Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

RunicFC wrote:
Browsing certain forums can certainly make it seem worse, but in actuality we are indeed but a tiny drop of the total wargaming community.

I would say perhaps at least a glass of water..

But, I think forums/blogs and the like are probably something of a litmus test for the rest of the wargaming public to some extent. Except that you get much more of a hardcore fanbase on these sites (someone who cares enough about a hobby to sign up to a forum and spend time writing about it), so if those people are complaining about a price then you could argue that the more 'casual' gaming fan, for which the games have less relative value, the pricing disparity is that much worse.

And remember, we aren't talking about price per miniature here - it's entry level price, the size of army required to play a game. I think that you get so much less complaints about pricing with other game systems must make you think that there is some kind of incongruence there with GW's current pricing policy.

 Bottle wrote:
I've recently returned to the hobby and I'm starting afresh with WHFB. The prices don't seem to bad to me. Everyone seems to want to jump right in the deep end with massive battles, of course it's going to seem expensive, but you only need 10 models a side to have hours of fun with skirmish rules. You should build slowly towards having an army, it is a collection after all, not purchase it right away.

At least that's my approach.

You can't play WFB with 10 miniatures (although by having hours of fun, I assume you mean building/painting etc?) Lots of games you can play at skirmish level though using fantasy miniatures; Mordheim, Song of Blades and Heroes, SAGA conversions etc.

Yeah Warhammers both do require more miniatures than your average skirmish game, and hence end up costing more in total.

But well, I´m fine with that as they provide me countless hours of fun and in the end being a miniature hobbyist isn´t that expensive on the grand scale of hobbies in a year to year basis. Sure it stings to start a new army.. Ofcourse a price reduction would be nice, but here´s hoping...

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
You're just a walking cliché mate, every time I see you post it is everything that people taking your viewpoint have tried arguing many times before, with no new information to prevent it being just as irrelevant.

You should read about the actual meaning of the word cliché since you are obviously misusing it. But hey, that makes two of us. Everytime I see you post it´s everything people with your viewpoint tried arguing many times before, with no new information to prevent it being just as irrelevant. You just do the polar opposite in the pro/anti GW axis. Kettle and pot. And why should I post anything new, it´s not like it´s a requirement and many anti-GW posters don´t do it either. Can´t even count how many "too high prices/plain codices/unbalanced rules" posts I´ve seen this week alone.

No, I'm very comfortable with the use of the word, and just to be clear, I'm using it in the context of "a thought or opinion that betrays a lack of original thought." Which is lifted from a dictionary definition. If you want to see me post some new arguments, post some new points of your own, but at this point why would I a) change my stance in the light of no new information or b) reconstruct perfectly valid rebuttals to arguments and assertions which are wheeled out every single time this topic or ones like it are wheeled out?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Equally, where has the idea that people "get unhappy when GW fires people come from?"

There are countless threads inwhich people are unhappy about the GW "one-man store" move, one of the major reasons being people being fired. It´s true that a price drop doesn´t directly mean the need to cut staff, but if GW already has to do that with the current prices I would see it more likely that people would be let go on a global scale as the company income could ( probably would ) drop. It´s not certain but likely afaic.

I think people dislike one man stores because of the impact it has on their gaming time. Personally I'm not going to get too up in arms about people getting fired for underperforming, I mean, sure, it's pretty irritating for people if a manager they like gets the boot but GW are far from the only, or worst, offenders when it comes to treating it's frontline, bottom tier plebs poorly, nor treating them as disposable. Perhaps someone to be annoyed at them for, but not really something to single them out for specifically. Besides, you're arguing against price drops, whereas most people I see simply want better value - which can be achieved much more economically. That, and essentially the only reason GW's can't afford a price drop is because they made the somewhat dubious decision to alienate the third party retail channel and spend a large portion of their money on running their own chain, which is, you know, not our problem.

In other news, things that cost more than GW include building rockets to fly to the moon and setting fire to Ferraris, what's your point? Just because something costs more money, it doesn't make GW prices frequently poor value which is the issue. Something can cost pennies but still represent poor value, or millions and represent a bargain.

