Aerethan wrote: I'd argue it is within Fair Use. They are making a single digital backup of a physical medium that they purchased legitimately and are then taking turns using it. No different there than loaning someone the actual book, provided there are not more copies made than the single backup. Now if each person took a copy, it would be piracy.
Yeah right. It's very clearly copying the book with the intent to give everyone access to a copy without buying their own. That's not even close to fair use.
Aerethan wrote: I'd argue it is within Fair Use. They are making a single digital backup of a physical medium that they purchased legitimately and are then taking turns using it. No different there than loaning someone the actual book, provided there are not more copies made than the single backup. Now if each person took a copy, it would be piracy.
Yeah right. It's very clearly copying the book with the intent to give everyone access to a copy without buying their own. That's not even close to fair use.
The law states you are allowed one digital backup copy for items you own. They don't say where you have to put said backup copy. If there is one tablet where the single backup copy of each codex goes, then according to the law, this is perfectly legal. GW may disagree, but as long as only a single digital copy exists, there is legally nothing wrong with it. That said, if they each have a copy on their computers, it's a clear no-no and in violation of piracy laws. One copy on a master "computer" shared by all of them is legal. Morally it may be wrong as is, but they're following the letter of the law, just not the spirit.
Aerethan wrote: I'd argue it is within Fair Use. They are making a single digital backup of a physical medium that they purchased legitimately and are then taking turns using it. No different there than loaning someone the actual book, provided there are not more copies made than the single backup. Now if each person took a copy, it would be piracy.
Yeah right. It's very clearly copying the book with the intent to give everyone access to a copy without buying their own. That's not even close to fair use.
The law states you are allowed one digital backup copy for items you own. They don't say where you have to put said backup copy. If there is one tablet where the single backup copy of each codex goes, then according to the law, this is perfectly legal. GW may disagree, but as long as only a single digital copy exists, there is legally nothing wrong with it. That said, if they each have a copy on their computers, it's a clear no-no and in violation of piracy laws. One copy on a master "computer" shared by all of them is legal. Morally it may be wrong as is, but they're following the letter of the law, just not the spirit.
Uh, what? I think you're confusing the rules regarding non-commercial phonorecord copies with the general rules. Copying books in their entierty to create an archive for several people to have use to would seem to be a fairly plain violation of the Copyright act (specifically the right of reproduction, possibly the right of derivation,distribution and display). Of course, it's still a de minimus violation, but it's still not the best solution.
Aerethan wrote: I'd argue it is within Fair Use. They are making a single digital backup of a physical medium that they purchased legitimately and are then taking turns using it. No different there than loaning someone the actual book, provided there are not more copies made than the single backup. Now if each person took a copy, it would be piracy.
Funny how a blatant disregard for copyright laws is defended here, yet when someone suggests molding a spare part its suddenly against the law... FYI, almost anything photocopied breaks Fair Use doctrines.
Anyway, back on topic...
Why does everyone insist that GW (or anyone's for that matter) stuff have to be cheap? If it were cheaper, it wouldn't be as nice and people would complain. My complaints to Aston-Martin and Ferrari are hereby still unanswered as to why their stuff increases in price every year, pricing me out of buying one. However, if they cut their quality to make a lower price point, it wouldn't be the same.
dreamakuma wrote: I've been into the hobby for 2 years now. I was given an ork army of about 700 points.Now I have close to 5000. The group I'm with has support from each other. we trade, scan each others codexies and have a laptop with armybuilder and said codexices for everyone to use. So the hobby has been pretty ok to get into. That being said, starting a second army has been uphill. I rarelybuy from gb unless it helps with a whole army. I do BA and all I buy is death company for the extra bits every couple months. other than that I buy secondhand and convert.
So your pirating...
A stand up work around.
"Pirating"? Just sounds like a club sharing rulebooks to me, except they're scanned and loaded into a single laptop, which I gather is done more for the sake of convenience since all the books were purchased legally beforehand.
