic, I hated the GW plastic miniatures. In my opinion, I thought they were far inferior to the GW metal miniatures. Specifically, they weren't as detailed, the surfaces were at best approximately as good as white metal, which was, in my opinion, inferior to lead.

Fast forward to 2015, and I think the GW plastic miniatures are superior to the GW finecast miniatures and the GW metal miniatures. GW plastic miniatures produced tooled post 2009-2010 are superbly smooth with no imperfections to the surface, excellent, crisp detail, and with compelling advantages in finished products over metal counterparts.

Today, I would not trade GW plastics for the GW metals of yesteryear, independent of price.

As an example, "small" models of this crispness, smoothness, cast, and pose would not have been possible in metal:



Large models, from dreadnoughts to large bikes to tanks, are infinitely superior, because the metal counterparts simply fell apart during the course of use (play), even when they were expertly assembled in any way other than epoxy. Look at a metal ogre the wrong way, and it would be an armless ogre

Also, if the cost of tooling good plastic kits is something that isn't expensive of difficult to come by, I wish other companies would improve their plastic kits and move things to plastic. I actually RETURNED a nephilim warrior just last week (new PP release), because the tooling was so bad on the plastic model that I couldn't bear keeping it as a $19 infantry piece. I say tooling, rather than production, because there were 3 boxes, and all 3, frankly, sucked.

I would be so very happy if Infinity models would move to plastics

 Talys wrote:
@Achaylus72 - I think you're misunderstanding me.

When GW first went from Metal to Finecast and plastic, I hated the GW plastic miniatures. In my opinion, I thought they were far inferior to the GW metal miniatures. Specifically, they weren't as detailed, the surfaces were at best approximately as good as white metal, which was, in my opinion, inferior to lead.

Fast forward to 2015, and I think the GW plastic miniatures are superior to the GW finecast miniatures and the GW metal miniatures. GW plastic miniatures produced tooled post 2009-2010 are superbly smooth with no imperfections to the surface, excellent, crisp detail, and with compelling advantages in finished products over metal counterparts.

Today, I would not trade GW plastics for the GW metals of yesteryear, independent of price.

As an example, "small" models of this crispness, smoothness, cast, and pose would not have been possible in metal:

Spoiler:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/733588-Stormcast%20Eternal%20Prosecutor.html

Large models, from dreadnoughts to large bikes to tanks, are infinitely superior, because the metal counterparts simply fell apart during the course of use (play), even when they were expertly assembled in any way other than epoxy. Look at a metal ogre the wrong way, and it would be an armless ogre

Also, if the cost of tooling good plastic kits is something that isn't expensive of difficult to come by, I wish other companies would improve their plastic kits and move things to plastic. I actually RETURNED a nephilim warrior just last week (new PP release), because the tooling was so bad on the plastic model that I couldn't bear keeping it as a $19 infantry piece. I say tooling, rather than production, because there were 3 boxes, and all 3, frankly, sucked.

I would be so very happy if Infinity models would move to plastics

Cool, I gotcha, yeah that has to suck, getting a plastic kit and the tooling sucks, or more important, a lack of quality control throughout the production phase.


I would love that all GW stuff was plastic, that Finecast is crap.

Cheers

When I started purchasing GW models some 17-19 years ago, so around the price of these guides you could buy 10 Genestealers for £5, they are nigh on the same design as they are now.

You could also get 20 guardsmen for £12 when they really made the push for Cadian/Catachan as opposed to the metal boxes, then when they changed to 10 man boxes, you at least got yourself a heavy weapon team in there.

I don't get these prices, you're not comparing the same models or books in most cases. The codexes priced at £15 were the 2nd edition ones and vastly superior to anything since. The slimmed down ones for 3rd edition were £8, and those are closer to what is on sale today in content.

Such cherry picking. Marines weren't £20 in 1997 unless you're relying on metal prices, regular multipart Space marines were only 10 for £10 when first released for 3rd edition. Almost unchanged they are now £25. Catachans were 20 for £10 and are now 10 for £18.

I think what's amazing is that prices for a huge swath of stuff really haven't gone up as much as we think. Some stuff went way up (Cadians/Catachans being the worst offenders), but a lot of early 2000s plastics that used to be $20 a squad/regiment are now pushing $50. Vehicles are also pricey, but they've always been pricey. In the last eight years or so, the vehicles have gotten larger, more detailed, and with far more options, making apples to apples comparisons tricky.

 Polonius wrote:
I think what's amazing is that prices for a huge swath of stuff really haven't gone up as much as we think. Some stuff went way up (Cadians/Catachans being the worst offenders, but a lot of early 2000s plastics that used to be $20 a squad/regiment are now pushing $50. Vehicles are also pricey, but they've always been pricey. In the last eight years or so, the vehicles have gotten larger, more detailed, and with far more options, making apples to apples comparisons tricky.

Well it just highlights that there was a sudden drop in price in the early 2000's and very late 90's when plastics starting coming out in a big way and then we've been steadily rising since.

The cost of actually playing a game has always been steadily rising though because in the mid to late 90's a couple of boxes of troops and a character or two was a sufficient force to play a game. When the plastics came out, the game size increased simultaneously with the price drop (2nd -> 3rd), so the overall price of playing your typical game didn't really change much.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think what's amazing is that prices for a huge swath of stuff really haven't gone up as much as we think. Some stuff went way up (Cadians/Catachans being the worst offenders, but a lot of early 2000s plastics that used to be $20 a squad/regiment are now pushing $50. Vehicles are also pricey, but they've always been pricey. In the last eight years or so, the vehicles have gotten larger, more detailed, and with far more options, making apples to apples comparisons tricky.

Well it just highlights that there was a sudden drop in price in the early 2000's and very late 90's when plastics starting coming out in a big way and then we've been steadily rising since.

The cost of actually playing a game has always been steadily rising though because in the mid to late 90's a couple of boxes of troops and a character or two was a sufficient force to play a game. When the plastics came out, the game size increased simultaneously with the price drop (2nd -> 3rd), so the overall price of playing your typical game didn't really change much.

Oh, for sure. It's just interesting that the data are more nuanced than I thought.

Prices are all over the place. You can see this in action by visiting a GW shop as I did on Tuesday to look at Lizard Men and Tyranids. Some of the core units are good value for money. The Lizard Battalion box, for instance. But you get a huge sticker price shock once you look at special characters (£9 each or more), the more powerful units (£31 for three models) and monsters (£35, £50 or even more for a single kit.)

The other thing that make 40k WHFB get more expensive over the years is the the larger model count from edition to edition.
And the increase in the frequency and price of larger, more special minatures.(Characters, monsters,and vehicles.)

Some one looked at their 7th ed Marine force and realized it was practically the same as the Epic (SM) Marine force they used to play in 6mm!

It may be better to list the cost of a complete 2000 pt force from 1997.(Including rule and codex book.)
And a comparable cost of a present day 2000 pt force.(Using similar unit where practical,eg plastic to plastic rather than metal to plastic.)

 Talys wrote:

Also, keep in mind that PP and Wyrd's plastics are really expensive too. I recently bought a Nephilim Warrior, and that was a relatively small model for $19. Also, a Shionobi something or the other for Malifaux -- the price escapes me, but it was not cheap.

All of the companies that target tabletop war game players are exorbitantly expensive relative to alternatives. The models from GW/PP/Wyrd/etc., are significantly more expensive than comparable or superior models from companies like Tamiya or Bandai. Paints from GW or Vallejo are typically about 5-6 times as expensive as paints from Reeves or Liquitex (who market to canvas type artists, for example, but are also water based acrylics). Hobby supplies like paint brushes and hobby knives from GW or Army Painter are more expensive than even expensive brands like X-acto. Game supplies such as measuring tapes and dice from GW, Army Painter, or PP are typically at least twice as expensive, if not ten times as expensive, as those you can get just about anywhere else.

It wouldn't be so bad, but a lot of these companies that market to us gamers actually provide inferior products for far more money. I've never had a GW tape measure (I've had three over the last 12 years or so) last more than 12-18 months, but I've had my dollar-store tape measure for five years now, for example.

Depressing, actually.

Lanrak wrote:
The other thing that make 40k WHFB get more expensive over the years is the the larger model count from edition to edition.
And the increase in the frequency and price of larger, more special minatures.(Characters, monsters,and vehicles.)

Some one looked at their 7th ed Marine force and realized it was practically the same as the Epic (SM) Marine force they used to play in 6mm!

It may be better to list the cost of a complete 2000 pt force from 1997.(Including rule and codex book.)
And a comparable cost of a present day 2000 pt force.(Using similar unit where practical,eg plastic to plastic rather than metal to plastic.)

Yes, I completely agree with this. When I started 40k (1988), it was almost all infantry, with a very small number of vehicles. Like, ONE vehicle or dreadnought would be rare. Now, it is practically Epic at 28mm. There was a time when I bemoaned, and resisted, the creep towards vehicles, though this largely disappeared when they went to higher quality plastics; and eventually, as the plastic vehicles and giant robots got better, I really looked forward to them.

One could argue, GW is simply giving their fans what they're asking for -- the Imperial Knight was the voted readers' favorite model last year, after all, and all the models that placed highly in votes were large size models (Nagash size and bigger). The great smaller models like Succubus didn't even come close. People can't fall over each other fast enough to buy a bunch of Knights for $150+, but scream murder at a Dominus at $30.

OK, I might be a little crazy.

I went to the shelf and grabbed the WD introducing 3rd edition. There is a 1,500 point battle report in in, and I priced out the army used. This is just going to be an approximation, as I used the 2000 catalog to price things out, as I figured there would be more plastic kits out at the time. Some of the prices here are for metal a/o hybrid kits. Some wargear is approximate, but I tried to keep true. The 1,495 point army would now represent 1,298 points on a modern table; if you wanted to bring the points up to something equivalent, you could probably spend $50-80 to get there, but could be more depending on how concerned you are with dollar efficiency.

2000 price ($) - unit - modern price ($)
6.50 - Chaplain - 16
7.50 - Captain - 22.25
30 - 5 man terminator squad - 50
23 - 10 tactical marines - 40
20.25 - 5 man scout squad - 25
32 - 8 man assault squad - 65
40 - 3 bikes - 40
25 - Land Speeder - 30
33 - Pred (TLLC/LC) - 57.75
20 - rhino - 37.25
33 - dreadnought - 46.25
----------------
$270.25 - Total - $434.50

If you want to count rules:
15 - Codex - 58
76 - Starter box - 110

It’s worth noting that if you are counting the starter boxes, the 3rd ed on came with a tac squad and a LS on the marine side ($48 value) while DV comes with tacs, terminators, bikes, and 2 HQs ($168.25 if we sub the librarian for the chaplain). On the flip side, the 3rd box came with a full size rulebook.

A quick check of a random inflation calculator tells me that something bought for $270 in 2000 would cost $375 today.

Wow, Nevelon, props for the effort

$375 vs $434 isn't that egregious, IMO. It touches a good subject, though: I don't think the pricing issue that gamers have are, strictly speaking, the price of the models.

Among other things -- I don't know about other areas, but in my area, the discounts for GW product have gone up and up through the years; for instance, in 1988, the best discounts were 10% discount, and today, the best discounts are 30% (or a little more).

The bigger problem for some players is that with the arms race that's occurred, the described army by today's standards would be squashed like a bug (ok, fine, it would have sucked then too, but still, a competitive list back then would not have cost a lot more).

So you need to buy titans, centurions, librarians, character models and all that kinda jazz that can really add up quickly. It's not the tactical squads, the scouts, or even the assault marines that kill the pocket book.

 Talys wrote:
$375 vs $434 isn't that egregious, IMO.

Why would it be? You're the guy casually spending $5k on your latest project.

"Don't care. Got mine!" - Talys

 Talys wrote:
Wow, Nevelon, props for the effort

$375 vs $434 isn't that egregious.

15% over inflation, when the UK has been experiencing <1% inflation for several years of the time frame in question, and by all accounts the tech has got cheaper (and GW have either paid it off or had many years of writing it down) and production methods more straightforward is pretty bad.

 Talys wrote:
Wow, Nevelon, props for the effort

$375 vs $434 isn't that egregious, IMO. It touches a good subject, though: I don't think the pricing issue that gamers have are, strictly speaking, the price of the models.

Among other things -- I don't know about other areas, but in my area, the discounts for GW product have gone up and up through the years; for instance, in 1988, the best discounts were 10% discount, and today, the best discounts are 30% (or a little more).

The bigger problem for some players is that with the arms race that's occurred, the described army by today's standards would be squashed like a bug (ok, fine, it would have sucked then too, but still, a competitive list back then would not have cost a lot more).

So you need to buy titans, centurions, librarians, character models and all that kinda jazz that can really add up quickly. It's not the tactical squads, the scouts, or even the assault marines that kill the pocket book.

The list is a standard WD kitchen sink list. Little bit of everything. Lots of expensive wargear as well.

Bikes remaining the same price was a bit of a shock. The box back then was a hybrid kit that came with a sarge, plasma and melta gunner. The rules/points for them blew chunks, but the minis were basically the same ones as today.

The assault marines doubling in price was a bit painful. If my foggy memory is accurate though, you didn’t get the spare torsos/backpacks back then, so there is significantly more stuff in the new box.

Which can be said for just about everything. You pay more, but you do get more. The old tactical box just gave you a ML/F. If you wanted other specials/heavies, you bought them in blisters.


One of these days I’m going to sit down and do a dollar to point comparison, see what’s “average"

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Talys wrote:
$375 vs $434 isn't that egregious, IMO.

Why would it be? You're the guy casually spending $5k on your latest project.

"Don't care. Got mine!" - Talys

Because a lot of other things for entertainment, like movie tickets, novels, and video games, have also gone up a lot more than inflation.

"Can't have. Whine more!" - H.B.M.C.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Wow, Nevelon, props for the effort

$375 vs $434 isn't that egregious.

15% over inflation, when the UK has been experiencing <1% inflation for several years of the time frame in question, and by all accounts the tech has got cheaper (and GW have either paid it off or had many years of writing it down) and production methods more straightforward is pretty bad.

But you could say the same thing about printing costs for fiction, right? After all, the printing costs in China are teenie tiny, yet a new release hardcover now is crazy expensive, compared to 1988 or 2000. Comic books, too -- have you seen the cover price of an Extraordinary X-Men these days, compared with Uncanny X-Men of the past? It's $4 an issue, I think, and there are so many crossovers you have to buy a kazillion comics to follow 1 plot line now. The fact is, entertainment prices have FAR outstripped CPI, a measurement of necessities. If you actually take fuel out of CPI, inflation is even lower.

I have a feeling Space Marines are actually probably one of the more stable armies as far as price rises are concerned. I don't remember too many OMGWTF moments when looking at Space Marine price rises.

Though I understand using them as a baseline since they are the most common army. I'd be interested to see how the comparison would look for Orks or Imperial Guard or Tyranids where you've had decreasing box sizes to go along with the increasing prices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
Because a lot of other things for entertainment, like movie tickets, novels, and video games, have also gone up a lot more than inflation.

I'm not sure about novels, but movie tickets and video games haven't gone up more than inflation.

Video game prices have only had a few small price increases over the years, far less than inflation. I believe the consoles themselves have remained pretty constant relative to inflation, but the games have definitely dropped.

Movie tickets feel like they've gone up heaps, but when you look in to it, they've been reasonably constant vs inflation.

 Talys wrote:
Also, if the cost of tooling good plastic kits is something that isn't expensive of difficult to come by, I wish other companies would improve their plastic kits and move things to plastic. I actually RETURNED a nephilim warrior just last week (new PP release), because the tooling was so bad on the plastic model that I couldn't bear keeping it as a $19 infantry piece. I say tooling, rather than production, because there were 3 boxes, and all 3, frankly, sucked.

I'd be curious which one you were talking about. The only individual Nephilim is Nekima, and aside from some fragile parts (Wyrds stuff aren't Mr Potato Head proportioned, so you get some thin peices) it's a fantastic model. Mine had no mold lines or soft detail, which is what is usually cuased by bad tooling.

Actually, Az, I found the article I was thinking of:

http://comicsalliance.com/minimum-wage-price-of-comics/

The price of comics has increased by a (stunning) factor of 379.2% relative to the minimum wage. The link has a really nice regression chart that shows the growth of price of comics versus minimum wages, from 0.24% of a week's wage per issue to 1.15% of a week's wage per issue.

In 2010, the average cover price for a typical 32 page superhero comic was $2.99 (1). In other words, to purchase ONE comic would cost 1.15% of someone’s weekly income.

The US Federal Minimum Wage in 1961 was $1.15 per hour and, figuring the same 36 hour work week, a person would have earned $41.40 per week. To purchase the first issue of Fantastic Four, a person working minimum wage would have spent only 0.24% of their pay cheque. That is a stunning difference in price. To put this even more plainly: it represents a 379.2% increase in the price in relation to minimum wage from 1961 to 2010.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
@AllSeeingSkink - To buy a "complete" video game today, it's what, a $60 game plus another $60-$100 of DLC? The price increases beyond inflation are simply hidden from the initial purchase by making the original purchase less than half the play time of the complete game.

The cost of movies has definitely gone up in my area. I recall movie tickets of $8, maybe less? Tuesdays, they were half price from that. Just bought tickets for Pixels, and it was $14 (each). Popcorn and a drink in the theatre will be $11 (per person!)

Edit -- here, In 1948, a movie ticket was $0.36, and in 1989, a movie ticket was $4.

http://www.examiner.com/article/40-years-of-movie-ticket-history

 Talys wrote:
Actually, Az, I found the article I was thinking of:

http://comicsalliance.com/minimum-wage-price-of-comics/

The price of comics has increased by a (stunning) factor of 379.2% relative to the minimum wage. The link has a really nice regression chart that shows the growth of price of comics versus minimum wages, from 0.24% of a week's wage per issue to 1.15% of a week's wage per issue.

Yeah, because practically the end of the Second World War to today is exactly the fething same as the last ten years.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Actually, Az, I found the article I was thinking of:

http://comicsalliance.com/minimum-wage-price-of-comics/

The price of comics has increased by a (stunning) factor of 379.2% relative to the minimum wage. The link has a really nice regression chart that shows the growth of price of comics versus minimum wages, from 0.24% of a week's wage per issue to 1.15% of a week's wage per issue.