GW makes the some ( if not most ) of the highest quality miniatures in existence ( except for failcast, can´t argue with that ) and yet their miniatures aren´t the most expensive ones.

The company line is not an argument. GW try to tell us they make some of the finest miniatures in the world, and apparently some people like yourself believe that. What GW actually do is produce some very well executed kits from a technical point of view, but I like my models to look pretty and GW don't have a huge success rate at that, what they do have is a very high rate of release which gives that impression. I've argued elsewhere that in terms of aesthetics, Out of every 5 kits they release, perhaps 1 is awesome, 3 are safe (things that were always going to be ok looking or are riffs in existing designs) and 1 terrible one.

All ways up, this isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, because "highest quality" in miniatures terms is a difficult term to precisely define, and largely subjective so I guess if you sincerely believe they make the best, then that's the opinion you're entitled to. I choose to look at some of the other manufacturers bringing out a much higher average finished quality and disagree.

With regard to the "best miniatures in the world" argument, my problem is that their prices are through the roof even for ugly models that haven't been updated.

Apparently, these are worth £7.50 per model:


And these are worth £10 per model:


I'm glad they only charge high prices for really lovely models.

 Azreal13 wrote:


No, I'm very comfortable with the use of the word, and just to be clear, I'm using it in the context of "a thought or opinion that betrays a lack of original thought." Which is lifted from a dictionary definition. If you want to see me post some new arguments, post some new points of your own, but at this point why would I a) change my stance in the light of no new information or b) reconstruct perfectly valid rebuttals to arguments and assertions which are wheeled out every single time this topic or ones like it are wheeled out?

And why would I change my stance? Seeing quite many of those opinions that betray a lack of original thought on both sides. Never asked you to post anything new, just pointed out there´s nothing new coming from you either so you´re being a bit hypocritical pointing that out about others. I find you a walking cliché of an anti-gw oriented poster just the same, and neither is better than the other. Like I said, pot and kettle. So yeah, I don´t even know why talk about this and fail to see any point.

For the record though, I stand on quite neutral ground and have stated many times in vaurious threads my views which include almost asmuch bad as good. I just also understand GW´s side of the coin and don´t blindly blame everything they do on being greedy, malicious and other ridicilous things some of the more extreme anti-gw folk like to fantasize about. Also, having unbalanced rules or high starting cost in a game doesn´t induce kneejerking/quitting reaction for me, I have a good time every single game regardless, both in GW´s games and others ( WM being the only other one at the moment though. ) I just adapt to the unbalanced things in ( all ) games in a way that I will do well, infact I find it fun most of the time. Some people don´t, just the way it is, neither is better than the other in the end. Allround I feel I get more than enough entertainment for the money I spend on miniatures and other supplies. I play almost weekly and paint daily.

 Azreal13 wrote:

The company line is not an argument. GW try to tell us they make some of the finest miniatures in the world, and apparently some people like yourself believe that. What GW actually do is produce some very well executed kits from a technical point of view, but I like my models to look pretty and GW don't have a huge success rate at that, what they do have is a very high rate of release which gives that impression. I've argued elsewhere that in terms of aesthetics, Out of every 5 kits they release, perhaps 1 is awesome, 3 are safe (things that were always going to be ok looking or are riffs in existing designs) and 1 terrible one.

It´s a perfectly fine argument when we´re talking about miniatures and their quality, manufactured by GW. What the hell. It´s -the- argument of said subject. You are saying GW has a bad success rate of producing pretty models. I almost commented on that but noticed you apparently realize it´s subjective. I never said they produce -the- best miniatures, just "some of the best." Sure they have some bad ones but all manufacturers do. Is your opinion that GW just makes average quality miniatures, or even poor ones, then? I dunno, I would find such a statement a bit ridicilous to be honest.

 vipoid wrote:
With regard to the "best miniatures in the world" argument

RunicFIN wrote:GW makes the some ( if not most ) of the highest quality miniatures

But yeah, those aren´t worth the price, the ones you linked.

 vipoid wrote:
With regard to the "best miniatures in the world" argument, my problem is that their prices are through the roof even for ugly models that haven't been updated.

For one moment then I thought.. What in God's name has happened to Darkness Eternal !

