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.

kaotkbliss wrote:
No, it's not my favorite part, but it is fun building up my army, putting together new models and painting them up and such.

Yes, me too and I love adding to my armies. That's the thing: I don't want any of my armies to *ever* be done, even if I give them a huge break (years).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Cost is not simply monetary, there is space taken up, trial and error with a new line of paints, matching of paints, not supporting my local store, etc. So yes while it does cost more money, the actual cost difference does not justify switching lines

All this really demonstrates is that you don't understand the concept of principles. $5 is obviously not breaking anyone's bank. Whether it's an expensive price increase or not isn't really the point.

By the way, I don't think any of my local stores are actually increasing their prices, at least not yet.

I'm taking this with salt! =)

 Talys wrote:
There is one thing that GW can't fix: people have less disposable income, and less free time now.

By the way, saying that 40k is not expensive compared to hobbies like RCs and train sets, or sports like ski or golf, or even entertainment per hour like movie theatres is not elitist. It is a simple statement of fact.

40k is a large scale, collectible hobby that eats up gobs of time and is expensive. So are many other non-digital niche hobbies. I now have lots of hobby time, but when I had less, the fact is 40k was far less ideal either as a hobby or game. 40k is a hobby that is best enjoyed obsessively, rather than casually. It's a lousy casual hobby, because there is so much of everything and it is so time consuming that you never get to enjoy it if you don't have the spare time.

But the Hobby is growing and has been for a long time. In North America its estimated to have more than doubled since '08.
GW is the exception by making less money, not the rule.

As well the reason we were joking about comparing it to other hobbies like boating or collecting cars is because people trying to justify the expense will never compare it to other miniature wargames, as you have just done. Its always either 'miniatures are expensive' or 'but not as expensive as sports cars'. People defending GWs prices never look at the most relevant information, the price of other miniatures in the same market (which includes 15mm wwii because if you start demanding people compare 40k to other companies army level 28mm, SiFi gothic inspired d6 based game then you're deliberately derailing the conversation).

Unfortunately the people this will hit will be new entrants. Most long term gamers rarely buy GW paints, tools or glues but the kids starting out do. They continue to push the game towards a hobby for the rich. I'm 37 I buy mostly FW because I can afford it and I usually only buy one order a year as I wouldn't have time to work on any more. But my kids are young and I genuinely don't want to take up the game which is sad. I would hate to see them plough large sums of their cash into it in their late teens and early 20's. I know all the arguments about the cost of golf, video games blah blah but it's not the same. the cost is huge, if you don't think so I'm sorry but you have little to contribute to a conversation with 90% of the population.

That I imagine is the point. It *hurts* the new people into the hobby.

(This is completely full of idle speculation)

I imagine their business strategy is to extract as much money from people coming into the hobby as possible. Its when people spend the most, probably.

So in a flurry of new found addiction, coupled with newbie ignorance, a person completely overspends on the stuff no veteran buys.

This way, veterans, (after their usual grumbling) keep buying as they always would. And the newbie? Well.. if he hangs around, great, he'll keep buying miniatures. And if he doesn't hang around, well at least we got as much money from him as we could before he bailed.

After a year break, GW has forgotten why their stock is slipping so bad it seems.

The codex blitz + price increase will keep them afloat for a few more years.

Anyone else here find it funny that we've discussed which paints are better here but looking in the other thread about the FW paints they use the PP bottles. I don't think anyone here would argue FW aren't as good as GW proper, so does that mean PPs pots are superior to GWs, or are we expected to believe GWs are inferior to GWs?

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Leth wrote:
I never said it was cheap, I was addressing the actual significance of the price change

it's simple economics. While the price is less than what it is worth to me I am willing to buy it. When it is more I won't.

I want the nagash model. However because I won't use it the price is not worth it so I don't buy it. However I will instead invest that same money into a skitarii army that I will use.

Do I wish I could pay less? Of course, no one likes paying more than they have to. But while the personal value is worth it I will continue to use it.