Yeah, because practically the end of the Second World War to today is exactly the fething same as the last ten years.

At least click on the link before you make a snippy comment. I quoted it because that's what the author wrote. The regression chart shows that in 1974, the percentage was still about 0.24%, meaning that from 1938 to 1974, the price basically kept pace with minimum wage. From there, it rose to the current level of 1.15% on an almost straight line, representing a 379% growth over minimum wage, in that period, evenly distributed.

Incidentally, since this article was written (2011), and as was correctly forecast at the end of the article, the price of comic books has gone up to $4 / comic, which represents 1.53% of minimum wage (that's going up from 1.15% to 1.53%, or TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT in just FOUR YEARS). Which is accurate, as they went from $3 to $4.

Which is to say, comic books, which are often sold in the same hobby shops as Games Workshop products, have far, far outstripped GW in terms of price growth. Keep in mind that most comic book customers don't buy one comic book, but often 5, 10, 15 or more per week. If you wish to follow the crossover story lines, it's almost impossible not to now. 10 comics = $40 per week = $2,080 per year.

Now all you've got to do is tie that to a different product, with different costs, a different customer base, different commercial pressures over a different time period and you might have a point.

As it is you're just spouting random facts.

GW have increased prices well in advance of inflation, even in periods where inflation was low to non existent, while comparable products from other companies have not increased nearly as much, and are much lower, despite GW being best placed to out compete rivals on price.

Comparing it to comics isn't any sort of rebuttal, it's just strawmanning.

 Talys wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
@AllSeeingSkink - To buy a "complete" video game today, it's what, a $60 game plus another $60-$100 of DLC? The price increases beyond inflation are simply hidden from the initial purchase by making the original purchase less than half the play time of the complete game.

You're moving the goal posts a bit on that one. DLC didn't exist back then and even now it's not in all games by any stretch and many games it's only aesthetic.

VERY few games will cost $60 + $60-100 of DLC.

$60 (assuming you're paying full retail) is the equivalent to $43 in 2000, $40 in 1996 (when the N64 came out), $34 in 1991 (around when the SNES came out).

Even if you account for a few dollars of DLC ($60 of DLC is insane and not representative at all), it's still cheaper now than it was back then.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/why-retail-console-games-have-never-been-cheaper-historically/

The cost of movies has definitely gone up in my area. I recall movie tickets of $8, maybe less? Tuesdays, they were half price from that. Just bought tickets for Pixels, and it was $14 (each). Popcorn and a drink in the theatre will be $11 (per person!)

$8 when? $14 today is the same as about $8 in 1991.

You asserted that movie ticket prices increased more than inflation, here's a website that compares movie tickets directly to inflation...

http://collider.com/movie-ticket-price-inflation-statistics/

Part of the shock with GW is that when compared to probably the most common shared hobby for table top gamers, Video/computer gaming, the price increase is devastating, but only because of how flat video game prices are. Sure, DLCs eat into that, but Video Games are probably cheaper against inflation over time.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Wow, Nevelon, props for the effort

$375 vs $434 isn't that egregious.

15% over inflation, when the UK has been experiencing <1% inflation for several years of the time frame in question, and by all accounts the tech has got cheaper (and GW have either paid it off or had many years of writing it down) and production methods more straightforward is pretty bad.

I dunno.... a 15% price increase over 15 years, independent of inflation? That's not nothing, but It's not exactly a massive price increase either. I think we're so used to the price of household consumer goods (aka, plastic crap made in China) to trend down, and not up.

@AllSeeingSkink - in the video game community, many people are very unhappy that an initial, $60 game purchase does not constitute the entire game. Often, core parts of the game already written when the game launched is simply unlocked by paying more money (look at Forza or Call of Duty). I would argue that the DLC isn't some future-maybe-expansion, but a planned part of the game's core revenue stream (and something you have to pay if you want to play multiplayer with your friends), because on Day 1, you can purchase the "Complete Season Pass" for $100++.

DLCs did not exist in the 90s, but this was because the price of the game was under what people would spend. DLCs are just a way to get people to increase the total price in a clever way (at least, the vast majority of PC gamers think so).

Now, personally, I would argue that video games are WAY better today than 20 years ago, so it's not like you aren't getting more for your money. The contrarian would argue, "yes, but they're all mostly knockoffs of a few successful concepts."

But to give you an example, just look at how many DLCs there are for NFS (Need for Speed) or Forza Motorsport. For heavens sake, they charged you extra for *movie packs* for NFS, and if unless you want to play for a bazillion hours, you had to pay to unlock most of the coolest cars in Forza, lol.


Re, movie tickets: in 1989, movie tickets were $4
http://www.examiner.com/article/40-years-of-movie-ticket-history

Re, comic books: In 1986, cover price was $0.75 ($4 today)
http://comicsalliance.com/minimum-wage-price-of-comics/

I picked these dates because this was around the time of Rogue Trader, when I personally started playing 40k and became involved in miniature wargaming hobby.

@Polonius - yeah, video games are probably one of the best ways to spend your entertainment budget, along with television -- hence, the very wide appeal. It helps them that digital distribution is almost free now, so marginal cost of a sale is almost zero. Plus, if you're willing to play last year's games, you can get them WAY, WAY cheaper.

 Talys wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Talys wrote:
$375 vs $434 isn't that egregious, IMO.

Why would it be? You're the guy casually spending $5k on your latest project.

"Don't care. Got mine!" - Talys

Because a lot of other things for entertainment, like movie tickets, novels, and video games, have also gone up a lot more than inflation.

"Can't have. Whine more!" - H.B.M.C.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Wow, Nevelon, props for the effort

$375 vs $434 isn't that egregious.

15% over inflation, when the UK has been experiencing <1% inflation for several years of the time frame in question, and by all accounts the tech has got cheaper (and GW have either paid it off or had many years of writing it down) and production methods more straightforward is pretty bad.

But you could say the same thing about printing costs for fiction, right? After all, the printing costs in China are teenie tiny, yet a new release hardcover now is crazy expensive, compared to 1988 or 2000. Comic books, too -- have you seen the cover price of an Extraordinary X-Men these days, compared with Uncanny X-Men of the past? It's $4 an issue, I think, and there are so many crossovers you have to buy a kazillion comics to follow 1 plot line now. The fact is, entertainment prices have FAR outstripped CPI, a measurement of necessities. If you actually take fuel out of CPI, inflation is even lower.

First of all, paperback novels have not risen very quickly, unless you count novelty formats or forced reprinting a into trade format. Second, genre hardcovers were $25 back in 1997, when I used to actually buy them. Last time I checked, they are about $35 now, however I can usually get the newest Dresden Files book for $15-$18 off Amazon, which didn't exist back then. Comics in 1995 were damn near $3 an issue, what with all the hologram covers and foldout covers and the Cable issue 0/Age of Apocalypse/Death of Superman crap. If they are only $4 per issue now, that sounds great. Still, Amazon has trade paperbacks on discount, so you know...

 Talys wrote:
@AllSeeingSkink - in the video game community, many people are very unhappy that an initial, $60 game purchase does not constitute the entire game. Often, core parts of the game already written when the game launched is simply unlocked by paying more money (look at Forza or Call of Duty). I would argue that the DLC isn't some future-maybe-expansion, but a planned part of the game's core revenue stream (and something you have to pay if you want to play multiplayer with your friends), because on Day 1, you can purchase the "Complete Season Pass" for $100++.

But again, you're only looking at very few games that have such expensive DLC. Out of *HUNDREDS* of video games available these days only a few have DLC anywhere near that price.

If you're comparing video game prices from 1990 to now, there's no fething point comparing the absolute most expensive games you can possibly buy now to an average game back then

I could just as equally go on Steam and find a pile of games under $20.

@AllSeeingSkink - Okay, yes, there are very cheap video games available today, including free and free-to-play games, point taken.

But keep in mind that most of the money in the video game industry is not made by most of the games; it's made by a very small number of very successful games. I was really talking about these triple-A titles (compared to like titles "back in the day") -- the ones that people really get really excited about and the ones that people really *want* to play, especially if money isn't a constraint. You know, the GTA's and COD's, that turn into billion-dollar titles.

Taking desirability and hotness out of the equation, you could play most miniature wargames on the cheap with cardboard counters, there are lots of free books, plenty of free comics, and Netflix costs a fixed $8 a month to turn into a vegetable. And that's not even going into piracy. One could say, "I'm so turned off from it and the rules suck so bad that 40k isn't desirable to me at all"... but then... the price and price growth compared to other entertainment forms doesn't really matter

I think prices must have been quite different here in Canada. I know now most things are twice as many Canadian dollars as UK customers pay in £. When I bought my first Tactical Squad in about 2004, it cost $38.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
First of all, paperback novels have not risen very quickly, unless you count novelty formats or forced reprinting a into trade format. Second, genre hardcovers were $25 back in 1997, when I used to actually buy them. Last time I checked, they are about $35 now, however I can usually get the newest Dresden Files book for $15-$18 off Amazon, which didn't exist back then. Comics in 1995 were damn near $3 an issue, what with all the hologram covers and foldout covers and the Cable issue 0/Age of Apocalypse/Death of Superman crap. If they are only $4 per issue now, that sounds great. Still, Amazon has trade paperbacks on discount, so you know...

The problem is, most things that are most desirable (sadly, almost everything I want to read) only come in hardcover first. I'm talking about your George Martin, Ken Follett, Diana Gabaldon, that kinda of stuff.

So yeah, if you want to wait past the initial craze, you can get them a lot cheaper.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Also, if the cost of tooling good plastic kits is something that isn't expensive of difficult to come by, I wish other companies would improve their plastic kits and move things to plastic. I actually RETURNED a nephilim warrior just last week (new PP release), because the tooling was so bad on the plastic model that I couldn't bear keeping it as a $19 infantry piece. I say tooling, rather than production, because there were 3 boxes, and all 3, frankly, sucked.

I'd be curious which one you were talking about. The only individual Nephilim is Nekima, and aside from some fragile parts (Wyrds stuff aren't Mr Potato Head proportioned, so you get some thin peices) it's a fantastic model. Mine had no mold lines or soft detail, which is what is usually cuased by bad tooling.

He mentions PP in brackets, so I assume it is a Warmahordes model. So, different beast. I do agree, the new Wyrd plastics are sharp, but not so if you look at the late 1,5 models in plastic. They had a fast learning curve, though.

 Talys wrote:
@AllSeeingSkink - Okay, yes, there are very cheap video games available today, including free and free-to-play games, point taken.

But keep in mind that most of the money in the video game industry is not made by most of the games; it's made by a very small number of very successful games. I was really talking about these triple-A titles (compared to like titles "back in the day") -- the ones that people really get really excited about and the ones that people really *want* to play, especially if money isn't a constraint. You know, the GTA's and COD's, that turn into billion-dollar titles.

But even then you can't cherry pick the few AAA games that have huge DLC costs when there's also a bunch that don't I'll let you add $10-15 for DLC on average and say video game prices haven't changed (corrected for inflation) but choosing the couple of games that have $60 DLC is like saying car prices have gone up because a 2015 Rolls Royce costs more than a 1960 Chevy Nova

If you want to compare apples to apples, most AAA games are not in the same scope as games back then anyway, they cost a huge amount more money to make these days, they have developer teams around the 100 employee mark.

If you're going to compare to "like titles back in the day" you're probably better off looking on Steam at all the indie games that you can pick up for under $10

 Talys wrote:
But keep in mind that most of the money in the video game industry is not made by most of the games; it's made by a very small number of very successful games. I was really talking about these triple-A titles (compared to like titles "back in the day") -- the ones that people really get really excited about and the ones that people really *want* to play, especially if money isn't a constraint. You know, the GTA's and COD's, that turn into billion-dollar titles.

Even among AAA games, very few have quantities of DLC that match the purchase price, if much at all. The majority of games have a few skins or multiplayer maps - for a multiplayer that no one plays. It's generally completely avoidable DLC. There's a few games that turn into DLC vending machines - Rock Band and Evolve come to mind, but they're the exception, not the rule. CoD is the exception on multiplayer DLC since people actually play that games multiplayer.

Your example of GTA is a good one. GTA gets very little paid DLC. GTA 4 had Lost and the Damned and Ballad of Gay Tony, but those were standalone titles more akin to the expansion packs of old. GTA 5 has released a series of free updates for its Online game, but no paid DLC to my knowledge.

@Loki - you're right about GTA. There is one coming out (I think it's called Heist?), but I think it's enough to call it an "expansion" rather than DLC.

Still, you can't deny that there are tons of super popular games that have a lot of DLCs, like Fallout, Mass Effect, Forza, NFS, and Dragon Age. Pick a PS4 or XB1 top tier title, and it probably has some form of expansion (though you're also right, most aren't as expensive as the initial game, though many are two-thirds the price or more).

Eventually, you can buy a bundle that rolls it all together, and it's a lot cheaper, but this is not for the Day 1 players.

Anyways, you and Skink are almost certainly right that video games have grown less in price than tabletop wargaming (though, also more than inflation, methinks). And, I would add, are certainly more efficient ways to spend your entertainment money (which is why they're so popular).

Heists are already out on GTA.

DLC is a touchy topic because there's good stuff like the Elder Scrolls series that falls in the 'Expansion Pack' category and totally worth the money for the content. And there's the likes of Evolve.

But holy feth if there isn't anything more nefarious than free-to-play games that end up suckering you in for way more than you'd ever pay for a AAA game. My World of Tanks days were dark days for my wallet indeed.

 Talys wrote:

Anyways, you and Skink are almost certainly right that video games have grown less in price than tabletop wargaming (though, also more than inflation, methinks).

I seem to recall PS1 games costing around £35 when it first came out, I'm pretty sure acts what I paid for Tomb Raider

£35 in today's money is ~£50

I could order Batman: Arkham Knight right now for £39.. (And that's not the cheapest title by any margin)

So, no, on balance I'd say video games haven't really outpaced inflation at all, unless you start cherry picking titles.

Hell, I can remember paying £10 or so for some 8 bit titles, and that's £25 at today's rates.

@Az - That sounds about right. Most games top tier games are, off the shelf are about $80 here and currency conversion is 2:1 to CAD.

My point, though, was that for many games, this doesn't represent the complete game; the complete game requires you to buy the "Season Pass", too. For example, using your title, Arkham Knight, the game has a Season Pass of GBP 33 - 40 (depending on platform):

http://www.amazon.co.uk/287/dp/B00XASVJRM/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1439514569&sr=8-4&keywords=arkham+knight

(note that it requires the full version of Batman: Arkham Knight in addition to the season pass)

Being pretty involved in the video game community for a great number of years, the vast majority of players in that community think that DLCs are the bane of their existence and simply a way for vendors to double the price of the game (or more). As someone involved in the publisher side of things, about all I can say is "they're right".

Still, I will happily concede the point because it's a whole other discussion we could go on forever about, and we should move past it, because it really doesn't have a lot to do with GW, 40k, etc.

 Talys wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
First of all, paperback novels have not risen very quickly, unless you count novelty formats or forced reprinting a into trade format. Second, genre hardcovers were $25 back in 1997, when I used to actually buy them. Last time I checked, they are about $35 now, however I can usually get the newest Dresden Files book for $15-$18 off Amazon, which didn't exist back then. Comics in 1995 were damn near $3 an issue, what with all the hologram covers and foldout covers and the Cable issue 0/Age of Apocalypse/Death of Superman crap. If they are only $4 per issue now, that sounds great. Still, Amazon has trade paperbacks on discount, so you know...

The problem is, most things that are most desirable (sadly, almost everything I want to read) only come in hardcover first. I'm talking about your George Martin, Ken Follett, Diana Gabaldon, that kinda of stuff.

So yeah, if you want to wait past the initial craze, you can get them a lot cheaper.

Does Amazon not discount those authors? Gabaldon and Martin both have active TV series, but why is Follet an urgent read? And are you saying the Dresden Files are less desirable?

Hardcovers really are just overpriced to take advantage of people who have to read a book right now, like when we bought two copies of HP7 so my wife and I could read it at the same time...

@Bobtheinquisitor - I have to read these book right now, because otherwise my friends and family will otherwise spoil it for me. Because I read less now than in my youth, I only really read my favorites. Can't say why, I love Follett , and Tom Builder is a favorite protagonist of mine

One day after the current GoT season ended, someone spoiled a key difference between the book and show, grrrrrrr

Of course, I will buy the titles from Amazon or Costco. But I mean, they were discounted in the past, too. In a way, it's a little like GW: as the years have gone by, the discounts have gotten bigger, where I live.

Computer games have always been around the same price from what I recall, in real terms they've likely gone down. In the early/mid 90s the big games I had upon release were Doom and Space Hulk, and they were £35 and £40+. That's nearly what you'd pay today, twenty years later. Looking further back are things my dad bought that cost about that same amount in the 80s and they were very rudimentary as games go. Some games in the 80s, and somewhat into the 90s, were very variable in quality and were barely functional as games, some where total rubbish but still put on the market. Today you can expect any game to actually work and be fairly long lasting, and patches are developed for some issues. The DLC thing is a bit dubious as it feels like the full price of a game is disguised but that's mostly prevalent in mobile apps trying to make money.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I have a feeling Space Marines are actually probably one of the more stable armies as far as price rises are concerned. I don't remember too many OMGWTF moments when looking at Space Marine price rises.

... ...

Well, I dunno about that. I can tell you I had a severe OMGWTF moment on Tuesday afternoon when I saw the price of a fixed pose single infantry figure Librarian; £25 !!!11!?!?

There were some other examples non-SM that blew me away, like three Lizard Man flying dudes for over £30, three Tyranid Hive Guards for £44, etc.

However I think figures like that sell to collectors rather than to wargamers.

@Killkrazy: i have that plastic Termie Librarian in my queue right now, on commission to a gamer...
it is a beautiful mini, even better than the metal one, and certainly a better option over Finecast...
the ability to create negative space by splitting the body between front and back, with the cloak on the back half, and the tabard on the front half, is a really nice piece of design...
it adds that little bit extra dynamism that really requires the mini in hand to appreciate, though the sprue pic gives a good idea of what i mean...

of course, gamers who can afford my rates are not too worried about model costs, but i always try to get them a nice discount when i can...