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:


No, I'm very comfortable with the use of the word, and just to be clear, I'm using it in the context of "a thought or opinion that betrays a lack of original thought." Which is lifted from a dictionary definition. If you want to see me post some new arguments, post some new points of your own, but at this point why would I a) change my stance in the light of no new information or b) reconstruct perfectly valid rebuttals to arguments and assertions which are wheeled out every single time this topic or ones like it are wheeled out?

And why would I change my stance? Seeing quite many of those opinions that betray a lack of original thought on both sides. Never asked you to post anything new, just pointed out there´s nothing new coming from you either so you´re being a bit hypocritical pointing that out about others. I find you a walking cliché of an anti-gw oriented poster just the same, and neither is better than the other. Like I said, pot and kettle. So yeah, I don´t even know why talk about this and fail to see any point.

The thing is. I'm not anti-GW. As I've often said, I take each action and release on it's own merits, if that gives the impression I'm anti-GW? Well, that tells it's own story doesn't it?

There's no lack of original thought here, I can assure you, just the repetition of ideas that I've already formed. You may have heard a phrase occasionally cited by posters with regard to GW release policy "they'll buy what we make, we don't make what they'll buy?" Well, I coined that phrase, not being bigheaded about it, just illustrating that I am generating at least some original content, plus while people continue to post the same old defense of GW, as you did initially, you'll get approximately the same repose from me. You'll notice I was responding to a post of yours in the first instance? So, to reduce it to the most basic, playground terms - you started it. . You, and I'm afraid I'm going to touch on something you're clearly touchy about, have a 5 year old account, yet have only recently appear to have started posting regularly, surely in all the time you were lurking you saw people wheeling out the same arguments as you have done? While you're perfectly entitled to feel that way, what did you expect to add to the conversation by trotting out some very well trodden, slightly tired looking, arguments that have been done to death? Other than picking a fight of course, which is my strong suspicion given your last behaviour and while this will be the last post you'll get from me responding to the subject.

 Azreal13 wrote:

The company line is not an argument. GW try to tell us they make some of the finest miniatures in the world, and apparently some people like yourself believe that. What GW actually do is produce some very well executed kits from a technical point of view, but I like my models to look pretty and GW don't have a huge success rate at that, what they do have is a very high rate of release which gives that impression. I've argued elsewhere that in terms of aesthetics, Out of every 5 kits they release, perhaps 1 is awesome, 3 are safe (things that were always going to be ok looking or are riffs in existing designs) and 1 terrible one.

It´s a perfectly fine argument when we´re talking about miniatures and their quality, manufactured by GW. What the hell. It´s -the- argument of said subject.

You are saying GW has a bad success rate of producing pretty models. I almost commented on that but noticed you apparently realize it´s subjective.

I never said they produce -the- best miniatures, just "some of the best." Sure they have some bad ones but all manufacturers do. Is your opinion that GW just makes average quality miniatures, or even poor ones, then? I dunno, I would find such a statement a bit ridicilous to be honest.

No the thread isn't "do GW make the best miniatures?" It is "what prices should they sell their product for." The inference being they're charging too much, or the flip side, and the attitude I take, which is often what they're selling isn't of sufficient quality to justify the price. Not that it couldn't be worth what they ask, just that too often for me, and evidently many others, that the product is just too meh when the price tag is taken into account. Aesthetically, yes, I'd say that many of GW's models are essentially average looking, they can't do women, in fact they struggle to do human, a lot of their larger stuff crosses the line between suitably OTT and camp/pantomime (moar skulls!!!) and many of the larger kits are also a bit limited in terms of poseability and options (classic case being Imperial Knight vs Dreamforge Leviathan)