Cost is not simply monetary, there is space taken up, trial and error with a new line of paints, matching of paints, not supporting my local store, etc. So yes while it does cost more money, the actual cost difference does not justify switching lines

All this really demonstrates is that you don't understand the concept of principles. $5 is obviously not breaking anyone's bank. Whether it's an expensive price increase or not isn't really the point.

I guess I save my principles concerns for things that I actually care about versus a small increase in my luxury hobby item

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Whether it's an expensive price increase or not isn't really the point.

Exactly.

It's a matter of value, value isn't always synonymous with price.

 jonolikespie wrote:

But the Hobby is growing and has been for a long time. In North America its estimated to have more than doubled since '08.
GW is the exception by making less money, not the rule.

As well the reason we were joking about comparing it to other hobbies like boating or collecting cars is because people trying to justify the expense will never compare it to other miniature wargames, as you have just done. Its always either 'miniatures are expensive' or 'but not as expensive as sports cars'. People defending GWs prices never look at the most relevant information, the price of other miniatures in the same market (which includes 15mm wwii because if you start demanding people compare 40k to other companies army level 28mm, SiFi gothic inspired d6 based game then you're deliberately derailing the conversation).

I'm not sure who ever compared boats or cars to toy soldiers. That's pretty silly. I mean, why stop there. Boats and cars are chump change compared to vacation properties in Monte Carlo, Hong Kong, and Vancouver. And those Gulfstreams make even the really nice penthouses look like a steal -- never mind the pilot.

Let's be clear: we're talking about principally about nerd-centric hobbies and activities for people who have spare time; not "everything that can be purchased on Earth". Things that appeal to folks who could tell you the difference between NCC-1701, NCC-1701-C, and NX-01 without googling it. Or why the Enterprise would win against the Death Star (or lose).

I don't know what the overlap is in customer base for historicals. None of my 40k friends have even the tiniest interest in historical or scale models, and at my local hobby shop, the crowds do not much mingle. You don't see civil war buffs play Malifaux on the odd weekend. For me, a scale X-Wing Fighter? Yes! Giant Millenium Falcon? Sure thing! Warlord Titan?!?! OMG. I wish I had one (and that my wife wouldn't kill me for parking it in our living room). A scale Sherman or F-14? Not if someone paid me. So the price is irrelevant to me. To someone who might choose between the two, sure, it's relevant.

Also, it isn't at all derailing the conversation, because you are totally missing out on why people who love 40k do. It is BECAUSE of a gothic inspired d6 scifi shooter wargame with space marines versus space elves, space orks versus huge robots, flying jets, and guys that hurl insulting taunts. It's all about bolter porn, man. If this isn't your thing? Stay away from 40k, because there are plenty of other things to do!

Thankfully, there are many miniature-related hobbies, from a little number of models (like Infinity) to quite a few (like Warmachines) to monstrosity (like 40k). So pick your poison. Or go back to cars and boats. The sign of a true hobbyist is one who prefers spending the night fiddling with a model over zipping around in a sports car.

Besides: do you have any idea how uncomfortable a Ferrari is, how noisy they run, what a terrible ride they are, and how much they break down? ^.^ Piece of junk, if you ask me. Would take a Trukk (or a Land Raider) any day!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Anyone else here find it funny that we've discussed which paints are better here but looking in the other thread about the FW paints they use the PP bottles. I don't think anyone here would argue FW aren't as good as GW proper, so does that mean PPs pots are superior to GWs, or are we expected to believe GWs are inferior to GWs?

They are *different*. I have almost all of my GW paints also in dropper bottles with airbrush thinner, to use in the airbrush. I also have about half my Vallejo paints in fliptops (as well as droppers) so that I can easily use them with a paintbrush. When I'm painting a large model, like a building, I often prefer to decant from a dropper (onto a dry palette); for a small model like infantry, I often prefer a fliptop (onto a wet palette).

When I'm drybrushing I ALWAYS prefer a fliptop.