Edit: i am seeing the Termie Librarian for £18, not £25...
where was he £25???
that is more than a Command Squad, and the same as a Techmarine with Servitors:(...

cheers
jah

Yeah it's just I live in a world in which £25 will buy you an entire 15mm army for DBA.

I know the Libraritor has lots of bling on him but even so...

I could be mistaken about it being a Libraritor, it might have been a Captainator, the basic point is that it was an elaborate single figure for 40K.

This was in the GW in Oxford.

OK, time for Nev does math, part two: Orks!

I’ve priced out the other side of the battle report. Things might be a little fuzzier, as I am not an ork player. But I’ve tried to reproduce the army as best I could. The army did contain 3 lobbas, which I could not find in catalogs, so will assume they were out of print/kitbashed at the time. While you can get them today, I did not included them in the modern total. 1,500 points of orks at the start of 3rd looks to be about 1,181 today (or so battlescribe and my best guess tells me)

Old cost - unit - new cost
15.50 - warboss - 20
35 - 5 nobs - 25
44.25 - 20 shoota boys (nob, 3 heavies)- 58
44.25 - 2x10 man choppa squads (one nob, 3 heavies between them)- 58
26.75 - 10 stickbommas w/3 heavy weapons - 29
29.50 - 11 grots, slaver - 16.50
75 - 3 scorchers - 81.75
69 - 3 wartracks - 81.75
46 - 2 trucks - 74.50
78 - 2 dreads - 99
----------
$463.25 - Total - $543.50

The same inflation calculator from last time tells me it would be $641.98 in modern money. So modern GW is reletively less. But there is a lot going on behind the scenes here, and that’s plastic. Some are obvious, like the nobs and grots. Huge difference between a plastic kit and buying them by the blister. The other thing is nobs and special weapons. While the old boy kit had 16 guys in it, it looks to lack nobs and big shootas/rocket launchers. Those needed to be purchased separately. The 20 man shoota mob is a plastic box of 16 boys ($23) a single nob blister ($8.50) and 3 big shootas (sold 2/blister @$8.50, so $4.25 each) These days you get most/all the whistles and bells in the basic box.

Now some if this could be taken care of with a little orkish know-whats. Use the spare barrels from the extra shootas the choppa boys aren’t using to make your own big shootas, stuff like that. But I tried to keep everything as official as possible, like it was a one-click bundle to buy the army featured in the battle report.

 Blacksails wrote:
DLC is a touchy topic because there's good stuff like the Elder Scrolls series that falls in the 'Expansion Pack' category and totally worth the money for the content. And there's the likes of Evolve.

Oblivion's Horse Armors DLC, man. Oblivion's Horse Armors

I payed $10 for the metal looba back in the day still had one still in the blister. Think the metal loobas came out in 4th edition if I'm remembering right. Now they are finecast and cost $30 but GW did increase the price of the metal loobas to $20 before they released them in finecast.

I went to GW Reading today and couldn't find the £25 Libraritor, the most expensive was £18.50 and there was one for £15 so either the £25 I saw in Oxford was a mistake or it was a different SM Charactor that they don't have in Reading.

£18.50 is still a hefty price for a single 28mm infantry model, IMO.

 Korinov wrote:

Oblivion's Horse Armors DLC, man. Oblivion's Horse Armors

=][= PURGED FROM ALL MEMORIES =][=

The rest of their DLC have been pretty damn good. Shivering Isles was dope, and bringing Solstheim back into Skyrim was excellent.

I bought every Skyrim expansion, even the dorky housebuilding one, and I'd have bought even more if they made them. I loved the game, and the expansions were both a true addition, and some of the better quests/stories available. One of my favorite playthroughs was the time I refused to even start the main quest, and instead did everything else. So no dragons, no shouts, no dragonborn... just the civil war, the various guilds, and the Dawnguard quest. Only after becoming the biggest badass possible did I finally deign to save the world. Even then, the Dragonborn story line was more satisfying in many ways than the main quest one, making me glad I'd saved it.

@Polonius - Me too!!! Skyrim was one of the most amazing games ever. Community (free) DLCs in Skyrim and Fallout are also amazing. To this day, New Vegas is still installed on my PC.

@Jah - I agree, plastic Libby is an awesome model. Until you actually look at the sprue it's hard to appreciate. There is no comparison with the finecast predecessor -- the material is a bazillion times better and unless you can bribe someone at GW to give you the first resin model out of a new mold, it's just so much easier to end up with a nice finished model.

This is actually part of the problem with observations of great Finecast output -- people are looking at studio-painted models, which were done on fresh molds. But the copy that you buy from the store is unlikely to be of that quality, and you end up with something that takes a ton of work in prep that still falls short.

@Howard Treesong - many gamers feel the purchase price should include the DLC that makes it completely playable, at least for the first 6 months of its shelf life. Also, that content written at launch should be a part of the core game. To take Azrael's example, Batman Akrham is GBP 35-40 to buy and GBP 32-40 to buy the Season pass, which is a year of expansions, some of which is immediately (or very quickly) unlocked. Almost every fan of the game will buy the Season Pass. Philosophically, the expansion is not nearly the work of the initial game, so gamers believe it should only constitute a fraction of the price.

In my opinion, I would be much happier if they sold every copy at GBP 50, and always included the season pass. Then, in a year, sell a real expansion for half the price of the game and let the expansion be judged on its content and merits. There is a free trial anyways, so it's not like you can't figure out whether you like the game before you buy it. Right now, many DLCs just feel like they belong to the main game, and are not an expansion, like extra items (Dragon Age), movies (NFS) and the models they showcase in previews (Forza).

Well Skyrim follows the usual Bethesda ARPG pattern, the main questline and most dialogs in the game are quite... uninspired, but there're always some real gems disguised as secondary questlines. I agree the Shivering Isles for Oblivion was a really nice expansion, and Dragonborn for Skyrim does provide a much more interesting plot than the main game.

In any case, back to the original "videogame dlc" point, it's hard to make comparisons because there are simply too many videogames out there, and their prices and the contents they offer in exchange of said prices vary wildly. It's also a matter of taste. To me, what they charge for a CoD game is a pure scam, but I understand some people are really into multiplayer first person shooters, and they will probably spent as many hours and have as much fun with a CoD than I will with an RPG. There're also companies who charge a lot for totally pointless DLCs, other companies that charge little, and others that simply offer them for free.

Video games are crazy cheap, in fact they're mostly cheaper now than they were 20 years ago. I remember the crazy days of buying Donkey Kong Country for the SNES for SEK 900 (~$100)... And today you have Steam providing you with so many cheap, high quality games that there really isn't any cheaper form of entertainment save piracy. DLC and F2P is the industry's way of trying to actually make money when consumers won't accept price rises.

 Mymearan wrote:
Video games are crazy cheap, in fact they're mostly cheaper now than they were 20 years ago. I remember the crazy days of buying Donkey Kong Country for the SNES for SEK 900 (~$100)... And today you have Steam providing you with so many cheap, high quality games that there really isn't any cheaper form of entertainment save piracy. DLC and F2P is the industry's way of trying to actually make money when consumers won't accept price rises.

Yeah, I honestly can't remember how good reduced price sales were in the 90's so I didn't consider that in comparison. If you complain about video game prices these days but insist on paying full retail you're a bit silly Even if you preorder games you can usually get them ~15% off, but if you are willing to wait even just 6 to 12 months you can usually get it a lot cheaper. I bought Skyrim within a few months of launch and still got it 30% off, and instead of buying the DLC separately I bought the Legendary Edition for so little that I can't even remember

Dunno about you guys but I'm playing DotA for free. FREE TO PLAY GAMES FOREVER.

Back on topic, another thing to consider is army size. The models listed previously sounds a little smaller than the average gamer's army list today.

Just throwing it out there but the last few single sprue character blisters have been $48 and $55 AUD, not to mention that there are now dual sprue plastic blisters at $50, $60 and $65.

Back when they first came out a plastic character blister was $22, and was only like 5 years ago.

Video games all depend, man.

I played lots of games that cost more than $100 for the deluxe edition and all that jazz and got 20 hours of game play before I chucked it. Sometimes other stuff is $10 in the bargain bin and you get 200 hours out of it. Plus digital distribution now means your old games are worth zero.

And then there are money sinks like Diablo 3. My brother blew something like $30,000 on that freakshow game. Like, $7,500 for a crossbow. $4,500 for a ring. LOL. Digital goods that are worth zero 6 months later. And it's not like he didn't know that would happen.

Ther's no way around it, tho. Price for each hour of entertainment is way cheaper for board games and miniature games if you actually, you know, play the game. You can get hundreds of hours out of a few hundred bucks in WMH... models, some books yadda yadda. Even if you add in the price of getting the models painted... I can't stand painting or putting together models... it's still cheap if you play it.

It only costs a lot if you load up $400 of models and books and then play once a year, heh. And then ragequit.

Before anyone says it, ya I know you can play bejwelled for 8000 hours or live on WoW for ten bucks a month.

Marlov wrote:
Ther's no way around it, tho. Price for each hour of entertainment is way cheaper for board games and miniature games if you actually, you know, play the game.

Even if you ignore those freaky games that you play for 1000's of hours, you can still make video gaming very cheap per hour of play.

Just don't buy games when they are brand new and not on sale. At the last Steam sale I bought a few hundreds of hours worth of games for around $100, and many of those are games from big name publishers that have been released in the past couple of years. Even if you don't wait for the big sales there's usually a couple of games on Steam each weekend going for a decent price.

But hobbies that are tedious are often cheaper per hour. That's not really anything new.

But anyway, this long tangent has basically just been to show that of all of the examples Talys rattled off, the only examples that genuinely have outstripped inflation is comic books and softback novels. In general, entertainment prices haven't done so.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Even if you ignore those freaky games that you play for 1000's of hours, you can still make video gaming very cheap per hour of play.

Just don't buy games when they are brand new and not on sale. At the last Steam sale I bought a few hundreds of hours worth of games for around $100, and many of those are games from big name publishers that have been released in the past couple of years. Even if you don't wait for the big sales there's usually a couple of games on Steam each weekend going for a decent price.

But hobbies that are tedious are often cheaper per hour. That's not really anything new.

But anyway, this long tangent has basically just been to show that of all of the examples Talys rattled off, the only examples that genuinely have outstripped inflation is comic books and softback novels. In general, entertainment prices haven't done so.

Sorta, but not quite bud

I gave as examples, movies, fiction, video games, and comics. To qualify it --

New bestselling novels, New videogames that have a season pass, movies while they are in the theatre, and all (major) comic books.

In cased you missed it, in 1989, a movie ticket was $4. http://www.examiner.com/article/40-years-of-movie-ticket-history

With novels, after a half year or so, the price drops substantially (though softcovers have still outstripped inflation); with video games, after a year or two, the price drops off a cliff.

There are a few things that I didn't do right away that I regretted because they got spoiled -- the Dragon Age before Inquisition (can't recall the title), not reading Dance of Dragons right away, and passing on a couple of major movies. Getting the endings spoiled sucks, if it's a title I care about, and it's really hard for it not to get spoiled, because friends and family talk about such things, and it's also in the media. I still can't believe that my sister spoiled what happened to Arya the end of GoT on TV -- as it differs from the book!

You may find the following study interesting, by the way: http://budgeting.thenest.com/much-money-average-american-spend-entertainment-year-26018.html

The average American spends $2504 on entertainment per year (2010), with those between 35 and 54 the biggest spenders, averaging $3,050 and the people 25 and younger spending an average of $1,334. The recent, overall trend is downward.

Also, consumers with less than $50,000 income spend less than $2,000, those who earned $100,000 or more spent an average of $5,500 while those with annual incomes of $150,000 or more averaged $7,032.

So basically, when you remove money as a factor, people will spend about 6 times as much on entertainment (not as an absolute; on average).

 Talys wrote:
In cased you missed it, in 1989, a movie ticket was $4. http://www.examiner.com/article/40-years-of-movie-ticket-history

And in case you missed it:
http://collider.com/movie-ticket-price-inflation-statistics/

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/why-retail-console-games-have-never-been-cheaper-historically/

I can't find the link now but as far as I read, it's only softback novels that have increased in price beyond inflation. Other books were either constant with inflation or below.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
The average American spends $2504 on entertainment per year (2010), with those between 35 and 54 the biggest spenders, averaging $3,050 and the people 25 and younger spending an average of $1,334. The recent, overall trend is downward.

So people are spending less on entertainment?

Those numbers in general seem quite small to me, it does make me wonder what they define as "entertainment". If I summed up everything non-essential I do for the sake of fun, it'd be a lot more than that per year

@AllSeeingSkink - Maybe it's regional. That article has tickts at $8.16, and our tickets are $10.99 - $13.99 (some movies are 3D only)! And that isn't even IMAX.

I guess it's just the new release hardcovers that I like to read that are expensive I have no data to support my claim other than that hardcovers I buy seem to go up in price as the series progresses from book 1 to book 7, hahaha.

I think the trend is downward because of recessionary forces, not out of preference. The article also mentioned that the spending on Cable TV went up, which would support this (as it's a cheap way of getting more entertainment).

If someone makes $36,000 per year (seems average-ish?) their take home is probably $24,000 or so (maybe a bit more). That's $2,000 a month, subtract rent, food, transit, clothing, utilities, and what's left isn't a whole ton. Gifts aren't considered entertainment, nor things like small appliances, multiuse devices (like PCs), furniture, that kind of thing.

I wonder if they consider restaurants as entertainment? Perhaps not.

Also keep in mind the average will be weighted down by people who make significantly less.

And yeah, I also outspend the average

 jonolikespie wrote:
Just throwing it out there but the last few single sprue character blisters have been $48 and $55 AUD, not to mention that there are now dual sprue plastic blisters at $50, $60 and $65.

Back when they first came out a plastic character blister was $22, and was only like 5 years ago.

No point bringing it up. We don't count as worthwhile customers - GW even have their other customers thinking that now, apparently.

At the end of the day, it's irrelevant whether entertainment has inflated faster than the CPI, or whether GW has inflated faster than the CPI on average having some quite low inflation items and some high inflation ones.

What matters is how people feel about the prices.

In 2009-10 I was building my Tyranid army for 5th edition. I was buying as much stuff secondhand as I could, but GW had released some new kits--plastic Raveners, Trygon, for example--that I had to buy at the retail price. GW put the prices up on them by 20% in the annual price round in 2011. I just thought, "feth this, GW, I'm not playing your inflation game any more." I stopped buying any new models.

The next year 6th edition was released, with a rulebook priced £45 instead of £30, and codexes priced £30 instead of £15. Again I just stopped buying rulebooks. Not because I couldn't afford them, £30 is only £30 in one sense, but because I felt GW was blatantly milking me, particularly as I thought the direction of the rules (Strength D weapons, superheavies, Unbound, etc) was bad.

As I didn't have the codexes there was no point buying the new models for Tau and Tyranid. When 7th edition came out in 2013 (?) I didn't even bother to get the softback rulebook, and naturally I don't buy any books or figures.

So effectively in the space of four years GW turned me from a moderately keen HHHobbyist to someone who no longer plays their games.

Give that my experience of leaving Teh HHHobby mirrors GW's recent decline, I am tempted to conclude that GW's price increases and rules strategies have made a significant contribution to their problems, even though you can still buy five Space Wolf Devastators for not much more than you could in 1997.

On a parting note, if you had bought the Space Wolves in 1997, to keep up with the changing rules since then you would need to have spent about £250 on new rulebooks and codexes even if you never bought another model.

Naturally superfans like the GW products and don't mind the prices and I think GW are now very dependant on that market segment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I went back to Oxford GW and found a single character that costs £22, the Adeptus Technicus Arch-Mage Dominus. An infantry figure.

My theory is that prices are always the thing that finally makes a long time hobbyist stop buying.

When you're new, it's all exciting, and you buy everything. Then you start doing tournaments, building converted armies, or expanding to Apoc size, and you buy bigger. Then, you have enough to play, so your buying slows down, with most purchases meant for "some day."

One day, you realize that while you have thousands of dollars of product, you barely play, and need to buy a hundred dollars worth of rules just to play, and god knows how much in models to be even remotely competitive.

It's not that the prices are that much higher, or that suddenly the gamer can't afford them, its that there simply isn't any value there.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

As I didn't have the codexes there was no point buying the new models for Tau and Tyranid. When 7th edition came out in 2013 (?) I didn't even bother to get the softback rulebook, and naturally I don't buy any books or figures.

That's largely what happened with me. I found the books too expensive, so didn't have any reason to buy new stuff, and before I knew it I was entirely out of date and just not interested in keeping up. The only time I play in a GW store is at WHW where they seem a bit more laid back about Oldhammer.

 Polonius wrote:
My theory is that prices are always the thing that finally makes a long time hobbyist stop buying.

When you're new, it's all exciting, and you buy everything. Then you start doing tournaments, building converted armies, or expanding to Apoc size, and you buy bigger. Then, you have enough to play, so your buying slows down, with most purchases meant for "some day."

One day, you realize that while you have thousands of dollars of product, you barely play, and need to buy a hundred dollars worth of rules just to play, and god knows how much in models to be even remotely competitive.

It's not that the prices are that much higher, or that suddenly the gamer can't afford them, its that there simply isn't any value there.

For me it is that GW turned playing the game into an online RPG style level grind with money in place of time, and keeping level pegging in place of advancement.

I just want GW to make the game good, finish it and stop fiddling, then make another new game with a different setting, mechanics and models.

This is why I would welcome an AoS version of 40K.

I am not tempted to splash £85 on the soon to be out of date current rulebook and codex so I might be tempted to splash £50 on the Haruspex.

Reset all the armies so my current models would be usable again. Free rules and codexes. Cut out the crap and make the agme a lot simpler again. Then I might act on the temptation to splash £50 on a Haruspex, and even some of the other models.

 Polonius wrote:
My theory is that prices are always the thing that finally makes a long time hobbyist stop buying.