I'd argue it is within Fair Use. They are making a single digital backup of a physical medium that they purchased legitimately and are then taking turns using it. No different there than loaning someone the actual book, provided there are not more copies made than the single backup. Now if each person took a copy, it would be piracy.
I'm not a laywer, but I don't think it'd fall in to Fair Use. From what I understand, making a digital copy of something could only be considered fair use if it's for "personal use", this is not "personal use".
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: Why does everyone insist that GW (or anyone's for that matter) stuff have to be cheap? If it were cheaper, it wouldn't be as nice and people would complain. My complaints to Aston-Martin and Ferrari are hereby still unanswered as to why their stuff increases in price every year, pricing me out of buying one. However, if they cut their quality to make a lower price point, it wouldn't be the same.
The general consensus I get from threads like this is not that they want GW stuff to be cheap, but cheaper. People aren't asking for Mantic prices most of the time, but a 30-40% price drop, while still above Mantics prices, would be palatable. Then there's stuff that's just blatantly rip-off price bracketed, like Blood Knights, or the aforementioned Sammael and Archaon. Those could all take easily a 50% price drop and still be profitable for GW. In fact moreso, because people would actually buy them.
Aerethan wrote: I'd argue it is within Fair Use. They are making a single digital backup of a physical medium that they purchased legitimately and are then taking turns using it. No different there than loaning someone the actual book, provided there are not more copies made than the single backup. Now if each person took a copy, it would be piracy.
Yeah right. It's very clearly copying the book with the intent to give everyone access to a copy without buying their own. That's not even close to fair use.
The law states you are allowed one digital backup copy for items you own. They don't say where you have to put said backup copy. If there is one tablet where the single backup copy of each codex goes, then according to the law, this is perfectly legal. GW may disagree, but as long as only a single digital copy exists, there is legally nothing wrong with it. That said, if they each have a copy on their computers, it's a clear no-no and in violation of piracy laws. One copy on a master "computer" shared by all of them is legal. Morally it may be wrong as is, but they're following the letter of the law, just not the spirit.
Uh, what? I think you're confusing the rules regarding non-commercial phonorecord copies with the general rules. Copying books in their entierty to create an archive for several people to have use to would seem to be a fairly plain violation of the Copyright act (specifically the right of reproduction, possibly the right of derivation,distribution and display). Of course, it's still a de minimus violation, but it's still not the best solution.
Courts have previously found that a use was fair where the use of the copyrighted work was socially beneficial. In particular, U.S. courts have recognized the following fair uses: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research and parodies.
In addition, in 1984 the Supreme Court held that time-shifting (for example, private, non-commercial home taping of television programs with a VCR to permit later viewing) is fair use. (Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984, S.C.)
Although the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers believe that the following (and many other uses) are also fair uses:
Space-shifting or format-shifting - that is, taking content you own in one format and putting it into another format, for personal, non-commercial use. For instance, "ripping" an audio CD (that is, making an MP3-format version of an audio CD that you already own) is considered fair use by many lawyers, based on the 1984 Betamax decision and the 1999 Rio MP3 player decision (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F. 3d 1072, 1079, 9th Circ. 1999.)
Making a personal back-up copy of content you own - for instance, burning a copy of an audio CD you own.
Aerethan wrote: I'd argue it is within Fair Use. They are making a single digital backup of a physical medium that they purchased legitimately and are then taking turns using it. No different there than loaning someone the actual book, provided there are not more copies made than the single backup. Now if each person took a copy, it would be piracy.
Yeah right. It's very clearly copying the book with the intent to give everyone access to a copy without buying their own. That's not even close to fair use.
The law states you are allowed one digital backup copy for items you own. They don't say where you have to put said backup copy. If there is one tablet where the single backup copy of each codex goes, then according to the law, this is perfectly legal. GW may disagree, but as long as only a single digital copy exists, there is legally nothing wrong with it. That said, if they each have a copy on their computers, it's a clear no-no and in violation of piracy laws. One copy on a master "computer" shared by all of them is legal. Morally it may be wrong as is, but they're following the letter of the law, just not the spirit.