Talys, I want to thank you for being a very reasonable and well-spoken voice in this thread. I completely agree with most of your points, and not once have you taken to fanboyish arguments. Great job!

 Talys wrote:

Also, it isn't at all derailing the conversation, because you are totally missing out on why people who love 40k do. It is BECAUSE of a gothic inspired d6 scifi shooter wargame with space marines versus space elves, space orks versus huge robots, flying jets, and guys that hurl insulting taunts. It's all about bolter porn, man. If this isn't your thing? Stay away from 40k, because there are plenty of other things to do!

Thankfully, there are many miniature-related hobbies, from a little number of models (like Infinity) to quite a few (like Warmachines) to monstrosity (like 40k). So pick your poison. Or go back to cars and boats. The sign of a true hobbyist is one who prefers spending the night fiddling with a model over zipping around in a sports car.

Besides: do you have any idea how uncomfortable a Ferrari is, how noisy they run, what a terrible ride they are, and how much they break down? ^.^ Piece of junk, if you ask me. Would take a Trukk (or a Land Raider) any day!!

I play historicals, I play Warhammer from time to time, amongst a slew of other games (and love sports cars and motorbikes as well actually!) While I do know of gamers that play a single game exclusively, I think there is probably a lot of crossover and as such GW's prices (going back to the OP here, sorry if this is outlandish! ) certainly do matter.

I have friends who have built up their WFB with Mantic minis and Perry historicals. Others who have moved on to X-Wing from 40k because they weren't willing to keep on top of the game in terms of the finances involved. I think a lot more people are attracted to the concept of wargaming, of painted miniatures on cool terrain and it's strategic elements, than just the specific elements of WFB, 40k or whatever game, and will not necessarily just look in one place for it.

Your first paragraph I have quoted there is great by the way! Very well written, you're certainly right though that if there are certain things that you want, certainly in the case of 40k, you have to go to GW for them. But, the higher those prices go, the more that 'value' test that Insaniak mentioned some posts above gets challenged. There will always be one guy who will spend a $100 on a box of tactical marines, they probably post on this forum, but in the meantime every year the line on the graph for the company dips. While the universe GW has created is awesome, it's not the only one. Speaking personally, I'm really enjoying the background of Infinity, it's got a vibrancy about it and after twenty years of reading the same tale of the genetically engineered guys it started to get a bit stale for me. But, of course YMMV..

As a final though though I would still maintain that for the traditional 40k hobbyist, huge robots and flying jets are not core components of the game, and have actually detracted from the experience somewhat since their introduction. Those were always done much better in 6mm

 Leth wrote:
I guess I save my principles concerns for things that I actually care about versus a small increase in my luxury hobby item

Ambivalence toward being taken advantage of doesn't mean you aren't being taken advantage of.

People in Australia are expecting paint to be $8, up from $6. I laughed.

Meanwhile I got some 75g tube paint from the local Bunnings for less than $2 each that Im using for terrain.

Also got enough miniature paint left for ages for what little miniature painting I do. Walked into a shop that had some GW boxes they were getting rid of for half aussie retail and some were the old high elf paint starter.

 Talys wrote:

I don't know what the overlap is in customer base for historicals. None of my 40k friends have even the tiniest interest in historical or scale models, and at my local hobby shop, the crowds do not much mingle. You don't see civil war buffs play Malifaux on the odd weekend. For me, a scale X-Wing Fighter? Yes! Giant Millenium Falcon? Sure thing! Warlord Titan?!?! OMG. I wish I had one (and that my wife wouldn't kill me for parking it in our living room). A scale Sherman or F-14? Not if someone paid me. So the price is irrelevant to me. To someone who might choose between the two, sure, it's relevant.

All the historics players I know from my local club tend to also have factions for smaller fantasy (X-Wing, Malifaux, Mordheim, Blood Bowl, etc) and historics (Saga, Bolt Action, etc) because they are better for pick-up games and short club evening games. I bet most of them have at least one 40K army as well gathering dust. They then play huge (300+ minis a side) historic games over a Saturday.