When you're new, it's all exciting, and you buy everything. Then you start doing tournaments, building converted armies, or expanding to Apoc size, and you buy bigger. Then, you have enough to play, so your buying slows down, with most purchases meant for "some day."

One day, you realize that while you have thousands of dollars of product, you barely play, and need to buy a hundred dollars worth of rules just to play, and god knows how much in models to be even remotely competitive.

It's not that the prices are that much higher, or that suddenly the gamer can't afford them, its that there simply isn't any value there.

Yeah I definitely think the value has been eroded in 40K. When I first started I had a box of 36 plastic Imperial Guard and a WD with their force org, stat profiles and background. Later I picked up a metal command squad blister pack and that was all the troops I needed. One box and a metal blister pack and I was set. Today, to get the same number of troops plus a command squad I'd have to get 5 boxes and spend a lot more money and I'd still need to buy more units to get a good playable army.

GW broke their own game and did it deliberately to try to sell more models. Now they're stuck in an oxymoronic position of wanting to charge top dollar for high end models that you need to field dozens of to play the game because they've kept the basic skirmish/RPG mindset for rules that they had in Rogue Trader but scaled up the size of battles to include superheavies and titans. It costs more to buy all the minis you need to field an army, then you have to buy all the paints and supplies, and spend weeks/months getting everything assebled and painted how you want before you can maximize your gameplay enjoyment (and that's not counting spending more money on rulebooks and codices).

The cost of rules alone to allow me to play the current edition with the models I already have takes a sizable bite out of my hobby budget. The quality of those rules and the way they change the FOC and army comp from previous editions erodes their value to me. If GW wants me to play their game they need to make it easy for me to do so instead of setting up hurdles in my path that I have to clear. I could repeat every step I took in starting the hobby back in the early 90s today and each step would cost more, require more purchases and consequently require more of my time than it did before.

Now that my kids are getting old enough to show some interest in tabletop games I can't introduce them to 40K by buying them stuff the way my parents bought me stuff when I was a kid. My kids will have to be introduced via things like Reaper Bones and Zombicide and learning to play games like KoW with my old armies. it's unfortunate that GW chose this route because now I'm divesting from 40K rather than trying to pass it on to another generation.

A SM Tac squad cost $22.99 in 2000.
A SM Tac squad costs $40 today. Same sculpts, same number of little men, added some bits and bobs to the sprue.
74% increase

A 2nd Edition SM Rhino cost $24.99 in 2000. Resculpted in 2002 to the current model, still only $24.99 (WHAT?!)
A SM Rhino costs $37.25 today.
49% increase

Those are the metrics that matter to the vast majority of players of GW games. And before someone makes the ridiculous argument that you now get some new weapons on the sprues making it worth the price increase, remember that GW used to sell bitz by the gram. A metal meltagun to add to your plastic tac squad was something like 20 cents.

 Polonius wrote:
My theory is that prices are always the thing that finally makes a long time hobbyist stop buying.

When you're new, it's all exciting, and you buy everything. Then you start doing tournaments, building converted armies, or expanding to Apoc size, and you buy bigger. Then, you have enough to play, so your buying slows down, with most purchases meant for "some day."

One day, you realize that while you have thousands of dollars of product, you barely play, and need to buy a hundred dollars worth of rules just to play, and god knows how much in models to be even remotely competitive.

It's not that the prices are that much higher, or that suddenly the gamer can't afford them, its that there simply isn't any value there.

Pretty much sums up my hobby progression over the last 15 years. It's not that I can't afford the hobby, I just shake my head and laugh at the prices, all the while saying "NOPE!"

 the_Armyman wrote:
A SM Tac squad cost $22.99 in 2000.
A SM Tac squad costs $40 today. Same sculpts, same number of little men, added some bits and bobs to the sprue.
74% increase

That's not entirely fair, as the new sprue added bitz that everybody was buying anyway, in the Plasma, melta gun, and powerfist. Of course, this was a time when you could order bits like that for a buck a piece, so maybe its a wash. Still, there is value in the fact that codex options are in the current kit.

It's a huge jump in price compared to a small but significant increase in value though.

A 2nd Edition SM Rhino cost $24.99 in 2000. Resculpted in 2002 to the current model, still only $24.99 (WHAT?!)
A SM Rhino costs $37.25 today.
49% increase

Those are the metrics that matter to the vast majority of players of GW games. And before someone makes the ridiculous argument that you now get some new weapons on the sprues making it worth the price increase, remember that GW used to sell bitz by the gram. A metal meltagun to add to your plastic tac squad was something like 20 cents.

Ooops. I dunno man, I hobbied pretty hard in the early 2000's, and I never was able to actually get bitz by the gram. Even then, it would only be a few bucks to add the special weapon and power fist you wanted. But even then, taking a $23 kit to only $25 makes the increase only 60%, instead of 74%.

It's easy to file all of the price increase as greed, but between inflation, more components, and (frankly) superior modeling, the money is going somewhere other than pure profit margin.

 Polonius wrote:

It's easy to file all of the price increase as greed, but between inflation, more components, and (frankly) superior modeling, the money is going somewhere other than pure profit margin.

Kirby's pockets, of course

 the_Armyman wrote:
A SM Tac squad cost $22.99 in 2000.
A SM Tac squad costs $40 today. Same sculpts, same number of little men, added some bits and bobs to the sprue.
74% increase

A 2nd Edition SM Rhino cost $24.99 in 2000. Resculpted in 2002 to the current model, still only $24.99 (WHAT?!)
A SM Rhino costs $37.25 today.
49% increase

Those are the metrics that matter to the vast majority of players of GW games. And before someone makes the ridiculous argument that you now get some new weapons on the sprues making it worth the price increase, remember that GW used to sell bitz by the gram. A metal meltagun to add to your plastic tac squad was something like 20 cents.

 Polonius wrote:
My theory is that prices are always the thing that finally makes a long time hobbyist stop buying.

When you're new, it's all exciting, and you buy everything. Then you start doing tournaments, building converted armies, or expanding to Apoc size, and you buy bigger. Then, you have enough to play, so your buying slows down, with most purchases meant for "some day."

One day, you realize that while you have thousands of dollars of product, you barely play, and need to buy a hundred dollars worth of rules just to play, and god knows how much in models to be even remotely competitive.

It's not that the prices are that much higher, or that suddenly the gamer can't afford them, its that there simply isn't any value there.

Pretty much sums up my hobby progression over the last 15 years. It's not that I can't afford the hobby, I just shake my head and laugh at the prices, all the while saying "NOPE!"

Dont do price comparisons without adjusting for inflation, it's disingenuous.

I think a lot of people are looking at other companies products , especially in independent retailers.To draw comparisons to.

So to many its the cost per minature of GW plc plastic minatures compared to Warlord games and Perry Minatures plastics.

And then they realize GW plc is spending over £50M on a B&M retail chain they may not get any benefit from.
(And as the store only generate £35 M profit they loose GW plc money every year.)

BUT everyone has to pay a B&M store tax when buying from GW plc.
Knowing half the retail price is just to keep the chain of B&M stores open, is quite galling to customers who do not or do not want to use a GW B&M store.

And as said before the quality of the rules COULD add value to the minatures IF they were focused on long term game play.

So if GW plc corporate managers actually did market research, they may find good rules sell more product than B&M stores, and cost a tiny fraction of the price!

Polonius wrote:

Ooops. I dunno man, I hobbied pretty hard in the early 2000's, and I never was able to actually get bitz by the gram. Even then, it would only be a few bucks to add the special weapon and power fist you wanted. But even then, taking a $23 kit to only $25 makes the increase only 60%, instead of 74%.

The first Games Day I went to in Baltimore was 2000, and they had a huge table setup in the store area, Metal bitz were mounted to boards with code numbers. You filled out a form with code numbers, they bagged the bitz, weighed them, and you took the bag to the register. The price was by weight, not component. You don't remember that, Polonius?

I think the biggest mistake GW made was in getting rid of their Mail Order bitz service.

 Polonius wrote:

It's easy to file all of the price increase as greed, but between inflation, more components, and (frankly) superior modeling, the money is going somewhere other than pure profit margin.

Unfortunately, where the extra money is going is irrelevant. Somewhere is that magic price that is both reasonable for me and profitable for them, and they crossed it. I'm not trying to be a grognard about it, but maybe that's what I've become

Dont do price comparisons without adjusting for inflation, it's disingenuous.

I don't need to research CPI to realize that items in my life that I buy (excluding things tied to commodities [food] or cartels [oil]) aren't 50-80% more expensive than 15 years ago. Why is that disingenous?

I started playing 40K partway through 4th edition I think around 2005. The cost of a codex for my tyranid army was around $23 Canadian. Today the 6th ed nid dex costs $60. That is a huge increase over 10 years for rules. Not only that for nids to get all the rules to make the army work decently you needed the dataslates (another $45), maybe Leviathan book or FW models such as the malanthrope (and you need the IA book to use FW models where I play).

So when I look back and $23 bought me all the rules for my army for 40K to make a variety of builds that were decent the situation has become disgraceful today with the amount of money I would need to spend just to have most of the rules to try to make my nid army work (and even then the products (rules) are so poorly balanced to be even worth less than before. So to me GW prices have increased to absurd levels in a relatively short period of time for some things while the quality has eroded (ref nid rules and game rules).

 the_Armyman wrote:

Dont do price comparisons without adjusting for inflation, it's disingenuous.

I don't need to research CPI to realize that items in my life that I buy (excluding things tied to commodities [food] or cartels [oil]) aren't 50-80% more expensive than 15 years ago. Why is that disingenous?

Here are the inflation rates for Great Britain for each of the last 20 or so years:

http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/great-britain/historic-inflation/cpi-inflation-great-britain.aspx

Those rates alone don't support anything more than 35-40% increases in costs over the last 15 years for typical goods (some products and industries will be more and some will be less, of course).

@Ventus - The price didn't exactly creep up gradually, though. The product changed drastically from a black-and-white softcover that was essentially a rulebook, into a thicker, hardcover, full color, picture-filed fluff/illustration/rulebook.

Ironically, in comparison, you could call the current standard edition books a "special edition" compared to the old ones; like I said, they're much more suitable for a library or shelf than gaming, because frankly, nobody wants to lug around heavy books when gaming.

Personally, I appreciate the color/hardcover, the inspirational art, and the fluff, but I get all the reasons that people wouldn't. I've mentioned this before as have lots of other people, but they should just print a softcover B&W that's smaller format and cheaper.

The irony is that I would buy one of those for gaming, and one of the standard editions to do the first read and stick on a shelf after (I'm not a collector of the LE's).

The other option right now is digital, which ARE cheaper, to be fair, and the iPad versions are pretty good. But I like muh paper.


@Saldiven - It's comparing apples to popsicles, though -- CPI (Consumer Price Index) measures the inflation of necessities like fuel, food, housing, clothing. It doesn't measure things like toys. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that GW products haven't become less affordable (though other toys may also have gone up in price more than inflation, too, and also become less affordable).

The first thing I ever bought was a box of Tyranid Gaunts and a squad of 3 Tyranid Warriors, they cost me £30 back in 2003.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now Tyranid Warriors cost £31 pounds on their own and gaunts are 18. I believe they were 15 pounds each back when I bought them, so whilst the price of the gaunts isn't too bad, the warriors have gone right through the roof.

 the_Armyman wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Ooops. I dunno man, I hobbied pretty hard in the early 2000's, and I never was able to actually get bitz by the gram. Even then, it would only be a few bucks to add the special weapon and power fist you wanted. But even then, taking a $23 kit to only $25 makes the increase only 60%, instead of 74%.

The first Games Day I went to in Baltimore was 2000, and they had a huge table setup in the store area, Metal bitz were mounted to boards with code numbers. You filled out a form with code numbers, they bagged the bitz, weighed them, and you took the bag to the register. The price was by weight, not component. You don't remember that, Polonius?

I think the biggest mistake GW made was in getting rid of their Mail Order bitz service.

I remember hearing about it. I started in about 2001-2002, and by that time, it was all bitz at prices. They were still really cheap though.

I think eliminating Bitz hurt hobbyists, but I think it was good for their bottom line in the long run. there were a few actions they took around the same time they dropped the bitz service: they stopped selling bases in size specific bags, and they really doubled down on plastic production, with more and more of the bitz being in each kit. I think they were going after the used market. The reality is that you used to be able to buy used metals, or even plastics, strip them, break them down, and rehab them with new bitz and bases for pennies on the dollar. This ended up hurting guys doing crazy conversions, but it also allowed third party bitz sellers to really blossom.

 Polonius wrote:

It's easy to file all of the price increase as greed, but between inflation, more components, and (frankly) superior modeling, the money is going somewhere other than pure profit margin.

Unfortunately, where the extra money is going is irrelevant. Somewhere is that magic price that is both reasonable for me and profitable for them, and they crossed it. I'm not trying to be a grognard about it, but maybe that's what I've become

I'm not talking literally about where the money is going, but rather pointing out that it's not a strict apples to apples. The kits have become better, with more included value.

If the price is too high for you, it could be because they have crossed some mystical line. More likely, two important things happened: 1) Diminishing returns kicks in, where you get less utility out of each army/unit you buy for a game beyond the first, and 2) decreased fun playing the game. If the game is less fun, and you already have a few armies, what exactly would you be buying anyway?

I don't need to research CPI to realize that items in my life that I buy (excluding things tied to commodities [food] or cartels [oil]) aren't 50-80% more expensive than 15 years ago. Why is that disingenous?

there was some interesting posts showing that a lot of stuff hasn't climbed as much beyond inflation as you'd think. Other stuff did skyrocket, but those fell into two types: ancient plastic kits that were part of that $20-$25 a squad class back in early 2000s, and units that have been redone in modern plastic, for a huge bump in price.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
The first thing I ever bought was a box of Tyranid Gaunts and a squad of 3 Tyranid Warriors, they cost me £30 back in 2003.
Now Tyranid Warriors cost £31 pounds on their own and gaunts are 18. I believe they were 15 pounds each back when I bought them, so whilst the price of the gaunts isn't too bad, the warriors have gone right through the roof.

that's a third archetype of ridiculously priced GW kits: things for which there are few third party competitors. The more stuff can "counts as" the unit in question, the lower the price in general. Stuff that has no direct analogue on the market can be sky high.

I can understand getting rid of bitz, as people ordering several right arms of obscure figures isn't likely to be worthwhile for them. But the axed all their back catalogues, entire miniatures ranges. You couldn't even get whole sets of figures. This threw the baby out with the bath water. Limit bitz, sure, scrap everything? Then to soften this they claimed that they'd make some things available on a rotating basis, and some things like overpriced stuff chaos champions appeared for a bit. But in reality there's been very little, almost nothing other than the Goff Rockers, once gone it was gone and they didn't try to do anything with their back catalogue. Reading between the lines of some comments about stuff they rule out ever being made available again, it seems likely they've broken up many older moulds.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I can understand getting rid of bitz, as people ordering several right arms of obscure figures isn't likely to be worthwhile for them. But the axed all their back catalogues, entire miniatures ranges. You couldn't even get whole sets of figures. This threw the baby out with the bath water. Limit bitz, sure, scrap everything? Then to soften this they claimed that they'd make some things available on a rotating basis, and some things like overpriced stuff chaos champions appeared for a bit. But in reality there's been very little, almost nothing other than the Goff Rockers, once gone it was gone and they didn't try to do anything with their back catalogue. Reading between the lines of some comments about stuff they rule out ever being made available again, it seems likely they've broken up many older moulds.

I heard a story that at one point, one of the shelves hold the bulk of bitz collapsed, and they all became intermingled. With Bitz being on such a tenuous profitability, they decided to just melt it all down and scrap the service. that's almost certainly not true, but I'd guess some bean counter saw how little the service made compared to the rest, and they couldn't show enough residual sales to justify it. Meaning, for every random right arm purchased, there was likely a brand new model that received it.

But it is scary. 10 years ago, you could order nearly everything GW made in metal (except squats, of course) going back to the 80s. Now, there are huge swathes of the range that are gone, seemingly forever.

Or... GW is just cynical, and realized that if there really is a market for bitz, eBay and recasters will fill it with their far lower margins anyway.

The thing is, GW doesn't need to make bitz for EVERYTHING. If they just made bitz for all the weapons (and matching arms), most people would be very happy.

For that matter, just make more weapon packs like the meltagun/plasma gun ones. If you want more combi right now, you either have to make it yourself, buy 3rd party, or buy a whole other box to get 1 combi.

I don't expect that if I want to buy half a Dominus that GW will sell it to me, you know what I mean?

 Polonius wrote:


I heard a story that at one point, one of the shelves hold the bulk of bitz collapsed, and they all became intermingled. With Bitz being on such a tenuous profitability, they decided to just melt it all down and scrap the service. that's almost certainly not true, but I'd guess some bean counter saw how little the service made compared to the rest, and they couldn't show enough residual sales to justify it. Meaning, for every random right arm purchased, there was likely a brand new model that received it.

That story is not apocryphal, it actually did occur at GWUS in Glen Burnie. How much hit the floor and what was actually thrown back into the melting pot I'm not sure, but it wasn't insignificant. I'm sure it was far cheaper just to get a shovel and bucket, than it was to try and sort through the mess.

Metal is well and truly gone at GW, I won't kid myself there. But I still think a bitz service could be profitable, and it would generate some cashflow and goodwill at a time when the company could use a little bit of both.

I think the bitz would provide more goodwill then profit.

I used to work for a mail order card company that carried singles. Picking orders, even with a good system, took a lot of time. There were just a lot of cards, on a lot of shelves. I can only assume the bits shelves were a similar mass of boxes/bins. That’s warehouse space being used, labor to not only get the orders together, but to track inventory and make sure the bins are full, etc. A lot of overhead just to sell a few parts for a buck or so.

I did pick up blisters sometimes just for the parts. If I could have ordered say, chaos marauder flail heads, I would have at the time. Instead I just bought 4 blisters of guys, tossed the lads into the back of the things to paint pile, and used the weapon heads to make mounted marauders out of DE dark riders. So GW actually got more money out of me by not having the bits for sale.