Let me be clear, I'm a long way from turning my back on GW, but I sure as hell avoid giving them cash for any of the dumb gak they do, I don't buy models from them unless I think they're the nicest model to represent the unit I'm building. I'm currently building a small CSM force, but my Obliterators are non-GW entirely, because I think the official ones suck, my basic Marines will ultimately be a hybrid mix of about 5 different GW/FW kits because the CSM Tac Squad looks outdated and silly, but the Heldrake will be just as is because a giant mechanical dragon is just glorious, and even if I don't necessarily think it belongs in a CSM force, I still want to give it table time (and now it's rules have been revised, I won't be accused of cheese.) so that, in essence, encapsulates the GW range for me, three units, one of which has no chance of me ever buying for it's sheer fugliness, one that needs ""fixing" but isn't irredeemable, and one that is fine straight out of the box. What you have to remember is GW release the same number of kits in a month that many manufacturers release in a quarter, consequently the rubbish ones tend to disappear into the background and the great ones stick in the memory.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
With regard to the "best miniatures in the world" argument, my problem is that their prices are through the roof even for ugly models that haven't been updated.

For one moment then I thought.. What in God's name has happened to Darkness Eternal !

You too?

I even considered suggesting he change avatar in case of mistaken identity!

Well at least in my experience I buy almost exclusively overseas, give you an example.

I bought the Dark Vengeance limited edition from Britian in 2012 when it was released and after postage it cost me $80 Australian saving me $85.00
I bought two Imperial Baneblades from Britain and after postage it came to $150 Australian saving me $180 Australian
I bought 100 Chaos Cultists with free delivery and it came to $80 Australian saving me $180 Australian.
Just bought two boxes of those Blightkings from Britain with free postage cost me total $90 Australian saving me $104 Australian.
I can get any standard Fantasy/40k Battle force for roughly $88.00 each and with initial $5.00 combined postage saving me roughly $70+ per box.

These are just a few examples, it is a bloody shame I can't justify paying almost 100%+ more from my local Indie or GW retailer.

I have spent $10 grand+ all up and 98% of that from overseas suppliers.

Ironically GW still makes a profit from me after their mark up from production costs to retail costs.

Well one thing we can all agree on is that GW kits are vastly overpriced.

And not just there kits either but things like paint's, codex's and dice/templates/measures are far pricier than they should be.

 Azreal13 wrote:
There's no lack of original thought here, I can assure you, just the repetition of ideas that I've already formed. You may have heard a phrase occasionally cited by posters with regard to GW release policy "they'll buy what we make, we don't make what they'll buy?" Well, I coined that phrase, not being bigheaded about it, just illustrating that I am generating at least some original content, plus while people continue to post the same old defense of GW, as you did initially, you'll get approximately the same repose from me. You'll notice I was responding to a post of yours in the first instance? So, to reduce it to the most basic, playground terms - you started it. . You, and I'm afraid I'm going to touch on something you're clearly touchy about, have a 5 year old account, yet have only recently appear to have started posting regularly, surely in all the time you were lurking you saw people wheeling out the same arguments as you have done? While you're perfectly entitled to feel that way, what did you expect to add to the conversation by trotting out some very well trodden, slightly tired looking, arguments that have been done to death? Other than picking a fight of course, which is my strong suspicion given your last behaviour and while this will be the last post you'll get from me responding to the subject.

I´ll just shrug to this as I still don´t understand why new arguments would be required to discuss things. I do understand it might seem useless to you for example, but it shouldn´t be off your purse in any way if people do that. It happens daily. I don´t believe I´ve seen many people doubt the actuality of Tom Kirbys statements regarding market research on a concretical level, which is what I did and still do, so there´s one rare if not new argument altogether. Anyway, your point about lack of original tought isn´t valid in the end, besides most thoughts aren´t new at all. I´m not touchy regarding ( something related to accounts? ) but before you indirectly demonstrated that you think people with lower post counts are somehow below high post count folk when it comes to credibility and I demonstrated in a sarcastic manner that perhaps people who joined the forum earlier are above people who joined later, just to point out both are pretty dumb ways of judging someones credibility. Only I wasn´t being serious about it. I have been active on the forums but mostly I have posted to the painting and army list sections, as I know what the general discussions can get like.