The one game/company/ruleset really only applies to GW for some reason (market dominance and brilliance 20 years ago I imagine). Most other gamers tend to play quite a mix of periods / scales / games / rules and will more likely pick up a new game for a project than a new army for an existing game. Because who ever said variety was a bad thing?

In the grand scheme of things is a small increase in paint costs a big deal? Not really, the paint lasts pretty well. Does it manage to make GW paints look like even worse value than it's competitors? Definitely. It's already more expensive than the rest, which often contain more paint in dropper bottles. It's also much more expensive than Coat d'Arms who made the last Citadel paint range and still provides colour matches (I don't know if they also make the current one). I used to buy GW paints exclusively, and I still buy them from time to time (I too prefer pots for painting a single mini as the droppers seem wasteful), but in the last couple of years since I got into historics my paint collection has gone from 100% citadel to 45% Citadel, 50% Vallejo, 5% Other, and I'll continue to replace GW paints with Vallejos in the future because the value is so much better. 20% less per bottle, with 20% more in them (18ml Vs 15ml?)

Herzlos wrote:
20% less per bottle, with 20% more in them (18ml Vs 15ml?)

Its only 12ml in a GW paint so you get 33% less paint or 50% more depending which way you look at it before factoring in the price.

The argument about new entrants to the hobby is a sound one. I think its effect is being hugely exaggerated, but it will have an influence over time.

Our main 40k player is my son; I help him customise stuff and paint when there's a deadline approaching, like his upcoming Apocalypse match in 10 days.

The basic hobby is not expensive for kids. I mean it, not expensive. He's building an Ork army, and probably spends £30 every three months or so, supplemented with more stuff at birthdays and Christmas. It takes those three months to paint all the items. (We are lucky, we're near Dark Sphere, so that significantly affects the price dimension0

Compare that with other stuff 14-year olds buy: Destiny was around £45. Was used for a month or two. Most Xbox One games are over £40, the console itself is £300 plus. These days, most of his friends have their own iPads, £240 and up, many of them have new iPhones. Even in low-income families, parents tend to buy their kids expensive stuff. Many parents would be happy about paying those kinds of sums for a hobby that doesn't involve staring at a screen for hours on end.

that said, GW are pushing too hard on prices and it will have an effect. The AOBR starter game was £40 in 2009 - if it had kept pace with inflation it would be £48-50 today. Altho staff in some GW stores are great, he used to play at Bluewater, and would often see parents walk in, become resigned to paying £75 for a starter box... then walk out in horror once they got the hard sell on a £50 paint set.

The concerns of older players, like many on dakkadakka, are probably largely irrelevant to GW's future, but if they don't address recruitment, with a coherent strategy, they will wither and die over the next decade.

I think GW shot themselves in the foot a tad by extending the paint range so much. There's a lot of overlap now and newbies are going to buy the paints they need and only the paints they need whilst veterans are restocking equivalents to trusted colours. GW are left with higher levels of stock to carry and greater space used up in stores for the paint range. They'd have been so much better off actually reducing the range down to a core range and selling more. Kind of like how Lidl can undercut Tesco by not stocking huge ranges of beans.

I don't see that they can continue to sustain a range of 130 paints. I'm kicking myself for buying Russ Grey as well as Fenrisian Grey, and I'm sure there are many examples of overlap elsewhere. Of course, if and when they do reduce that range down to about 60, they'll be heralded as some sort of 'best of' collection and marked up 50% but that's why we love GW, isn't it?!

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

The basic hobby is not expensive for kids. I mean it, not expensive. He's building an Ork army, and probably spends £30 every three months or so, supplemented with more stuff at birthdays and Christmas. It takes those three months to paint all the items. (We are lucky, we're near Dark Sphere, so that significantly affects the price dimension0

Compare that with other stuff 14-year olds buy: Destiny was around £45. Was used for a month or two. Most Xbox One games are over £40, the console itself is £300 plus. These days, most of his friends have their own iPads, £240 and up, many of them have new iPhones. Even in low-income families, parents tend to buy their kids expensive stuff. Many parents would be happy about paying those kinds of sums for a hobby that doesn't involve staring at a screen for hours on end.