 Talys wrote:
@Ventus - The price didn't exactly creep up gradually, though. The product changed drastically from a black-and-white softcover that was essentially a rulebook, into a thicker, hardcover, full color, picture-filed fluff/illustration/rulebook.

The 3rd edition rulebooks were a downgrade from the glorious codexes of yesteryear:



Certainly, the current codecies contain more than the ones of the middle editions. I can't defend GW's current codex pricing as anything but a price gouge. They used to be able to jump on the "full color" aspect, but everyone does that now, and for cheaper. The super-duper premium, gold plated LE versions are nothing but expensive shelf / coffee table decorations as they are too heavy and blingy for actual use. Warmahordes books have hard cover / soft cover options at $42/$32 respectively and are full color (optional if you just run with the cards). The Infinity books only come in one form and are full color -$65 for two books (admittedly not hardcover). IIRC, Campaign Paradiso was $40 for hardcover. They are also optional, if you want to just download the PDFs.

There is an apocryphal story that accountancy lecturers tell about an electrical equipment shop where the owner calls in an accountant to review the business and recommend changes for greater profitability.

The accountant recommends dropping cable ties, as they make no profit and cost a fair bit to keep in stock (ordering, inventory management and so on). So this is done and gradually over the next six months the shop's customers gradually drop away.

Eventually the owner asks a former customer why he doesn't come and get his stuff there any more, and the guy says he used to be able to get all the transformers, sockets, plugs, junction boxes and cables he needed for any job, plus the cable ties, and now he can't get the cable ties any more so he goes somewhere else where he can everything.

The moral of the story is that every single item in your stock does not need to make a profit, it just needs to help bring in customers who buy other stuff too.

The bitz were undoubtedly a huge PITA for GW to keep going, and made even less sense once they decided to change to Finecast, but they did cater to the keenest modellers who did converted armies and provided models to show off in shop windows and White Dwarf, etc.

On the other hand, metal bits services are pretty much premised on the nature of metal casting: You can recycle your excess castings. So "Run this mold for this three parts and then recycle the rest" works out. As does "Run these molds a few times, and fill up the parts bins. If any of the bins get too full, recycle the excess." You might be able to do that with plastic, if you're not outsourcing your plastic production and the plastic mix accommodates reground plastic.

So replace "An accountant recommended dropping a (seemingly) minor service the company provided..." with "Production technology changed and the (seemingly) minor service the company provided was no longer feasible like it used to be...."

 solkan wrote:
On the other hand, metal bits services are pretty much premised on the nature of metal casting: You can recycle your excess castings. So "Run this mold for this three parts and then recycle the rest" works out. As does "Run these molds a few times, and fill up the parts bins. If any of the bins get too full, recycle the excess." You might be able to do that with plastic, if you're not outsourcing your plastic production and the plastic mix accommodates reground plastic.

So replace "An accountant recommended dropping a (seemingly) minor service the company provided..." with "Production technology changed and the (seemingly) minor service the company provided was no longer feasible like it used to be...."

That is true to an extent and I agree, I don't expect a bitz service when the range is mostly plastic.... but bitz were dropped long before GW dropped metal.

If GW had of kept bitz until most stuff was plastic and then announced in White Dwarf and/or their website "We are getting rid of our bitz service as our range is now mostly plastic and it is impractical to carry on" they'd probably get less flak for it.

Highlighting the fact that communicating with your customers is also important

As a personal thing, the dropping of bitz did reduce my purchases back when it happened because I used to plan out an entire army, including all the conversions that needed bits from other places, and then just make a big order including all the bits. Dropping bits made me buy my stuff more piecemeal, and when I buy piecemeal I don't buy as much because I usually reach the point where I don't want to keep working on an army before I reach the point where the army is at the level I wanted.

But that said I'd rather have all plastic than a bitz service.

So I've got the 2004 Canadian edition catalogue. Going through it I've realized that there isn't a whole heck of a lot you can compare anymore. Whether it's because of a kit redesign or a switch from metal to "Fine"cast or metal blisters being redone as a plastic kit there just isn't a lot that's exactly the same as it was. You can compare easily enough if it's just "I want a Land Speeder!" but so many people are going to jump all over you saying how the extra detail on the pilot's crotch armour is TOTALLY worth the extra twelve bucks.

 Lord Corellia wrote:
You can compare easily enough if it's just "I want a Land Speeder!" but so many people are going to jump all over you saying how the extra detail on the pilot's crotch armour is TOTALLY worth the extra twelve bucks.

This does make it hard to compare. I think most people would agree that models on a whole have gotten better over the past 15 years.... but I think most people who don't like the price rises in GW stuff feel the improvements over the years don't warrant the price rises.

Look at the codices over the past several editions we've gotten hard back, colour, all that jazz. But the price rises just seem to outstrip the actual increase in quality (and I don't mean rules quality as that's a whole different matter ).

Sure, the Space Mareenz now come with more gubbinz than they did 15 years ago. But a box of 10 Space Marines still makes 10 Space Marines even if they now come with a new hat, and these days you need to buy more of them to make up your army as well.

It's the difference between collectors and players.

Hardcore superfan collectors will buy anything new because it's new. Kits having better detail or more parts is a bonus, but some people probably would buy boxes of RB-01 original beaky Space Marines if they were re-issued. At the new price of £60.

However if you are a player you want to play the game. The extra detail isn't necessarily any use, in fact it can make it harder to build and paint the model, and you certainly don't need the extra expense.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I don't get these prices, you're not comparing the same models or books in most cases. The codexes priced at £15 were the 2nd edition ones and vastly superior to anything since. The slimmed down ones for 3rd edition were £8, and those are closer to what is on sale today in content.

Such cherry picking. Marines weren't £20 in 1997 unless you're relying on metal prices, regular multipart Space marines were only 10 for £10 when first released for 3rd edition. Almost unchanged they are now £25. Catachans were 20 for £10 and are now 10 for £18.

Multipart plastic marines weren't first released in 3rd edition. Way back in first edition there was a 30 pack of plastic beaky marines for I think £15? Was fantastic value compared to £28 for five devastators today. Now to be fair the quality wasn't as good, but they were good enough to play with and actually quite flexible for posing. I had loads of fun making those up in different poses, and it was a great way to field a decent SM force.

The beakies were £10 for a box of 30 including some missile launchers, power fists, pistol hands, and spare parts like ammo boxes, knives and pistols to customise individual figures.

The Bank of England has a good inflation calculator on its website, if you are looking for illustrative data.

I am a collector, but my price elasticity has been surpassed a while. Now i am looking for a lot of proxies, and buy second hand, although the idea of plastic 30k marines may open my wallet again

 TPO wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I don't get these prices, you're not comparing the same models or books in most cases. The codexes priced at £15 were the 2nd edition ones and vastly superior to anything since. The slimmed down ones for 3rd edition were £8, and those are closer to what is on sale today in content.

Such cherry picking. Marines weren't £20 in 1997 unless you're relying on metal prices, regular multipart Space marines were only 10 for £10 when first released for 3rd edition. Almost unchanged they are now £25. Catachans were 20 for £10 and are now 10 for £18.

Multipart plastic marines weren't first released in 3rd edition. Way back in first edition there was a 30 pack of plastic beaky marines for I think £15? Was fantastic value compared to £28 for five devastators today. Now to be fair the quality wasn't as good, but they were good enough to play with and actually quite flexible for posing. I had loads of fun making those up in different poses, and it was a great way to field a decent SM force.

I know multipart marines weren't completely original in 3rd, I preferred the RT figures to the monopose of 2nd and thought it a backwards step. What I meant was that the current standard multiparts were released in 3rd, the RT figures aren't really comparable products being very different. Whereas the marine box has barely changed since 3rd, only the price.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

I know multipart marines weren't completely original in 3rd, I preferred the RT figures to the monopose of 2nd and thought it a backwards step. What I meant was that the current standard multiparts were released in 3rd, the RT figures aren't really comparable products being very different. Whereas the marine box has barely changed since 3rd, only the price.

That's fair enough, but I think the original 30 pack of marines is very relevant to the broader discussion of price inflation.

£10 in 1989 is worth £22 now (using the BoE inflation calculator). A modern SM tactical squad is £25 but only comes with ten figures vs thirty you got back then. So the modern price is over three times the old price, even allowing for inflation. Ok, the old figures weren't as detailed, but they were great for gaming and frankly a lot of the difference is due to improvements in technology rather than improvements in quality of the product.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There is an apocryphal story that accountancy lecturers tell about an electrical equipment shop where the owner calls in an accountant to review the business and recommend changes for greater profitability.

The accountant recommends dropping cable ties, as they make no profit and cost a fair bit to keep in stock (ordering, inventory management and so on). So this is done and gradually over the next six months the shop's customers gradually drop away.

Eventually the owner asks a former customer why he doesn't come and get his stuff there any more, and the guy says he used to be able to get all the transformers, sockets, plugs, junction boxes and cables he needed for any job, plus the cable ties, and now he can't get the cable ties any more so he goes somewhere else where he can everything.

For the DIY market it's screws and for baby products it's branded nappies Whether the original story is true or not, it's an absolute certainty that there are businesses planning their range on that basis.

TBH though, I'm not totally convinced how true it would be for bitz, more likely it's true for certain common bits or bits with high utility (like special weapons or wings) which is why GW did bring back a limited range. Certainly I know I've made decisions on whether I'll buy a unit based on how difficult it would be to equip it as I want.

 TPO wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

I know multipart marines weren't completely original in 3rd, I preferred the RT figures to the monopose of 2nd and thought it a backwards step. What I meant was that the current standard multiparts were released in 3rd, the RT figures aren't really comparable products being very different. Whereas the marine box has barely changed since 3rd, only the price.

That's fair enough, but I think the original 30 pack of marines is very relevant to the broader discussion of price inflation.

£10 in 1989 is worth £22 now (using the BoE inflation calculator). A modern SM tactical squad is £25 but only comes with ten figures vs thirty you got back then. So the modern price is over three times the old price, even allowing for inflation. Ok, the old figures weren't as detailed, but they were great for gaming and frankly a lot of the difference is due to improvements in technology rather than improvements in quality of the product.

Don't the design rights run out on those old RT marines soon and we can start cranking out masses of new castings? :-P

 Baragash wrote:
TBH though, I'm not totally convinced how true it would be for bitz, more likely it's true for certain common bits or bits with high utility (like special weapons or wings) which is why GW did bring back a limited range. Certainly I know I've made decisions on whether I'll buy a unit based on how difficult it would be to equip it as I want.

It'd totally kill off the 3rd party bits sellers (those that split boxes and those that make compatible bits), but in their world it also stops people buying multiple kits (want a Dev squad with 4 lascanons? Why by 1 box + 3 canons, when you can buy 4 boxes!)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The beakies were £10 for a box of 30 including some missile launchers, power fists, pistol hands, and spare parts like ammo boxes, knives and pistols to customise individual figures.

Shark Missile Launchers... Rhinos 3 to a box. Aspect Warriors, 5 to a blister.. for $7

 Smacks wrote:

Are we also comparing metal with plastic here?

One of the events that really soured my feelings towards GW, was when they started charging metal prices for plastic. For the longest time I wanted them to switch over to plastic to make the hobby more affordable (I actually used to believe their BS about fluctuating tin prices). But when they finally did start making the transition, the price of plastic kits suddenly shot up to be the same price as the old metal kits, and then exceeded it. Brazenly refusing to pass any of their savings onto customers, is when I stopped seeing them as a friendly grass-roots hobby company, and started to see them as the greedy soulless corporate gits that I see them as today.

Agreed.

There was a time when they said that plastic kits would be cheaper than metal and passed that on to the player. armies got bigger because it was more affordable and easier to build. But prices went up and some years ago they claimed that customers were now prepared to pay for plastic the same as metal. And that sealed the end of plastics being economical for mass army building.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 keezus wrote:
@John Wirral: Can you check a few items and add to the original post?

I believe the following items are EXACTLY THE SAME as back in 1997 (finecast aside). Lord Azrael (already posted) is a good example.

1. Eldrad, Phoenix Lords
2. Space Marine Bike

Not sure if Rhino MKII was released by 1997. It might not have been. Khorne Berserkers, Catachans are also very old kits that have not seen an update.

The SM Bike has had a teeny tiny update to make the Rider's torso and legs and ball and socket joint like the rest of the SM line. Other than that it's exactly the same kit.

The current Rhino was released in.... I want to say 2001-2002. Berserkers and Catachans were released in 1999.

I'm struggling to think of things that haven't been updated since then. Some of the Space Wolf characters I know go back that far (Ragnar, Ulric and the PA Njal). There might be more stuff in WHFB that goes back that far but still not a lot, the Wolves that Goblins ride on go back to 1992, but the riders might be newer. The Goblin Wolf Chariot I think goes back to the mid 90's but I could be wrong.

Ork buggy - I bought this kit in the late 90s for £10. It's now £18.50 for the exact same plastic kit:
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Ork-Warbuggy

According to figures I could find for cumulative UK inflation since 1997 it seems to be about 27% - which would mean the kit has gone up by around 45% in real terms.

That's pretty scandalous in my view.

 Wafflecakes wrote:
Ork buggy - I bought this kit in the late 90s for £10. It's now £18.50 for the exact same plastic kit:
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Ork-Warbuggy

According to figures I could find for cumulative UK inflation since 1997 it seems to be about 27% - which would mean the kit has gone up by around 45% in real terms.

That's pretty scandalous in my view.

You might be surprised. It's not that far apart. I put GBP10 into the Inflation Calculator in the Bank of England site:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/resources/inflationtools/calculator/flash/default.aspx

GBP10 in 1997 = GBP16.25 in 2014. Average rate according to Bank of England is 2.8% between 1997 and 2014

Doing the math, GW's average rate of inflation 1997-2015 was 3.47% per annum based on 10 -> 18.50, by the way (versus CP 2.80% according to bank of England). With the caveat that this is terrible math, because now, what GW tends to do is heap all of its price increases onto its new products, and leave its old products priced the same. And that puzzle is pretty hard to figure out.

I mean, it's nice to say, "raise all the prices of stuff the same and spread out the love", but I don't think anyone wants to pay the same price for a box of space marine scouts as they do for tempestus scions (which are a way better model).

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
I am a collector, but my price elasticity has been surpassed a while. Now i am looking for a lot of proxies, and buy second hand, although the idea of plastic 30k marines may open my wallet again

I'm both a painter and a player and it has been surpassed around the time Finecast and 6th ed hit. The price of the rules compared to the new price of the models (which is, for me, expensive enough at the time but still tolerable) did it for me.

 Wafflecakes wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 keezus wrote:
@John Wirral: Can you check a few items and add to the original post?

I believe the following items are EXACTLY THE SAME as back in 1997 (finecast aside). Lord Azrael (already posted) is a good example.

1. Eldrad, Phoenix Lords
2. Space Marine Bike

Not sure if Rhino MKII was released by 1997. It might not have been. Khorne Berserkers, Catachans are also very old kits that have not seen an update.

The SM Bike has had a teeny tiny update to make the Rider's torso and legs and ball and socket joint like the rest of the SM line. Other than that it's exactly the same kit.

The current Rhino was released in.... I want to say 2001-2002. Berserkers and Catachans were released in 1999.

I'm struggling to think of things that haven't been updated since then. Some of the Space Wolf characters I know go back that far (Ragnar, Ulric and the PA Njal). There might be more stuff in WHFB that goes back that far but still not a lot, the Wolves that Goblins ride on go back to 1992, but the riders might be newer. The Goblin Wolf Chariot I think goes back to the mid 90's but I could be wrong.

Ork buggy - I bought this kit in the late 90s for £10. It's now £18.50 for the exact same plastic kit:
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Ork-Warbuggy

According to figures I could find for cumulative UK inflation since 1997 it seems to be about 27% - which would mean the kit has gone up by around 45% in real terms.

That's pretty scandalous in my view.

Not sure where you got the inflation estimate from, it seems more like 60-70% inflation since 1997, compared to GW's 85%.

Though with that kit.... it actually feels like something that should have gone down in value The Warbuggy no longer matches the aesthetic of the rest of the Ork force, it feels like something you should be grabbing out of a bargain bin rather than paying a premium to get.

Prices have gone up a huge amount....

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Stormcast-Eternals-Lord-Castellant

heartserenade wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
I am a collector, but my price elasticity has been surpassed a while. Now i am looking for a lot of proxies, and buy second hand, although the idea of plastic 30k marines may open my wallet again

I'm both a painter and a player and it has been surpassed around the time Finecast and 6th ed hit. The price of the rules compared to the new price of the models (which is, for me, expensive enough at the time but still tolerable) did it for me.

Finecast drastically reduced my GW spending, and not particularly because I hated it as much as a lot of other people (though I certainly didn't love it). Ironically, it's because finecast takes a LOT longer to prep, so I was painting WAY, WAY fewer models.

Plus, during that transitionary period, I didn't really love a lot of the plastic kits that much either. It was around the time of the last space hulk (3e) that my interest in GW plastics really perked up.

Hückleberry wrote:Prices have gone up a huge amount....

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Stormcast-Eternals-Lord-Castellant

Yeah, but you could say they went down a huge amount too...

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Sylvaneth-Dryads

Some models are just 16x more expensive than other models. With GW, any model you're only going to own 1 of is going to be expensive, any that you'll own several of is going to be cheaper, and any you'll own a tons of will be a lot cheaper -- all in relative terms of course.

By the way, I have many unpainted $10 character models still from 1988 that are cast in lead or white metal. To put the models in comparison: if GW had come out with the Lord Castellant then, and offered it for $20 (that would be the inflation adjusted price of about $40 today), it would have been sold out instantly.

But best deal ever for GW models... the old beakie Mk 4 plastics box!!

 Talys wrote:
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Sylvaneth-Dryads

These went down... but I'd be hard pressed to say they went down by HUGE amount. They went from $2.91/model to $2.56/model (13% decrease per model, but there is an 17% increase in capital cost to get the benefit). Rather than say... selling 12 Dryads for $31, you are essentially buying 14 dryads at the old cost and getting two free.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
By the way, I have many unpainted $10 character models still from 1988 that are cast in lead or white metal. To put the models in comparison: if GW had come out with the Lord Castellant then, and offered it for $20 (that would be the inflation adjusted price of about $40 today), it would have been sold out instantly.