Uh, what? I think you're confusing the rules regarding non-commercial phonorecord copies with the general rules. Copying books in their entierty to create an archive for several people to have use to would seem to be a fairly plain violation of the Copyright act (specifically the right of reproduction, possibly the right of derivation,distribution and display). Of course, it's still a de minimus violation, but it's still not the best solution.
Courts have previously found that a use was fair where the use of the copyrighted work was socially beneficial. In particular, U.S. courts have recognized the following fair uses: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research and parodies.
In addition, in 1984 the Supreme Court held that time-shifting (for example, private, non-commercial home taping of television programs with a VCR to permit later viewing) is fair use. (Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984, S.C.)
Although the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers believe that the following (and many other uses) are also fair uses:
Space-shifting or format-shifting - that is, taking content you own in one format and putting it into another format, for personal, non-commercial use. For instance, "ripping" an audio CD (that is, making an MP3-format version of an audio CD that you already own) is considered fair use by many lawyers, based on the 1984 Betamax decision and the 1999 Rio MP3 player decision (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F. 3d 1072, 1079, 9th Circ. 1999.)
Making a personal back-up copy of content you own - for instance, burning a copy of an audio CD you own.
It's funny that they all cite personal use. When you have a PDF on a device being shared, it's no longer personal use, so no longer fair use. Whether intentionally done or not, it's no fair use once more than the person who backed it up is using it.
As Buzzsaw said, it's still de minimus. It's not, however, defensible as fair use.
Courts have previously found that a use was fair where the use of the copyrighted work was socially beneficial. In particular, U.S. courts have recognized the following fair uses: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research and parodies.
In addition, in 1984 the Supreme Court held that time-shifting (for example, private, non-commercial home taping of television programs with a VCR to permit later viewing) is fair use. (Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984, S.C.)
Although the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers believe that the following (and many other uses) are also fair uses:
Space-shifting or format-shifting - that is, taking content you own in one format and putting it into another format, for personal, non-commercial use. For instance, "ripping" an audio CD (that is, making an MP3-format version of an audio CD that you already own) is considered fair use by many lawyers, based on the 1984 Betamax decision and the 1999 Rio MP3 player decision (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F. 3d 1072, 1079, 9th Circ. 1999.)
Making a personal back-up copy of content you own - for instance, burning a copy of an audio CD you own.
I don't see anything in that which says making a COMPLETE digital copy for PUBLIC use falls under fair use. Making PARTIAL copies for eduction/comment/news/etc or copies for PERSONAL use I see, not COMPLETE copies for PUBLIC use.
Uh, what? I think you're confusing the rules regarding non-commercial phonorecord copies with the general rules. Copying books in their entierty to create an archive for several people to have use to would seem to be a fairly plain violation of the Copyright act (specifically the right of reproduction, possibly the right of derivation,distribution and display). Of course, it's still a de minimus violation, but it's still not the best solution.
Courts have previously found that a use was fair where the use of the copyrighted work was socially beneficial. In particular, U.S. courts have recognized the following fair uses: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research and parodies.
In addition, in 1984 the Supreme Court held that time-shifting (for example, private, non-commercial home taping of television programs with a VCR to permit later viewing) is fair use. (Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984, S.C.)
Although the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers believe that the following (and many other uses) are also fair uses:
Space-shifting or format-shifting - that is, taking content you own in one format and putting it into another format, for personal, non-commercial use. For instance, "ripping" an audio CD (that is, making an MP3-format version of an audio CD that you already own) is considered fair use by many lawyers, based on the 1984 Betamax decision and the 1999 Rio MP3 player decision (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F. 3d 1072, 1079, 9th Circ. 1999.)
Making a personal back-up copy of content you own - for instance, burning a copy of an audio CD you own.
Yeah... not to point out too many errors at once, but the "fair use website" you quote is the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is an advocacy group, not a legal source. You also might want to note at the top of that page "Last updated: 6:00pm PST, 2002-03-21"...