Newp, sorry, we've already talked about the 'cheap in comparison to expensive tech' thing. Some of us find it wanting.

Also:

The basic hobby is not expensive for kids. I mean it, not expensive...
parents tend to buy their kids expensive stuff.

Yyyeah. I don't wonder that you don't think it's expensive for kids.

 Vermis wrote:

Newp, sorry, we've already talked about the 'cheap in comparison to expensive tech' thing. Some of us find it wanting.

Sorry if my post was too nuanced for you. Blithely dismissing a comparison doesn't make it invalid.

The fact remains that most 14 year old boys spend a lot on xbox games, with an average of around six hours a week spent playing. It's undeniable that this is the main competition for a teenagers pounds/dollars, and they spend a lot. Again, that doesn't mean GW won't have a problem with recruitment if they keep increasing prices by three times the inflation rate.

At the end of the day, any purchase is boiled down to perception of value. Is the dollar amount I'm going to spend on this translate to an acceptable amount of entertainment?

For me at least, lately, video games have become a higher value/dollar purchase than wargaming stuff. Video games may have a shorter shelf life, but allow for immediate gratification for someone with far less free time.

Wargaming stuff requires a good place to play (and even a community). They require significant time investment to prepare the game to play, from the game's setup to the miniature's painting and construction. The barrier to entry is insanely high now thanks to incredibly expensive revolving door rules and minimum point requirements to play an interesting game (people look at me funny if I even ask to play a 1500 game. They can't bring 5 knights...)

And finally, GW's own behavior has massively tipped the scales against their product being an acceptable value/dollar ratio.

Well I buy from an Independant Retailer and they have everything WAY more expensive, like plain skaven clanrats are 40 francs, which is 45 Dolores.

Ember

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Vermis wrote:

Newp, sorry, we've already talked about the 'cheap in comparison to expensive tech' thing. Some of us find it wanting.

Sorry if my post was too nuanced for you. Blithely dismissing a comparison doesn't make it invalid.

The fact remains that most 14 year old boys spend a lot on xbox games, with an average of around six hours a week spent playing. It's undeniable that this is the main competition for a teenagers pounds/dollars, and they spend a lot. Again, that doesn't mean GW won't have a problem with recruitment if they keep increasing prices by three times the inflation rate.

Time and again this occurs, and time and again it is shown to be fallacious. The " GW isn't expensive because other things cost money" argument is not a valid one. Value is subjective, and therefore you cannot compare relative value across different activities and draw any meaningful conclusions. It may take 3 months to paint £30 of minis for you, and a game may last days or weeks, but equally I'm sure there's other 14 year olds out there who may simply glue and base coat their minis in no time yet spend weeks and weeks exploring and completing all the sub quests and achievements on a game, and as far as I'm aware their is no scientific measure for fun, so short of a massive survey of everyone who fits the particular criteria (and the recent election has shown how meaning that sort of activity can be) one cannot objectively measure the enjoyment obtained by the two activities by two different people.

No, the only thing to do is to compare the pricing of similar products by similar companies intended for a similar purpose, and in this case GW nearly always come up wanting, frequently it's only a question of how much.

Also, a price rise that comes into effect 2 weeks after the UK economy reports negative inflation for the first time in over half a century just seems to illustrate that the majority of any commercial pressures GW is subject to are self generated.

What I personally find interesting (and not in a positive way) is the notion that GW games are something other than just a facet of miniature wargaming in general. Warhammer is just one of many aspects of that hobby, not a hobby in and of itself. This argument of "GW games require a lot of money and time" isn't exclusive to GW in any way, shape or form. Miniature wargaming requires a lot of money and time, and GW still falls on the more expensive end of that spectrum.