I suspect the Castellant wouldn't have been $20 back then. I'd hazard he'd be around the same price as the old 2nd Ed Hive Tyrant, Lictor, or the old metal Verminlord. Scale creep on the big beasties is a thing, and its easy to forget how small the monsters were back in the late 80's early 90's.

I think GW have realised their prices are a problem and are finding ways to make things a bit cheaper without doing obvious price cuts across the board. For example, battalion boxes are bundles in all but name.

The problem is once you look beyond the starters the prices ramp up agains quickly. AoS is a good value starter set with nearly 50 models for £75 and includes full rules and a fluff book, but then the add-on figure sets and books are suddenly hugely expensive.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The problem is once you look beyond the starters the prices ramp up agains quickly. AoS is a good value starter set with nearly 50 models for £75 and includes full rules and a fluff book, but then the add-on figure sets and books are suddenly hugely expensive.

Which seems counter to what was said about one of the reasons for the Old world being scrapped in favor of AoS: the high cost of entry into the game for new players. It seems as though they're setting the stage for the whole thing to start all over again. Except this time, it won't take 30 years to get there.

John Wirral wrote:
Just got a copy of the 1997 GW price guide - thought I would do a comparison of a few items - sorry if this exists already somewhere...

I started 40k in 1992, when I was 12... I couldn't afford much then, which made me think about people (including me) who find the prices today rather expensive.

(please ignore GW expecting you to have a bigger army etc - it's just an interesting comparison - personally I just enjoy making and painting the models).


Blood Claws (10 models)____________20_______23_______0.78%
Wolf Guard Terminators (5 models)_____25_______28_______0.63%
Blood Angel Dreadnought____________25_______28_______0.63%
Tactical Squad (10 models)___________20_______25_______1.25%
Azrael_____________________________7______12.3______3.18%
40k Box Set________________________50_______65_______1.47%
Codex Tyranids_____________________15_______25_______2.88%
Yarrick____________________________7________11_______2.54%
Codex Orks_________________________15_______30_______3.93%
Razorback__________________________20_______25_______1.25%
Basic Paint pot_____________________1.25_______2.55_____4.04%
Metallic Paint pot___________________1.75_______2.55_____2.11%
Spray Paint Undercoat________________5________10.4_____4.15%


I was really surprised by this - the prices have not really gone up at all, especially taking inflation into account.

The last column here is the annual price increase. I.e. average annual inflation.

As I said in the first post, sure - these models are metal, and GW expects you to have/want more models.

My observation is that the models that we have today are far far better quality (regardless of the material they are made from) than those of my youth, and yet the annual inflation on these products is really not too bad.

The models I picked were purely some I am interested in... no agenda there. I like space marines.

Sure - single figure clam packs are absolutely mad prices, books seem pricey and swapped too often...

For me as a (bad) painter, it seems like I'm not too badly treated.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
To an earlier poster:

1. Eldrad Ulthran 1997 £7----------- 2015 £12.50
2. Space Marine Bike 1997 £5----------- 2015 £8
3. Rhino 1997 £10----------- 2015 £22.50
4. Khorne Berserkers x10 1997 £10----------- 2015 £23 (the models today are multipart and far better)
5. Catachans x10 1997 £17----------- 2015 £18


Two interesting things from 1997...

6 plastic marines = £5 while 10 plastic marines = £10
1 marine bike = £5 while 3 marine bike = £20

Aye, though I suspect that the price increases in those two cases are that the squad boxes either included metal components (IIRC the whole upper bodies for the bikers) or an additional upgrade sprue. Though didn't the Space Marines comes in boxes of five? That's how the sprues were done, but I may be wrong, or are you talking about the metal tactical marines which were discontinued around the time that the plastic kit came out?

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Aye, though I suspect that the price increases in those two cases are that the squad boxes either included metal components (IIRC the whole upper bodies for the bikers) or an additional upgrade sprue. Though didn't the Space Marines comes in boxes of five? That's how the sprues were done, but I may be wrong, or are you talking about the metal tactical marines which were discontinued around the time that the plastic kit came out?

GW has often sold different sized packs of marines. Like a 3 man push-fit box, a 5 man combat squad, and a full 10 man tac. The price per marine goes down in the larger boxes. I don’t recall the specifics of the time, but it might just be that.

The bike box did include extra metal bits. Sarge with a power sword, and both a melta and plasma gunner torsos. So while you paid more for for the 3 bike box, you also got more.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Aye, though I suspect that the price increases in those two cases are that the squad boxes either included metal components (IIRC the whole upper bodies for the bikers) or an additional upgrade sprue. Though didn't the Space Marines comes in boxes of five? That's how the sprues were done, but I may be wrong, or are you talking about the metal tactical marines which were discontinued around the time that the plastic kit came out?

Good point on the bikers getting extras.

These were the boxes of 6:
http://www.teef.net/oddsandsods/woti.jpg

I can't find a picture of the 10 boxed guys.... I guess they were the same as the ones in the 3rd ed box set.

One of things that gets me sometimes is the prices on some of the 'moldy oldies'. I have still in a 2000 copyright blister, price code 'F' metal Commander Dante for $12.99. Note the figure was not new at that point; had already been out for a while.

Now 15 years later they want $19.25 for what amounts to a resin copy of that metal fig....

John Wirral wrote:



Two interesting things from 1997...

6 plastic marines = £5 while 10 plastic marines = £10
1 marine bike = £5 while 3 marine bike = £20

Not sure about the bikes but if I remember correctly the 6 marines box were all similar/the same bolter dudes while the 10 man box had at least sergeant bits and at least one special and one heavy weapon.

gota factor in inflation....

At the end of the day, people need to ask, "Beyond inflationary forces, am I willing to pay more for more sophisticated, more detailed and cleaner cast models?"

If you pick a non-character space marine released 2015 (say a devastator) to like plastic and metal space marines of the 1990s, or 2000's the difference is striking. I mean, it's not like you're paying for the same thing. Same thing with a character model: take a librarian from 1995, 2005, and 2015 -- they may be equivalent game pieces, but they are not equivalent product.

Games Workshop is essentially marketing their models to people who answer the question, "I'm willing to pay more for something that I perceive is better; please give me updated models like new devastators and new librarians!", whereas there are some people who answer, "I'm not going to spend that much time working with the model anyways. They're all going to look pretty similar anyways; a librarian is a librarian is a librarian. Please just give me cheaper gaming pieces."

I do not know *anyone* who has bought the new librarian, one of the old finecast librarians, and spent 10+ hours painting one (much less 20, 30, or more hours) who would say, "I'd rather have the old one cheap". On the other hand, I know plenty of people who play with "tabletop" standard models who could really care less what the models were made of and would happily buy an old Finecast for cheap.

Of course a lot of people aren't so black-and-white. They're excited by better models, but they don't want to pay more, or at least not a LOT more.

It is simple i am not prepared to pay more for a product that has not changed or hasn't improved over the years, the tactical plastic marine squad box hasn't changed for years, it should get cheaper not more expensive, the molds have been payed of bulk etcetera.

What really grinds me is the absurd prices for single character these days, i am willing to pay 25$ for a limited run kingdom of the death miniature but not for a space marine mono pose figure, before you at least got several options to gear out your characters and now even that is gone.

 Talys wrote:
At the end of the day, people need to ask, "Beyond inflationary forces, am I willing to pay more for more sophisticated, more detailed and cleaner cast models?"

Absolutely. Which is why I rarely buy GW and instead prefer actual boutique companies, not just boutique prices

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Talys wrote:
At the end of the day, people need to ask, "Beyond inflationary forces, am I willing to pay more for more sophisticated, more detailed and cleaner cast models?"

Absolutely. Which is why I rarely buy GW and instead prefer actual boutique companies, not just boutique prices

i own a ton of boutique minis, and they are not any more detailed than GW's minis...
the only noticable difference, is that they are usually limited edition, and proper resin...

GW has pushed the limits with their plastic casting with each new generation of their plastics...
i can set the new Tech-Priest Dominus next to any model on the market, and they are both of equal quality...
the only difference is that the Dominus is not limited edition, and is plastic, both things that i would say are an advantage of the Dominus...


@Jehan-reznor: if you think that the SM Tactical Squad has not changed or improved over the years, i would have to ask if you have even looked at the latest box, which came out only two years ago...
the sculpts are miles ahead of the previous edition...
there are also more weapon options than ever before, as well as tweaked helmets, torsos, legs, and backpacks...
just the fact that we finally have some straight leg options, and striding legs, versus the old squatting legs would have been enough for me...
even two years later, i still get excited by the new look...
it is so much better than the previous box...

then there is the new Blood Angel Tacticals and Terminators, the new Assault Squad, new Devastators, and new Dark Angels Terminators, all of which are less than two years old (so are still paying themselves off) and a huge improvement on anything we have had before for Marines...
of course, not liking the price is fine, but saying nothing has changed is just not true...
not caring for them is a different matter entirely...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Talys wrote:
At the end of the day, people need to ask, "Beyond inflationary forces, am I willing to pay more for more sophisticated, more detailed and cleaner cast models?"

Absolutely. Which is why I rarely buy GW and instead prefer actual boutique companies, not just boutique prices

i own a ton of boutique minis, and they are not any more detailed than GW's minis...
the only noticable difference, is that they are usually limited edition, and proper resin...

GWs plastics yes.
But Plastics simply can't match resin or metal imo.

I've never seen a GW model with sculpted toenails, and rarely even with individual fingers instead of all of them together around a weapon or in a fist (or with just one pointing).

@jonolikespie - Sorry, I disagree about metal. GW plastics are way, way better than metal. By separating a single model into many pieces, you have the ability to layer details that are otherwise impossible with a single piece (or a small number of pieces).

Regarding fingers, Dark Elf Sorceress and Turmiel from Dark Vengeance is an obvious example of fingers not together:


Most GW models are holding weapons or items in both hands (or 2-handed items), which is why you don't see it a lot. I think the Frodo/Bilbo models have toenails. But I mean, this isn't exactly something you're going to find desirable in any of the races in AoS/GW armies Shoeless Space Wolf for the win.

If you're into things that are bigger than infantry, plastics are just a ton easier to work with. not to mention, they don't fall apart.

The problem with resin is consistency. If you buy a model when the mold is new, it's awesome. If you get a model made near the end of the mold's life, it sucks. I just had to toss 30 resin bases from SWM because the molds were at EOL, but they shipped the bases anyhow - the result was a (severely) pitted surface. Plus, plastic survives drops a lot better than resin. But I will agree: resin offers more resolution than plastic. Just not enough to make me feel that it's more desirable a material to work with, considering these other factors.

@Jah-Joshua
"not caring for them is a different matter entirely... "
Ah, doing your passive aggressive thing again.

It is because i care, i forgot about the new tactical squad box, so i concede that point, still think it is too expensive though.
What i am trying to say is that as technology improves in most manufacturing area's the price decreases per unit, prices for making molds have dropped.
Plastic extruding technology has improved, that is why companies like bolt action, Dreamforge games and wargames factory can offer their kits for reasonable prices.
Except GW off course.

@Talys

Sorry, depending on the technology used, Resin and metal still give better detail than plastic, plastic has become better but there are still limitations.

 Talys wrote:
@jonolikespie - Sorry, I disagree about metal. GW plastics are way, way better than metal. By separating a single model into many pieces, you have the ability to layer details that are otherwise impossible with a single piece (or a small number of pieces).

Regarding fingers, Dark Elf Sorceress and Turmiel from Dark Vengeance is an obvious example of fingers not together:
*snip*

Both good examples that I didn't think about, I'll concede the point about the fingers but separating models into a lot of pieces is only really a good thing for people who value being able to make the same model into 3,265 different combinations of arms, legs and weapons. You don't need to cut them down to get the same and better detail on metal or resin. perhaps a better example would be knifes on Infinity models, those things are thin as hell, just like a knife should be. A space marine knife is really more of a pointy club when you look at it because it's plastic so there is a minimum thickness.

 Talys wrote:
If you're into things that are bigger than infantry, plastics are just a ton easier to work with. not to mention, they don't fall apart.

I'd say resin is best for monsters, plastic is the obvious choice for vehicles and inorganic things though. But on that subject why are GW charging more for their blocky tanks with huge, unrealistic details like bolts and armour plates and plastic tracks than other companies are for larger, more finely detailed vehicles with rubber tracks, working parts and brass etch? (solid metal cylinder gun barrels FTW)
As for the monsters, I just can't stand how obvious some of the joints are.

 Talys wrote:
The problem with resin is consistency. If you buy a model when the mold is new, it's awesome. If you get a model made near the end of the mold's life, it sucks. I just had to toss 30 resin bases from SWM because the molds were at EOL, but they shipped the bases anyhow - the result was a (severely) pitted surface. Plus, plastic survives drops a lot better than resin. But I will agree: resin offers more resolution than plastic. Just not enough to make me feel that it's more desirable a material to work with, considering these other factors.

I've found this to be a bigger problem with old Lord of the Rings plastics and Finecast more than anything else ever tbh. I picked up some of those wonderful old LotR models and you could really tell they haven't replaced the moulds recently, then there was finecast with bits of the mould coming in the packaging. Other companies I haven't had to deal with failing moulds before and I absolutely consider the higher resolution worth it.

John Wirral wrote:

5. Catachans x10 1997 £17----------- 2015 £18

Weren't they 20 to a box in 1997?

Herzlos wrote:

John Wirral wrote:

5. Catachans x10 1997 £17----------- 2015 £18

Weren't they 20 to a box in 1997?

Yes, and when they were originally released they were £12 IIRC. Hmn, or was it £15? So rather the 2015 price is £36.

I certainly remember around that time plastics mini's for about 50p/each was the norm.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
@Jah-Joshua
"not caring for them is a different matter entirely... "
Ah, doing your passive aggressive thing again.

It is because i care, i forgot about the new tactical squad box, so i concede that point, still think it is too expensive though.
What i am trying to say is that as technology improves in most manufacturing area's the price decreases per unit, prices for making molds have dropped.
Plastic extruding technology has improved, that is why companies like bolt action, Dreamforge games and wargames factory can offer their kits for reasonable prices.
Except GW off course.

@Talys

Sorry, depending on the technology used, Resin and metal still give better detail than plastic, plastic has become better but there are still limitations.

how is that passive aggressive???
i was simply being open to the possibility that GW prices had put you off so much, that you may have stopped following the more recent Space Marine releases...
there is no need to read my words as some kind of veiled jab, as that is not my style...

now that you clarified, i understand where you are coming from better, so thanks for clearing that up...
i had forgotten about your post from a few days ago, saying you still buy Marines second-hand...
it does suck that GW carries on with the price rises, and makes some of the community feel screwed over...
that can't be good for business...

there are some who feel that the work that goes into the new kits still make then worth buying...
i personally really like the improvements that i see in newer models like the plastic clam-pack characters...
if i put the latest SM Captain mini next to the previous SM Commander (who is both cheaper, and has more options), the difference is like night and day...
the new Captain has finer detail, and a cloak that wraps around his body...
for some, that look may not matter as much, and the higher price and lack of options may put them off...
totally understandable...
i like both of them, one for the extra options, and the other for the cooler look...
i don't mind the fact that the new Captain costs more, since i will only ever have one...
the Commander, on the other hand, i can have a few of for all of those useful bits...

i wouldn't complain if GW lowered their prices to match Dreamforge...
it's not going to happen, so i am just happy that GW has improved all of the Space Marine kits over the last two years, even if the prices did go up...
for me, the improvements are worth the increase in price...
that is not to say that i think price increases are great or anything, but if i feel like i am getting a good product, i am not going to sweat it too much...

as for resin and metal giving better detail than plastic, i think that all three have their place...
i think it depends on what company is producing the models, because i have seen lumps of rubbish in all three materials, and i am looking at gorgeous examples of all three on my painting table right now...
for example: the GW Tech-Priest in plastic, the Fatal Personalities Toxic Girl in resin, and an Infinity Yu-Jing Spec-Ops in metal...
they are all three equally finely detailed, and with paint on them it would be impossible for someone who didn't know what material they were cast in to tell the difference...

if someone has a personal preference, that's cool...
there are plenty of people who hate metal with a passion...
others are afraid of resin, thinking it is too delicate, fiddly, or toxic...
still others say that plastic is too cheap and toylike...
i personally like working with all three when done well, and none of them when done poorly, but plastic has definitely come to a point where it rivals resin and metal for miniatures, as far as i am concerned...

cheers
jah

 Wyrmalla wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

John Wirral wrote:

5. Catachans x10 1997 £17----------- 2015 £18

Weren't they 20 to a box in 1997?

Yes, and when they were originally released they were £12 IIRC. Hmn, or was it £15? So rather the 2015 price is £36.

They were orinally released in 1999 to go with the 3rd ed guard codex and were £10 for 20 of them.

 Talys wrote:
@jonolikespie - Sorry, I disagree about metal. GW plastics are way, way better than metal. By separating a single model into many pieces, you have the ability to layer details that are otherwise impossible with a single piece (or a small number of pieces).