I have mostly been defending my views ( which is what I find myself doing again ) so I´d say the attacking side is the one picking a fight. Now for example, you opened up with a personal insult ( walking cliche ) and if that isn´t picking a fight then I don´t know what is. While you already stated this is the last bit on the subject I´m afraid I have to make sure it is so, as I´m gonna have to put you on ignore for the sake of having a better time reading these forums next to still not seeing any real point to discussing this... whatever this even is really. You can approach me via PM since asfar as I know ignore doesn´t block those, which is probably the right course of action anyway for an OT discussion like this. I´m not interested in talking about peoples personal qualities but rather the subjects in topics, so I´ve taken the habit of ignoring anyone who seemingly derails things into the forementioned. Now for example I commented on the topic, and it got twisted into this. Sorry for the OT, and bye for now.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Let me be clear, I'm a long way from turning my back on GW, but I sure as hell avoid giving them cash for any of the dumb gak they do, I don't buy models from them unless I think they're the nicest model to represent the unit I'm building. I'm currently building a small CSM force, but my Obliterators are non-GW entirely, because I think the official ones suck, my basic Marines will ultimately be a hybrid mix of about 5 different GW/FW kits because the CSM Tac Squad looks outdated and silly, but the Heldrake will be just as is because a giant mechanical dragon is just glorious, and even if I don't necessarily think it belongs in a CSM force, I still want to give it table time (and now it's rules have been revised, I won't be accused of cheese.) so that, in essence, encapsulates the GW range for me, three units, one of which has no chance of me ever buying for it's sheer fugliness, one that needs ""fixing" but isn't irredeemable, and one that is fine straight out of the box. What you have to remember is GW release the same number of kits in a month that many manufacturers release in a quarter, consequently the rubbish ones tend to disappear into the background and the great ones stick in the memory.

I can understand your view and in a way admire your drive to get models that look exactly like you want them to look.

I think if they sold squads at $10-$20 and vehicles at 20-30, they'd still turn a decent profit with more boxes being sold. I could easily stomach a box a week at that price. At its current pricing, i buy online from third parties every one or two months, the time between purchases even longer due to the online price being just less than or equal to buying direct from GW, shipping time, and pursuit of other interests when the hobby doesn't fill my time

Their sell price should be exactly the way Warlord Games prices their stuff. Bolt Action is analogous to 40k and the games like Hail Caesar and Black Powder are similar enough to WHFB.

50 guys, a tank and usually a transport sells for $128 for Bolt Action and is a normal-sized army @ 1,000 points. That's what 40k should be doing - even if the normal game size was say 2,000 points, that's still a little over $250 which is perfectly reasonable. Instead, you often spend more than that for the bare minimum force you can play outside of demo games.

$35 rulebook, $25 armybook/codex. Troops about $25, Vehicles about $20-30, characters $15. Decent sized units, not crap like giving 10 guys when you need at least 20 (WHFB). Starter armies at $130 for every faction.

The comparison to Warlord is apt. GW actually should be able to do better than them given GW's available capital, owning their own milling and injection machines and a potentially higher volume of sales. They should be able to handily outcompete Warlord on price.

 frozenwastes wrote:
The comparison to Warlord is apt. GW actually should be able to do better than them given GW's available capital, owning their own milling and injection machines and a potentially higher volume of sales. They should be able to handily outcompete Warlord on price.

They should, but even if they did it the same (hell even a little bit more per box) it would be infinitely better than what they do now.

I agree. Having a playable army out of a box for ~$110 would help GW attract new players. Of course, this would require Gee Dubs to either lower their game sizes or the cost of their boxes.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I agree. Having a playable army out of a box for ~$110 would help GW attract new players. Of course, this would require Gee Dubs to either lower their game sizes or the cost of their boxes.

The game size doesn't have to be lowered that much, I mean Bolt Action's size is a typical 40k game just without a lot of the vehicles (only 1 tank allowed per platoon, basically per detachment), the problem is that a bare minimum starting 40k army can cost upwards of $300 even before you factor in the rules. I still remember looking at a 750 point Necron force for a league and it running over $300. $300 for a barely playable force! Or let's not even get into things like being able to get an entire Undead army with over 100 figures from Mantic Games for around the same cost as a couple of boxes of GW skeletons that barely made two units.

They don't have to have the game smaller like Bolt Action being 1,000 points, the 1,000 points can just be the entry point and they can still encourage a lot of figures, just make prices reasonable instead of trying to just frontload the cost of everything.