You, of course, also realize that making a back-up for "personal, non-commercial use" necessarily precludes sharing it, right?
Eh, too late to argue: 11 hour drive to make tomorrow, found what I felt was necessary enough info (they also say that it's a grey area), so I'll leave it to others to hash out. I do believe any competent lawyer could get it thrown out, if anyone actually figured out who was doing it (pretty much impossible to do if the codexes were originally legally obtained and not DLed). I don't condone piracy, but this setup really isn't any different than Little Peter letting Little Jimmy borrow his codex. At the end of the day, Little Peter has to hand the Tablet back to Little Jimmy, and he doesn't have a digital copy of everybody's codex to take home. Of course, whoever owns the Tablet makes out like a bandit, unless the group all bought it and it rotates ownership each day.
timetowaste85 wrote: Eh, too late to argue: 11 hour drive to make tomorrow, found what I felt was necessary enough info (they also say that it's a grey area), so I'll leave it to others to hash out. I do believe any competent lawyer could get it thrown out, if anyone actually figured out who was doing it (pretty much impossible to do if the codexes were originally legally obtained and not DLed). I don't condone piracy, but this setup really isn't any different than Little Peter letting Little Jimmy borrow his codex. At the end of the day, Little Peter has to hand the Tablet back to Little Jimmy, and he doesn't have a digital copy of everybody's codex to take home. Of course, whoever owns the Tablet makes out like a bandit, unless the group all bought it and it rotates ownership each day.
As someone who fancies himself a competent lawyer, I agree it's not going to be found out (and would be limited to statutory damages in any case), and disagree that it's fair use. You may accept or deny that as you will.
EDIT: and to be specific, it's different from loaning the book from one person to another (enshrined in first sale doctrine) because the book is, after all, being copied. And being shared. And has a specific commercial cost. Other then that, it's a great comparison.
Fair enough. I don't copy my books, for personal use or for anyone else, so this really has no effect on me. I'm just not seeing this example as a big deal (provided each codex was bought and only one digital copy exists in total). If they pirated any copies offline, or each of them has a copy of each book on their computers, then off with their heads!
timetowaste85 wrote: Fair enough. I don't copy my books, for personal use or for anyone else, so this really has no effect on me. I'm just not seeing this example as a big deal (provided each codex was bought and only one digital copy exists in total). If they pirated any copies offline, or each of them has a copy of each book on their computers, then off with their heads!
The fact that it's a small-scale illegal act doesn't change the fact that it's still illegal. GW isn't going to sue someone for copying a codex and sharing it with their friends, but don't try to take some kind of moral high ground and pretend that it's perfectly legal to do so. You're breaking the law for your own convenience, you're just not worth suing.
Polonius wrote: What's a better investment for me, buying a fifth army, or starting a completely new system? It's called diminishing returns.
Definitely starting a completely new system, because then you won't have to play 40k.
Theres something to be said for that.
5th edition was a good bit of "meh", 6th edition is full on "WTF am I reading?"...its really bad, no way around it. A guy at work got into 40K just before 6th came out. I almost joined him, he had started GK, I was doing a custom army using the DA codex. We both started looking at 6th...well to this day he hasnt finish assembling the small GK army he bought, I got 2 termie squads mostly done, havent touched them since. The6th edition rules completely turned us off. Since then we have been watching the prices rise and rise...and that hasnt encouraged us at all.
For around the same amount of money it would have cost to finish my DA army I have started: Blackwater Gulch (2 starters + kickstarter bonuses), 15mm WWII armor, Relic Knights (2 factions + KS bonuses), and a Dreamforge Leviathan.
If 40k had great rules, I might have stuck with it, but Im not spending huge amounts to play a crappy game.
If i wanted to get into dark angels i'd buy the codex from my game store and buy random Space marine crap online and convert. these dark angel prices are outrageous and anyone who buys them is part of the problem.
Aerethan wrote: I'd argue it is within Fair Use. They are making a single digital backup of a physical medium that they purchased legitimately and are then taking turns using it. No different there than loaning someone the actual book, provided there are not more copies made than the single backup. Now if each person took a copy, it would be piracy.