Here are two GW Space Marine heroes and two squads:
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Space-Marine-Captain (six parts if you don't count the base and extra head)
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Space-Marine-Librarian (eight parts)
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Space-Marine-Tactical-Squad-2015 (Tactical Squad)
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Sternguard-Veteran-Squad (Sternguard)


And here are some of my favourite old Confrontation metal miniatures (relatively small number of parts) for comparison (all found here: http://rackhamminiatures.yolasite.com/), not sure about the exact number of parts but the Marine size comparable miniatures tend to have fewer than the usual nine or so parts (legs, torso x2, backpack, arm x2, shoulder padx2, head, weapon of not attacked to the hands):


http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Cadwallon/CaptainKeliandurak.jpg.html (I think the arms/hammer, shield and head are separate parts)
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Elfs%20-%20Cynwall/Equanime.jpg.html (one piece?)
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Griffins%20of%20Akkylannie/EscheliustheArdent.jpg.html (head and weapon arms?)
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Alchemists%20of%20Dirz/Sethin.jpg.html (two, the sword plus arms is extra)
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Griffins%20of%20Akkylannie/GarelltheRedeemer.jpg.html (I think three, head, arms/weapon, rest)
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Griffins%20of%20Akkylannie/GriffinFuseliers2.jpg.html (each one piece)
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Griffins%20of%20Akkylannie/MagistrateoftheGriffin.jpg.html (two, the sword on his back is extra)
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Griffins%20of%20Akkylannie/GriffinConscriptsBlister.jpg.html
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Griffins%20of%20Akkylannie/GriffinExorcist.jpg.html (two parts the cross in front is extra)
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Griffins%20of%20Akkylannie/PraetorianGuard.jpg.html (one to three parts, depending on the miniature; I think second from the left and right is one part only)
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Lions%20of%20Alahan/MountedStandard-Bearer.jpg.html (horse x2, rider, banner, sword, shield)
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Lions%20of%20Alahan/SardarTillius.jpg.html (torso, arm x2, the collar, chimera familiar, I think)
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Hybrid%20and%20Nemesis/KnightoftheLodgeofHodNemesis.jpg.html (arms probably separate, at least)
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Griffins%20of%20Akkylannie/PraetorianGuard.jpg.html (again non excessive multi part)
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Hybrid%20and%20Nemesis/TheTemplarsofHod.jpg.html
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Undead%20of%20Acheron/BlackPaladins.jpg.html
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Undead%20of%20Acheron/AsuradeSarlath.jpg.html
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Undead%20of%20Acheron/CerberusofAchron.jpg.html
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Undead%20of%20Acheron/EjhindeVanth-1_zps1cc2da37.jpg.html
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Undead%20of%20Acheron/KantheScourge.jpg.html
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Undead%20of%20Acheron/ScavengersofAcheron.jpg.html
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Undead%20of%20Acheron/ZombieWarriors.jpg.html (compare these to GW skeletons/zombies)
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Dwarfs%20-%20Mid-Nor/DemonTower.jpg.html (big and many parts but cool)
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Dwarfs%20-%20Mid-Nor/Mid-NorClan.jpg.html
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Devourers%20of%20Vile-Tis/NemetistheSacrilegeous.jpg.html
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Devourers%20of%20Vile-Tis/WarriorsofBlood1.jpg.html (three each)
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Kelt%20-%20Drunes/TheHornedRaiders.jpg.html
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Goblins%20of%20No-Dan-Kar/GoblinAshigars.jpg.html
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Goblins%20of%20No-Dan-Kar/GoblinBshi.jpg.html
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Goblins%20of%20No-Dan-Kar/Goblinspearmen2.jpg.html
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Goblins%20of%20No-Dan-Kar/NinjaGoblins1.jpg.html
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Goblins%20of%20No-Dan-Kar/NinjaGoblins2.jpg.html
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Orcs/SonOfThunder.jpg.html
http://s914.photobucket.com/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/Orcs/WarriorsofStone.jpg.html


If one disregards aesthetic choices then (in my opinion) a good chunk of these (a decade old?) Rackham miniatures were able to deliver better results (less toy like and more sculptural) with a few pieces due to not having to worry too much about undercuts and draft angles for each bit.

If I remember correctly the human sized hero miniatures were about 10-12€ or so and later the 10 man regiments (like the zombie box) were 30€ (I think, some could have been 25€), with the elite troops (two to four in a blister) about 14€ to 18€, depending on size/number.

Confrontation models were a bit expensive, but in terms of quality they're the best fantasy models I've ever seen.

Pity the company decided to switch to pre-painted plastics

@Mario - I'm certainly not saying there aren't nice metal minis. Infinity has some *awesome* metal minis.

However, that doesn't change the fact that some things just aren't possible in that medium. For example, you could never create models like these out of metal without casting into more pieces than anyone would want to work with in that medium:



A model like this becomes impractical for gaming, even if you could make it, because it would fall over:



And all large models are horrible to work with in metal (just ask anyone who has built a large metal dragon), and large models like these are just impossible:




Plastic and resin multipart offers the ability to create open spaces inside the model, large hollow areas. Plastic offers the ability to make very fine pieces (like on Dominus) not possible in resin, because in resin, such fine parts are too fragile to be practical. Plastic and resin models are also a lot easier to kitbash. Ever tried cutting out a metal head to put it onto another metal model? Yuck.

Talys your point was By separating a single model into many pieces, you have the ability to layer details that are otherwise impossible with a single piece (or a small number of pieces). Exactly that layering of details is possible with metal models. Models that are really big or have many geometric surfaces are easier to make in plastic. Why would I argue against that? The tech priest would probably be possible in metal or resin with fewer parts and better details because of undercuts thus also making assembly easier.

@Mario: i have to disagree on you Tech-Priest comment...
having the model sitting in front of me, the part cut and detail is perfect...
it is the first plastic mini i have ever held, where is seems like there is not a single flaw in the design...
the only flaw i could see an objective person calling out is the price...
it really is that well done...
had it been done as a single part body from Forge World, with separate arms and Mechandrites, it would work fine (until the molds deteriorate), but then it would not be as easy to buy, nor be as durable...
in metal, he would be a nightmare to assemble and keep together without pins, but i pin everything anyway, so i would be fine with that...
the real issue is that Gw doesn't use metal anymore, so the whole point is moot...
i would not want this model in Finecast at any price, so i am stoked that he is plastic!!!

until you have the new plastics in hand, it is not really possible to see the real ingenuity behind the design process...
the new Datasmith, Tech-Priest, Terminator Librarian, Harliquin Solitaire, and others all have distinct design advantages in plastic that metal don't, mainly how thin the cloaks can be, how much negative space there is, how dynamic they are, how easily they go together without pins, and how durable they are...

with metal models, cloaks and tabards usually have very thick bottom edges, which looks horrible, and a lack of negative spaces between legs where a loincloth would cover front and back...
metal models are notorious for small joins not holding without pinning, and don't take ride in a figure case very well...
how many times have you seen someone open their figure case, only to be bummed about an arm having fallen off???
how well would that Solitaire stay attached to the stone he is leaping over, and how thick would his coat tails be if he was metal???
if he was resin, he would be a Forge World model, and again, not as easily available to purchase...

i cannot stress enough, everyone seems to have their material of choice, and that is cool...
i personally like all three materials (HIPS, metal, resin) equally, but for different types of figures...
the biggest problem is that with GW's prices are so high, that many people are not buying the plastic clam-packs, and so don't have the chance to really appreciate the ingenious design work going into these new plastic characters...
it really does feel like HIPS plastic wargaming minis have gone through an amazing revolution in the last five years!!!

cheers
jah

Well, Jah put it better than I could have, so I'll just leave it at that. Like he said, you really have to handle the new plastic character models to appreciate how intricate the assemblies are, and how amazingly durable they are considering how fragile they look.

I know they are awfully expensive, but it's really a treat for me to model and paint them.

 Talys wrote:
Well, Jah put it better than I could have, so I'll just leave it at that. Like he said, you really have to handle the new plastic character models to appreciate how intricate the assemblies are, and how amazingly durable they are considering how fragile they look.

I know they are awfully expensive, but it's really a treat for me to model and paint them.

Considering the price, I expect something good for the money!

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Well, Jah put it better than I could have, so I'll just leave it at that. Like he said, you really have to handle the new plastic character models to appreciate how intricate the assemblies are, and how amazingly durable they are considering how fragile they look.

I know they are awfully expensive, but it's really a treat for me to model and paint them.

Considering the price, I expect something good for the money!

that's the point...
some of us feel that what we are getting for our money is not only good, but amazing...
GW plastic new releases in the last couple of years are the best they have ever been...
having collected the whole history of their plastic releases as they came out over the last 30 years, there is no way i would still be buying at the current prices if the models didn't get better with each generation of sculpts...

cheers
jah

Personally, I find them a bit busy.

Like the new CEO said, the miniatures are premium priced for their premium quality. Doesn't apply to all of them ofcourse, but pretty much anything in the newer ranges.

Some people argue that Infinity or Privateer Press have better models. I simply don't find this true, on average, and I do own some of each.

Infact, as someone who uses his eyes and sense of visual composition to earn his living, I find it rather unfathomable.

 Runic wrote:


Infact, as someone who uses his eyes and sense of visual composition to earn his living, I find it rather unfathomable.

Wot that you prefer GW and others don't? yeah, its amazing. mind blown.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Wot that you prefer GW and others don't? yeah, its amazing. mind blown.

You should have your mind blown by the fact that even things related to visual composition and quality can be viewed objectively. In the case of miniatures the quality of the sculpt, sharpness of details and attention to them, and the visual composition of the miniature as a whole.

All companies have poor looking miniatures, naturally. Usually the very old ones. However, some competitors still put out stuff that looks mediocre at best when it comes to quality, same kind of loss hasn't been seen from GW. I honestly am sometimes surprised when a new PP model comes out, and it looks like it could've come out during MK1.

 Runic wrote:
All companies have poor looking miniatures, naturally. Usually the very old ones. However, some competitors still put out stuff that looks mediocre at best when it comes to quality, same kind of loss hasn't been seen from GW. I honestly am sometimes surprised when a new PP model comes out, and it looks like it could've come out during MK1.

I am sometimes blown away by how badly sonme of the new PP plastic releases are tooled. While I am all for moving from metal, resin, and restic, some of their HIPS looks like 2005 GW, where two halves of one cast are slightly misaligned, and where plastic that should be perfect smooth is not. Where it's reasonably fixable, I'll usually keep the model, but sometimes it's just too much work for a 20$+ new model.

Malifaux usually has it right in terms of tooling, but unfortunately, I'm not into most of their models. They are certainly not cheap either, and nobody complains that plastic Viktorias are more expensive than metal ones were (by a long shot).

Mario wrote:
Talys your point was By separating a single model into many pieces, you have the ability to layer details that are otherwise impossible with a single piece (or a small number of pieces). Exactly that layering of details is possible with metal models. Models that are really big or have many geometric surfaces are easier to make in plastic. Why would I argue against that? The tech priest would probably be possible in metal or resin with fewer parts and better details because of undercuts thus also making assembly easier.

The advantage of injection polystyrene moulding is that you can very cheaply make large numbers of complicated kits.

It might seem like belabouring the point but we now live in a world in which you can pay £22 for a single GW 28mm infantry model with a dozen parts, or for a 1/100 scale Gundam model with 100+ parts moulded in five colours, polycap joints for poseability, moving weapon units, swappable parts and a set of stickers.

People need to be honest and understand that the reason why GW models are so expensive is because they sell to people who are happy to pay so much money for GW models.

Exactly. If I can get a Riptide sized Gundam for less than a single pose 28mm plastic, something is wrong. Or a Pigapult on a 50mm base.

 Talys wrote:
They are certainly not cheap either, and nobody complains that plastic Viktorias are more expensive than metal ones were (by a long shot).

I think a lot of people are starting to suffer sticker shock from Malifaux too, but they are expensive for all the reasons GW fans try to justify (low production runs), and the quality of sculpt is immense, at the cost of mindblowing complexity. I mean, Burt Jebson is the last one I remember doing, and his head was I think 4 pieces, but the result is that there isn't a single undercut on it, and once it's gone together there are no obvious gaps. Fiddly, expensive (though not compared directly to GW) and fragile, yes, but you have to admit that they fantastically well made,

Plus, since my Malifaux crew has maybe 8 mini's in it, I feel like I get more for my money with a £22* Malifaux plastic mini than a £22 plastic Space Marine


*I paid £24 for the Gencon exclusive War Wabbit (below, on a 50mm base). Very few individual mini's cost that much, but they tend to be on 50mm bases, be warmachines, monsters or mounted.

@kilkrazy -

At the suggestion of one of the Dakka members, I actually gave Gundam models a good look. I went to a specialty shop that had tons (100+) Gundam kits, including about 10 perfect grade and 20 different master grade (and rows and rows of cheaper ones).

Really, only the 1/100 and 1/60 are things built for modelers. The 1/144 are just toys, with not even a fraction of the quality and detail.

What you get out of a perfect grade (and some master 1/100) model is a giant robot (it's really huge) with a cool skeleton - armor plating system. Unfortunately, most of the details are in the uder-the-hood pieces of the skeleton (which isn't that nice to display) and most of the armor plates are very large, flat or rounded plates. This gives you a great canvas on which to paint, if that's your thing.

The master grade 1/100 models are a better size for me, and have nearly as much detail but are pretty much the same IDE (fewer parts).

There is no difference of quality in the plastic sprues between current GW and current Bandai models at the top end. What I mean is, if you pop open a land raider crusader kit, the part tooled as the original LR has very uneven plastic that isn't smooth, has a lot of flash, and the detail isn't very sharp. In comparison, the Crusader sprue has perfectly tooled and casted plastic, much like a current generation vehicle (say a voidraven). The Gundam models are like that.

Where there is a dramatic difference in model is that GW models generally feature a TON of etched relief on them. Ribbed hoses, ribbed plates, raised insignia, pipes, gears, and so on. Even relatively clean models like Eldar are a lot busier than Gundam models.

This is not a technological difference, as the internals of Gunfam robots are also quite busy with gears and pistons and such, but when assembled, you don't see any of that. My personal preference is ornate, detailed models with lots of features to paint in, rather than open spaces that force me to do freehand. A lot of that may just be that freehand takes me forever, and I'm not very good at it. I also like the ornate look.

The Gundam models are ''highly posable" -- sort of. They're like action figures, but only a small number of poses actually look great. Most of the poses look unintended by the sculptor, and would certainly photograph badly.

Finally, at least in the store I was at, there were no Gundam models other than the robots. As much as I enjoy the vehicles, I ALSO like the infantry and smaller vehicles (like bikes), and the ability to interchange and mix up the kits. It also gives you great diorama and display potential, as well as, obviously, gaming potential.

In the end, I did not buy a Gundam model, but mostly because the 1/60 kit I wanted would require a new display case with taller shelves -- that would cost way more than the model, lol. They are cool, but different. I would nit characterize the as better, and that's after spending a couple of hours popping open kits and looking at some really nicely finished pieces.

@Herzlos - I get the same thing out if my Viktorias as I do out of AoS stuff . I play neither game, so it's just about nice models for me.

Personally, given the amount of time I want to spend on a mini, any mini that is not nice is nit worth paying any money for, unless there is a gaming purpose, as I would rather spend my time on something really cool -- since there's so much good stuff to paint up.

By the way, to be fair, I treat Malifaux models no differently than Forge World models or GW characters I'm not going to fame with - I know they're expensive because people buy fewer of them, and in Malifaux's case, Wyrd is not going to sell 100 minis to their average player. But that doesn't really translate into a willingness for me to pay more for them. Basically, I look at it like this - you have to pay a lot more to get the next level of better, for whatever reasons, and if I like the model enough, I'll buy it as something special. But at those prices, I won't buy them unless I really like them a lot (or want to field it).

@Killkrazy: did you really just "Gundam" this thread???
if i wanted a Gundam, rather than a Space Marine, i would buy Gundam...
as it stands, i don't want to paint Gundams, i want to paint Space Marines...

@Herzlos: again, if i wanted a Wyrd mini, i would buy a Wyrd mini...
that War Wabbit does not appeal to me, at all, but the Tech-Priest Dominus was an easy "must-buy", and he is on a 50mm base...
he's a big boy...

ironically, Wyrd actually put me off their minis with the switch to plastic...
i really like my metal Perdita and Rastputina, but am not a fan of their plastic versions...
for all the talk of Wyrd's amazing detail, i was very disappointed by the chunky detailing of the trim on the chaps of the Ortegas...

at the end of the day, in my opinion, comparing prices across different companies is essentially pointless...
if i want the 40K aesthetic, i am not going to get it by buying Wyrd, PP, Gundam, Gripping Beast, Dreamforge, Studio McVey, Wargames Factory, Infinity, Hasslefree, or any other manufacturer's models...
i want Space Marine models that look exactly like the GW Space Marine illustrations...
for that, i have to buy GW...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:
i want Space Marine models that look exactly like the GW Space Marine illustrations...
for that, i have to buy GW...

If the models actually looked like this instead of this then I would be much more accepting of their prices but as it is I don't feel like they deserve the Porsches comparison and price (to put it in simple terms).

John Wirral wrote:
Just got a copy of the 1997 GW price guide - thought I would do a comparison of a few items - sorry if this exists already somewhere...

I started 40k in 1992, when I was 12... I couldn't afford much then, which made me think about people (including me) who find the prices today rather expensive.

40k Box Set________________________50_______65_______1.47%

I was really surprised by this - the prices have not really gone up at all, especially taking inflation into account.

Errr what?

I can remember buying the Catachan Battleforce box set in 2001 when Catachans were the only plastic imperial guard you could buy. Plastic Cadians were not released till the second Imperial Guard rule book in 2003.

Anyway getting back on topic, you could buy a battleforce with 20 jungle fighters, a leman russ and two sentinels for £32. IIRC an identically priced, but slightly different battleforce was brought out for the Cadians (I believe it was a heavy weapons squad and Command Squad instead of the sentinels?). This is also prior to armoured sentinals and for Catachan sentinel outside of the box set, you had to buy a £4.50-£7.50 conversion kit, I believe the armoured steel legion sentinels required metal parts from forge world.

Now it costs around £28 for three ogryns.... and the defence force which is only slightly larger than the old battle force is now £100!!!!

i don't know if anyone can remember the composition and size of the original 4th ed set's that where about £115-£135 a pop?

The whole idea that the quality has increased, thus the price has been raised is rubbish! Especially seeing the basic Catachan troops are some of the oldest plastics we have left and are still drastically more expensive than when they were initially released!

Mario wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:
i want Space Marine models that look exactly like the GW Space Marine illustrations...
for that, i have to buy GW...