Kirby mind meld begins:

If anything GW should crank up the prices even higher. The cost to entry are high, but are they really high enough? If their typical customer is going to make a large up front purchase and then maybe buy something a couple times a year until they disappear, GW needs to get as much money out of each customer before they quit.

People should feel honored and privileged that they even have the opportunity to hope to be able to afford the "jewel like objects of magic and wonder that are Citadel miniatures."

Forge World demonstrates that the walking wallets can afford to puke out a bit more money than they have been. So prices should continue to be increased with every new release at an even higher rate. And thanks to unbound every product can be pressed into the hands of every customer who wanders into the single employee sales kiosks-- sorry I mean hobby centres!

The games aren't real games but just an idea GW uses to sell people on the idea of having a larger collection, so if they really accept that people don't actually need a collection large enough to play but only need to attempt to get it before they finally quit, then GW can raise the prices even further and people will spend the same amount of money on less product before they quit without ever really experiencing the game as promoted in WD Weekly.

Does it really matter if the typical chump pays $500+ and gets 500 points rather than 1000 for the money? The end result is the same-- they'll quit without ever getting to a full army and GW will have gotten the money. GW's real customers don't actually play their games, their hobby is collecting, after all. The new mantra for GW pricing should be a dollar a point. At least to start. Once GW has pushed the price up to that they can revisit the idea of further increases on new products.

The model count of all kits should probably be reduced to five models. WFB players can then enjoy buying each rank of their units individually. And 40k collectors have already shown how much they enjoy the 5 model elite boxes. Less models for the same money is the way of the future. Lowers costs as smaller sprues mean less tooling costs and it gives those who aspire to make a full sized army more individual products to purchase.

Since the actual hobby is buying Citadel Miniatures and not miniature wargaming, it's a win win for everyone!

Kirby mind meld ends.

---

1 dollar = 1 point.
I'm pretty sure fantasy already averages out that way with the Australian pricing scheme...

Some armies and kits can work out higher than that now. Many more at Australian/NZ pricing (and Canadian to a slightly lesser degree).

I'm not 100% sure how right GW is with their pricing model. It's possible that there is this core customer base that will keep buying, and keep buying enough to keep GW going at a dollar a point in all markets.

To be fair to GW, Australia is the most expensive country in the world to maintain a business.

On that their prices have to be much higher, and it is not only Games-Workshop that has huge mark ups than same products that can be bought from overseas.

The range of mark-ups can range from 50% to well over 500%. Case in point Australian made products can be purchased from overseas at a vastly cheaper rate.

Example, a woman I know purchases sports compression gear from the USA, the stuff is made right here in Australia and gets it 75% cheaper than a local sports store selling the same garment.

As I said in my previous post, I would love to purchase locally, but can't.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Well one thing we can all agree on is that GW kits are vastly overpriced.

And not just there kits either but things like paint's, codex's and dice/templates/measures are far pricier than they should be.

we can all agree on this???
i don't agree...
i feel like i get my value out of everything i buy...

i don't claim to know what the prices should be, but i have said it over and over in discussions here...
nothing inspires me to paint like a Space Marine does...
i own minis from at least half of the companies on the market, but it is the Space Marine that makes me want to paint...

when i look at a box of Sternguard (bought from a discounter because i'm not stupid, and will save money if it is possible), at about $8 a mini, and then i look at one of my beautiful Studio McVey LE's that cost $20, i am more than happy to pay $8 for a model i want to paint, while the McVey mini gathers dust...
the McVey mini is cool, and i'm happy to have it in my collection, but the Sternguard gets me excited to paint, so $8 a pop sure as hell doesn't seem "vastly overcosted" to me...

cheers
jah

As a person who designs precision injection molded plastic assembly lines similar to GW's, from a business standpoint their prices make no sense in a non-monopoly. They have no assembly costs, all their kits can be 100% sorted packaged and plastic wrapped by automation and their QC doesn't have to be half as rigorous as many of the med device lines I've worked on. Add that to the fact that their design overheads aren't even for engineers, and the potential market is enormous compared to some industries... They're literally just price gouging because they're terrible business people. Their kits could be half as expensive as they are now, they could literally demolish the 3rd party counterfeit market and easily compete with warms hordes by being the "big epic scale" war game that costs the same for more models.