Also, I repeatedly see this "nothing else compares" mindset only from GW/Warhammer players. Other gamers tend to have an open mind - even oldschool grognard historical gamers might have their preference for settings and games but be open to looking at other things in different settings; it's only the Warhammer crowd that immediately points out why X game can't compare to Warhammer, often for reasons that don't exactly paint Warhammer in a good light (e.g. the common "But Warhammer has LARGE armies!" argument. Yes, it does. And the game is not built for large armies and suffers accordingly).

I continually see that closed-minded, insular mentality among Warhammer players only.

 Azreal13 wrote:
The " GW isn't expensive because other things cost money" argument is not a valid one. Value is subjective, and therefore you cannot compare relative value across different activities and draw any meaningful conclusions.

The rival for mature gamers' attentions is doubtless other figure based-games. But it's pretty unarguable (unless you're Tom Kirby) that for 14 years olds, the main rival to 40k tends to be video games.

Nobody's arguing in favour of 40k increases - which will ultimately have an effect and cut off recruitment, which is what drives GW's business. But if you're looking at how this will affect GW long-term, you have to look in a wider context. Parents get annoyed with the outrageous prices of a lot of items, not just 40k.

You'll get no argument that video games are a substantial draw on a 14 year olds free time, in fact, they're probably the thing that any other product wishing to make an impact with that market has to compete with.

The issue is that trying to draw comparisons between the price of products from two completely different sectors is futile and comparing the value totally subjective, saying x price is ok because y costs z doesn't apply when one is subject to totally different costs and commercial pressures than the other, and some people will derive greater enjoyment per £ spent from y than they will x, while in other cases the reverse will be true.

The competition for the hearts and minds of 14 year old boys is a fierce one, and yes I also agree that it is one that GW are losing, but it isn't as simple as a comparison of what things cost relative to one another.

WayneTheGame wrote:
What I personally find interesting (and not in a positive way) is the notion that GW games are something other than just a facet of miniature wargaming in general. Warhammer is just one of many aspects of that hobby, not a hobby in and of itself. This argument of "GW games require a lot of money and time" isn't exclusive to GW in any way, shape or form. Miniature wargaming requires a lot of money and time, and GW still falls on the more expensive end of that spectrum.

Also, I repeatedly see this "nothing else compares" mindset only from GW/Warhammer players. Other gamers tend to have an open mind - even oldschool grognard historical gamers might have their preference for settings and games but be open to looking at other things in different settings; it's only the Warhammer crowd that immediately points out why X game can't compare to Warhammer, often for reasons that don't exactly paint Warhammer in a good light (e.g. the common "But Warhammer has LARGE armies!" argument. Yes, it does. And the game is not built for large armies and suffers accordingly).

I continually see that closed-minded, insular mentality among Warhammer players only.

I have encountered that same mindset elsewhere -

In miniature gaming I have met a few Warmahorde players that take that extreme. (Not many, but they exist.)

In RPGs... D&D - with wars between editions (most especially 4th edition) and with GURPS. (For a while I hated GURPS - not because of the mechanics, but because of the local players.)

The Auld Grump - D&D being a special case, where the opening salvo of the battle between 4th edition and 3.X was fired by the publisher.... (I rejoiced when Pathfinder overtook 4th edition D&D... I am as guilty as many others.)

Kinda glad I've been moving over and trying out other paint ranges, although sometimes I think I'll still find myself buying a specific GW paint because I'm too lazy to mix it.

That's ok though, deciding to pay a premium for a product because you've made the conscious decision that you'd rather do that than spend time and effort to achieve the same result isn't the same as buying that product because you're not prepared to look at, or even acknowledge, alternatives because reasons.

I'm wondering if future price rises will mainly serve to increase prices on items that aren't part of army releases. The demise of the old annual price increase lead to armies being largely bumped up in cost every time a new codex is released (helping push, in my opinion, the quickened release cycle with books that offer little to no new content, aka Grey Knights).

However, most of these items aren't connected to any specific release cycles, so perhaps we'll now see the annual cycle of incidental items.