If the models actually looked like this instead of this then I would be much more accepting of their prices but as it is I don't feel like they deserve the Porsches comparison and price (to put it in simple terms).

showing the old Tac kit in your example just reinforces how much better the new 2013 Tac kit looks...
it has much straighter legs, that make a huge difference...
that power fist is in the FW Command upgrade...

i get your point about why you are not more accepting of the prices, but keep in mind that i have never used the Porsche comparison...
i only compare GW to Past GW, like the title of the thread...
the kits (minus the plastic replacements for the Diaz Daemonettes) are a clear improvement over their previous counterparts...
if you don't see it that way, then nothing i say will convince you...
i just want to be clear that i am only expressing the fact that i think GW has done the design work to convince me that they have improved the look of their kits enough to buy them...

i can sympathize with people who are put off by plastic kits that are 15 years old getting price hikes...
that is unjustified in my opinion...

cheers
jah

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

John Wirral wrote:
Just got a copy of the 1997 GW price guide - thought I would do a comparison of a few items - sorry if this exists already somewhere...

I started 40k in 1992, when I was 12... I couldn't afford much then, which made me think about people (including me) who find the prices today rather expensive.

40k Box Set________________________50_______65_______1.47%

I was really surprised by this - the prices have not really gone up at all, especially taking inflation into account.

Errr what?

I can remember buying the Catachan Battleforce box set in 2001 when Catachans were the only plastic imperial guard you could buy. Plastic Cadians were not released till the second Imperial Guard rule book in 2003.

Anyway getting back on topic, you could buy a battleforce with 20 jungle fighters, a leman russ and two sentinels for £32. IIRC an identically priced, but slightly different battleforce was brought out for the Cadians (I believe it was a heavy weapons squad and Command Squad instead of the sentinels?). This is also prior to armoured sentinals and for Catachan sentinel outside of the box set, you had to buy a £4.50-£7.50 conversion kit, I believe the armoured steel legion sentinels required metal parts from forge world.

You are misremembering. Battleforces were all originally £40 RRP (before being bumped up too).

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

John Wirral wrote:
Just got a copy of the 1997 GW price guide - thought I would do a comparison of a few items - sorry if this exists already somewhere...

I started 40k in 1992, when I was 12... I couldn't afford much then, which made me think about people (including me) who find the prices today rather expensive.

40k Box Set________________________50_______65_______1.47%

I was really surprised by this - the prices have not really gone up at all, especially taking inflation into account.

Errr what?

I can remember buying the Catachan Battleforce box set in 2001 when Catachans were the only plastic imperial guard you could buy. Plastic Cadians were not released till the second Imperial Guard rule book in 2003.

Anyway getting back on topic, you could buy a battleforce with 20 jungle fighters, a leman russ and two sentinels for £32. IIRC an identically priced, but slightly different battleforce was brought out for the Cadians (I believe it was a heavy weapons squad and Command Squad instead of the sentinels?). This is also prior to armoured sentinals and for Catachan sentinel outside of the box set, you had to buy a £4.50-£7.50 conversion kit, I believe the armoured steel legion sentinels required metal parts from forge world.

You are misremembering. Battleforces were all originally £40 RRP (before being bumped up too).

I actually remember a wide range of prices of Codex's, battleforces etc back then. I actually started the very week GW swapped from 2nd ed to 3rd and you could get all kind of things at knock off prices. But I digress. Back in 3rd you had a variety of prices, normally newer Codex's would have a higher price than the older but same edition ones. This may of been different elsewhere but most defiantly at warhammer world I remember the older codex's being around £2-£4 quid cheaper than the brand new releases. Not sure it was 3rd or 4th ed, but I remember being shocked at seeing a codex at £18.50.

Up until the end of 3rd edition you still used to be able to barter down the price of a box due to it being damaged. I got a discount on the Templer/Dark Elder starter set because of damage to the box, and this was the first show at warhammer world after 3rd ed was released and they had 2nd edition stuff everywhere also on discount. I also remember you could even find slight differences in prices between the Friar Lane shop and Warhammer World, which both were in the same city! I remember getting a Sentinel from friar lane because it was £1 cheaper!

Anyway, I definitely remember the Catachan box set being less than £40, I did look online quickly to see if it could refresh my memory, but I've seen in pounds both £32 and £35, so it may of been slightly higher. I do remember some of the newer battleforces toward the end of 3rd ed being buffed in price until the older ones were updated at the beginning of 4th (although they did add some models). By the time the catachan battleforce was updated in late 4th or early 5th it was reduced to 20 Catachan Jungle Fighters, three Catachan Heavy Weapon Teams and one multi-pose Sentinel for whatever price was used then, I think it was roughly £45, but I had a break from 40k around the same time.

Even then, if you look at the old catachan models, they're now £18 for 10.... for the same sprue that was used in 2001 (or 1999 when they were initially released).... that's pretty much twice the cost, slightly less if you include inflation.

 Talys wrote:
I am sometimes blown away by how badly sonme of the new PP plastic releases are tooled. While I am all for moving from metal, resin, and restic, some of their HIPS looks like 2005 GW, where two halves of one cast are slightly misaligned, and where plastic that should be perfect smooth is not. Where it's reasonably fixable, I'll usually keep the model, but sometimes it's just too much work for a 20$+ new model.

I know its trendy to crap all over PP's restic models. They are generally accepted as being awful. There are only two HIPs kits produced by PP. The new stormclad / reliant and the Convergence battle engine. I'm not sure what you are reviewing, considering that "some of the new" is the "only new", considering the stormclad kit only came out two weeks ago, otherwise, you are commenting on the Convergence battle engine..

 Talys wrote:

 Runic wrote:
All companies have poor looking miniatures, naturally. Usually the very old ones. However, some competitors still put out stuff that looks mediocre at best when it comes to quality, same kind of loss hasn't been seen from GW. I honestly am sometimes surprised when a new PP model comes out, and it looks like it could've come out during MK1.

I am sometimes blown away by how badly sonme of the new PP plastic releases are tooled. While I am all for moving from metal, resin, and restic, some of their HIPS looks like 2005 GW, where two halves of one cast are slightly misaligned, and where plastic that should be perfect smooth is not. Where it's reasonably fixable, I'll usually keep the model, but sometimes it's just too much work for a 20$+ new model.

Malifaux usually has it right in terms of tooling, but unfortunately, I'm not into most of their models. They are certainly not cheap either, and nobody complains that plastic Viktorias are more expensive than metal ones were (by a long shot).

PP has HIPS minis? I thought they had sworn never to do plastic.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

PP has HIPS minis? I thought they had sworn never to do plastic.

Yeah. The two new Nephilim models are HIPS. The warrior was *awful*. Like, GW2005 quality cast, where the back half of the head was off by a half millimeter from the front. I returned it, which is super rare of me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 keezus wrote:

I know its trendy to crap all over PP's restic models. They are generally accepted as being awful. There are only two HIPs kits produced by PP. The new stormclad / reliant and the Convergence battle engine. I'm not sure what you are reviewing, considering that "some of the new" is the "only new", considering the stormclad kit only came out two weeks ago, otherwise, you are commenting on the Convergence battle engine..

I don't know how to respond to this other than to say that you're wrong... or the website information is, and the model I opened up was actually a material that just looked and felt just like plastic. This was the guy I returned, released July 22, 2015, the Nephilim Soldier -

http://privateerpress.com/hordes/gallery/legion-of-everblight/warbeasts/nephilim-soldier
(the other guy with the gun, too)

These I kind of want to get, released August 12, 2015, also plastic, Aradus - but I haven't seen the physical model, as the place I go to for my PP stuff is relocating next month and not bringing in new stock.

http://privateerpress.com/hordes/gallery/skorne/warbeasts/aradus-soldier
http://privateerpress.com/hordes/gallery/skorne/warbeasts/aradus-sentinel

Erm, no, the new Nephilim are PVC. The only HIPS models they have out are the Convergence battle engine, and the Stormclad/Reliant. The next HIPS model will be the Farrow Meat Thresher in November. The trouble is, they label both types of plastic as just 'plastic' on their website, because both are technically plastic. Those Aradus are PVC I think. PP did say they were saving HIPS for mechanical stuff for now, with organic stuff still being PVC.

Here's an unboxing to show you:
http://losthemisphere.com/wp/2015/07/new-nephs/
No sprue or anything. These are PVC. Their HIPS models come on a sprue:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/08/warmachine-unboxing-the-new-plastic-reliantstormclad-kit.html

The only one I'm not sure about is Denny3, because she has the detail and relative lack of mould lines that HIPS would have, but she doesn't come on sprues for the most part. Unless it's just a very good PVC cast.
http://losthemisphere.com/wp/2015/08/deneghra-the-soul-weaver-denny3/

And in terms of the new Viktoria crew from Malifaux being more, I don't know how much the old one cost, but the old one did have 5 models while the new one has 7. The plastic crews generally have more models than the old metal ones.

 jah-joshua wrote:
@Killkrazy: did you really just "Gundam" this thread???
if i wanted a Gundam, rather than a Space Marine, i would buy Gundam...
as it stands, i don't want to paint Gundams, i want to paint Space Marines...

...

That exactly illustrates my point.

You are happy to pay £22 for an Adeptus Mechanicus Dominus 28mm infantry figure because it appeals to your aesthetic preferences.

Considered objectively as a set of plastic sprues it is a very expensive kit given its size and lack of complexity, options and so on. You are paying for the fact it is a GW kit.

Leaving out Gundam, £22 could buy you 42 American Civil War Zouaves if you were interested in making a colourful diorama, or a regiment for an ACW wargame.

I'm not trying to convince you that the ACW set is good value, because it isn't unless you are interested in ACW.

@Killkrazy: i don't disagree with your point, i just thought it was funny that we are back at, "i can get something different for less"...
it doesn't matter that there is a different style of miniature out there for less money, if it does not match what i actually want...

to split hairs a bit, to you i am paying for the fact that it is a GW kit, but for me, i am paying for the fact that it is an Adeptus Mechanicus kit...
the art and fiction that give context to the kit make it more than just a set of plastic sprues, they make it a Tech-Priest Dominus...
if you want to look at it objectively, cool, but i look at it passionately, as someone who is an Ad Mech fan getting the best Ad Mech mini produced so far...
it is miles beyond any model in my metal Skullz Ad Mech set, and to me, that is a beautiful thing...

cheers
jah

Wouldn't you rather the price was more in line with other different mini's that you dislike?

 jah-joshua wrote:
@Killkrazy: i don't disagree with your point, i just thought it was funny that we are back at, "i can get something different for less"...
it doesn't matter that there is a different style of miniature out there for less money, if it does not match what i actually want.

The point is not that you can just get something different for less. The point is that, aesthetics aside, there are technically superior models for less. Regardless of visual appeal, the Dreamforge Leviathan is a better designed and engineered kit than the Imperial Knight. The Leviathan actually functions as a gaming model (movable and swappable weapons, posability, etc.). The Dreamforge APC is superior to almost every GW vehicle in engineering. Of course, admittedly, GW has sucked for a long time at making vehicles that are actually functional gaming pieces.

At the end of the day, you really are just paying extra solely because you're willing to let GW charge you more than anybody else, when there is no justifiable reason for GW to charge more other than because they want to charge more.

TBH. We as a community are responsible for GW charging us more. GW as a driver of costs is responsible for the miniatures hobby charging us more.

As far as the GW aesthetic. They have a captive market there... so its kind of unfair to dogpile on the guys who like that kind of stuff. The GW legal attack dogs make sure that it stays that way. I still feel it is extremely backwards for GW to put up their prices to where they are. I can only speak for myself, but at current prices, I buy zero new releases. At 2/3 the price, I might buy one every 6 months. At 1/2 the price, I'd buy one every 3 months... and I don't even play the game anymore. If I was still actively playing, I'd still be spending my hobby budget, just buying twice the amount of stuff (to store in my closet). Instead of some sales, they get zero sales from me. I get that the average superfan will more than make up for my buying nothing, but my exact circumstance can't be that uncommon.

I do find it slightly telling that the two guys defending GW are both atypical of their average customer, but are in fact, GW's ideal type of customer. One is a collector and painter who doesn't play the game, therefore he can cherry-pick characters and individual models that he finds appealing or that he knows his customers will purchase from his as a commission artist. The second appears to have a significant amount of free time as evidenced by a post count around 5,000 posts in a single year, and has made mention in multiple threads of having a significant amount of disposable income. Both types of customers are different consumers, but they are price insensitive and married to GW aesthetics: that's the common thread.

BTW, none of what I've said are personal digs, just observations.

@Herzlos: i have stated many times that i would not complain about lower prices from GW...
i am as baffled as everyone else by the choices GW management makes...

@Tannhauser42: i totally get where you are coming from, but i don't see how to separate aesthetics from my choice in purchasing, as long as the material used is quality...
for instance, i will not buy anything in restic, Bones, or Finecast, because they are not quality materials in comparison to metal, HIPS, or resin, in my experience...

to use your example, the Leviathan is an ingenious piece of design work for a wargaming model, but the Knight comes with nearly 30 years of art and fiction that has been firing my imagination since Adeptus Titanicus and Space Marine were new releases...
the Knight fits the part of evoking a world (setting) that i enjoy exploring, through creating a recognizable moment in the fiction, with my painting...

the Dreamforge APC is badass, but then i have never had anything bad to say about Dreamforge...
it just comes back to the fact that, with GW minis, i have decades of art and fiction to mine for my perfect "moment in time" to inspire me, and give context to my work...

@keezus: i think your circumstances are probably the most common, if GW's steadily falling sales numbers are anything to go by...
the bit that gets me, is how so many people seem to disregard the fact that both Talys and i buy models from other companies...
i am just as passionate about PP, Infinity, and the dear departed Rackham...
my collection includes loads of Rackham minis (plus every book and boxed set), lots of PP (metal, not the "plastics", but soon HIPS!!!, plus the books and mag.), many Ilyad (RIP my resin friends), Soda Pop (metals), Dark-Age (books and minis), Helldorado, Infinity (inc. all the books since 1st ed.), Wyrd (old metals), Studio McVey (resins), and a variety of other small boutique sculptors (many of whom have gone on to sculpt for GW)...
at the end of the day, the GW aesthetic is my favorite, but even that doesn't mean i will buy Finecast:(...

@the_Armyman: can't argue with that assessment, but keep in mind that i am even more of a buyer than your average gamer, in that i buy all the books (novel, Codex, Army book, core rules) and collect entire armies in the hope that i will have the time to paint them one day...
i have always enjoyed creating army lists, and imagining the look of an army, while i am busy painting other people's minis...
first and foremost, i just love miniatures and Sci-Fi and Fantasy art and fiction...
my loyalty to GW only extends as far as how cool i think the product is...
it is not some blind loyalty to a company, but an enjoyment of the product...
if i am married to GW aesthetics, then i am a polygamist, because i spread the love...

cheers
jah

I remember when I started playing in mid 90s everything was metal, only a few plastic kits. You had to by blisters of 2 guys that were like 15 bucks and buy 5 of them to make a 10 man unit and then buy the command pack with 3 guys in it for another 18 bucks. Cost like 100 bucks for a 13 man unit.

Just to expand on my earlier post, turns out Denny3 is actually a PVC model, but damn she looks bloody good for PVC. According to PP they've just improved the sculpting and design process to get the best out of the material. The Aradus and the new Iron Fang Pikemen are also PVC and from what people have been saying are really good quality as well.

 jah-joshua wrote:

@the_Armyman: can't argue with that assessment, but keep in mind that i am even more of a buyer than your average gamer, in that i buy all the books (novel, Codex, Army book, core rules) and collect entire armies in the hope that i will have the time to paint them one day...
i have always enjoyed creating army lists, and imagining the look of an army, while i am busy painting other people's minis...
first and foremost, i just love miniatures and Sci-Fi and Fantasy art and fiction...

my loyalty to GW only extends as far as how cool i think the product is...
it is not some blind loyalty to a company, but an enjoyment of the product...
if i am married to GW aesthetics, then i am a polygamist, because i spread the love...

That's cool, dude. Like I said, wasn't anything personal and I wasn't challenging your geek cred I respect your work as an artist and your accumen as a businessman.

 jah-joshua wrote:

showing the old Tac kit in your example just reinforces how much better the new 2013 Tac kit looks...
it has much straighter legs, that make a huge difference...
that power fist is in the FW Command upgrade...

I just googled for crimson fists miniatures to keep the theme going. Yup the new tactical squad is better but they still have the same proportions no matter how much straighter they manage to stand (the kits have to be cross compatible after all).

i get your point about why you are not more accepting of the prices, but keep in mind that i have never used the Porsche comparison...
i only compare GW to Past GW, like the title of the thread...
the kits (minus the plastic replacements for the Diaz Daemonettes) are a clear improvement over their previous counterparts...
if you don't see it that way, then nothing i say will convince you...
i just want to be clear that i am only expressing the fact that i think GW has done the design work to convince me that they have improved the look of their kits enough to buy them...

The Porsche bit was GW talk praising their own product and if they want to demand Porsche prices then they also have to deliver that quality. Sure, the kits are an improvement over older GW kits but the prices also have improved (for GW, at least) at a rate where my willingness to buy just isn't there anymore. It doesn't help that other companies can make plastic kits that are better engineered (from Gundam to smaller miniature companies) as lower prices. And here GW has a combination of cheap in house production, process expertise, and a relatively large fan-base going for them (well, excluding Bandai) but they still manage to be some of the most expensive miniatures.

I would be more more accepting of the prices if the actual improvements were more than just telling a few marines to stand up straight. Kingdom Death (ignoring the aesthetics for now) has managed (from the images I have seen) to engineer some plastic miniatures that don't show the limitations of the medium too much and GW while steadily improving their product still regularly release stuff that tends to have a more toylike and less sculptural fell to it.

@Mario: fair points...
the new AoS mounted Lord Celestant is my second least favorite mini in the starter, as those Dracolith feet just look wrong, right behind the Khorgorath (and his chubby handler)...
i see why you would get the "toy-like" vibe from something thing like those minis, but then they go and make something as awesome as the Chaos Lord's Fleshhound, and i am impressed again...

i don't really think there is a way to reconcile GW's products with their prices...
at the end of the day, you either want a model badly enough to fork over the cash, or you don't...
you either find the setting compelling enough to overlook the idiots in management, or you don't...
you either feel like you are getting fleeced for plastic toys, or feel like you are getting an awesome model...
different strokes for different folks...

cheers
jah