That's the problem with being as beholden to shareholders as they are. Shareholders have the patience of rodents-they don't want a sustainable, steady growth business plan they want sharp gains every quarter or they'll panic and sell.

I would even support their prices if it went back to circa 2002 levels. For instance, the most I would pay for a Tactical Squad would be $35, and I would expect it to come with all available options (e.g. 1 of each special and heavy weapon, extra bits for the Sergeant).

The overall problem isn't so much the sell price it's the amount needed. If I'm paying $150 or more, I expect to get a good amount of points in the game, not like 500 points.

The price of the rules though is just out and out ridiculous. There is zero reason those books need to be hardcover except to justify the high price, and absolutely no reason it should be that much for the rules period.

One thing I notice a lot in their verbiage is they focus on the parts. For example if you look at a typical box it'll say some crap like "This box contains 85 highly detailed plastic pieces..." and then later on it tells you how much you can actually make. So they are being intentionally misleading by claiming the price is due to a high amount of pieces, except those pieces only let you make 10 complete figures.

I like those extra bits, they are great for conversion work.

Besides, there is nothing stopping you from seeling extra stuff on Ebay or swap with friends for stuff you need.

Give you an example, I love putting Space Marine helms on my Chaos stuff, paint them blue and whooshka I have decapitated Ultramraine trophies.

See.

Or, as an alternative, cheaper kits without superfluous bits I might use or might not, and a bits service where I could buy the bits I wanted when I wanted them?

Or a more modular system where I can buy core models and then buy the add ons to make them into some sort of sub specialist? So I buy a box of ten marines with nothing but bolters, then I can buy a devastator kit or assault marine kit, or a veteran kit with all the whizzy bits on the sprue, keeping the cost of core models down but still allowing the variety for those who want it.

I would really like GW to lower their prices.
The thing is they make great products and great games (in my opinion anyways). I am not sure if the products are worth the price they charge though but I can't see them lowering their prices only maintaining the prices they are at now is all we can really hope.

They have reached a point where they ARE loosing customers due to their prices. If they lowered their prices they would most definitely attract more customers and I would be buying more stuff.

Well, seeing as I haven't yet written this in a post today..

The issue isn't price, it is value. Value is a much easier issue to address and potentially much less traumatic to the bottom line than price cuts.

For instance, the eponymous Tactical Squad. I believe one of GW's better value offerings, but imagine how much better value it would seem if they included a Devastator heavy weapon sprue, meaning you could build it with all the options and have the guns spare. Not just a random collection of extra heads and shoulder pads, but extra pieces with a real tangible application?

I don't recall the sprue layout, but assuming a re-cut wasn't needed, this would add a tiny amount to the production costs of the Tac Squad, but would give the impression of much better value to the customer, and a likely uptick in goodwill because of it.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Well, seeing as I haven't yet written this in a post today..

The issue isn't price, it is value. Value is a much easier issue to address and potentially much less traumatic to the bottom line than price cuts.

For instance, the eponymous Tactical Squad. I believe one of GW's better value offerings, but imagine how much better value it would seem if they included a Devastator heavy weapon sprue, meaning you could build it with all the options and have the guns spare. Not just a random collection of extra heads and shoulder pads, but extra pieces with a real tangible application?

I don't recall the sprue layout, but assuming a re-cut wasn't needed, this would add a tiny amount to the production costs of the Tac Squad, but would give the impression of much better value to the customer, and a likely uptick in goodwill because of it.

Man, at $30-$40 per basic squad, I'd want all wargear choices as well as detailed plastic bases and maybe some man sized terrain to hide behind. THAT would be what I call value. As it is, at that price, I can't stomach buying more than $50 worth a month. I spend less on outside food every month.
Can't wait to get myself a 3D printer. I'll be printing my own models to paint. They're currently still a bit pricey considering the technology that goes into them. But as soon as the cost of infrastructure is paid off, the price is going to drop fast.

Fair enough, value IS subjective at the end of the day, the key for the retailer is to hit the highest price point where the majority people are still happy to pay it.

GW appear to have passed that point at some point in he last couple of years.