Funny how a blatant disregard for copyright laws is defended here, yet when someone suggests molding a spare part its suddenly against the law... FYI, almost anything photocopied breaks Fair Use doctrines.
Anyway, back on topic...
Why does everyone insist that GW (or anyone's for that matter) stuff have to be cheap? If it were cheaper, it wouldn't be as nice and people would complain. My complaints to Aston-Martin and Ferrari are hereby still unanswered as to why their stuff increases in price every year, pricing me out of buying one. However, if they cut their quality to make a lower price point, it wouldn't be the same.
Its fine when a newer better product comes out and costs more, but theres no way to defend a double or triple digit percentile price increase on something that hasnt changed in many years...thats just gouging the customer.
Mad4Minis wrote: The6th edition rules completely turned us off. Since then we have been watching the prices rise and rise...and that hasnt encouraged us at all.
Technically the only price rise for 6th edition was the hardcover codices. The models are simply hitting price brackets set up in last years price hike. So you haven't actually seen the prices 'rise and rise' since 6th edition.
Mad4Minis wrote: Its fine when a newer better product comes out and costs more, but theres no way to defend a double or triple digit percentile price increase on something that hasnt changed in many years...thats just gouging the customer.
There's an easy way to defend it: "it's making us more money".
And in the end, that's all that matters. You can complain about how you're entitled to cheaper models, or about how unethical GW is being by trying to make money, but it's all irrelevant. The only legitimate objection to GW's prices is that they're pursuing a short-sighted strategy that favors immediate profits over long-term growth and stability.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:If it were cheaper, it wouldn't be as nice and people would complain.
In my opinion the models aren't as nice as they should be, not for the price I'm being asked to pay. Most of their releases nowadays are pretty damn poor, suffering from one of several problems: either being poorly sculpted in general, looking way too cartoony and in some cases even looking like parodies of 40k models instead of being designs I'm supposed to take seriously, sculpted in boring or static poses, and one thing they seem especially fond of now is covering a model in so much detail, no doubt thinking it makes the model look better and thus worth more, that it actually has the opposite effect and makes the models look poor on account of being too busy. I'm not an artist or a sculptor and I still feel like I could have come up with better designs than the heldrake or forge/mauler fiends, or the new DA land speeder and dark talon. I could have thought of a better pose for Belial, too, even a static "command" pose like they were going for could have been much better if his legs weren't so stiff. Just prop his left leg up on a rock or something, hell, he's already looking and pointing his sword in that direction...I dunno, it would have been more interesting if you ask me.
I hear people go on and on about how GW is first in quality, but personally I just don't see it anymore. They're just asking for insane amounts of money for some really goofy-looking models now. And the few cases where they do release quality sculpts are marred by the fact that they're usually in Finecast and overpriced. I don't understand what was wrong with the $30 price point for 5 metal incubi, that's pretty damn reasonable in my opinion and also nicely in impulse-buy range...can't tell you how many times I just bought a random $25-35 box of models at the store because I needed to spend money and couldn't think of what else to get (I have way more DE warriors and scourges than I'll probably ever need...hell, I actually bought vespid once...vespid.). Being nearly $50 for the same models and being lower-quality casts that will require me to waste several hours of my time carefully re-sculpting bits of detail like spikes, fingers, gems, etc.? feth that. I'll just have to be happy with the 15 metal ones I have, I guess, and keep browsing eBay for more, or wait until they come out in plastic 10 years from now with another codex update that makes the DE relevant for all of two months before another BRB gets released and invalidates the entire army...again.
As for cheaper models not being as nice, you don't even have to use another company's models to prove that isn't true. Compare the DE razorwing to the CSM heldrake, the razorwing is obviously the better-looking model there, and also has a more reasonable price to boot: $45 compared to nearly $80. If I was purely interested in buying nice models to collect and display I'd probably buy two razorwings and never even consider buying one ugly heldrake. And as much as I hate the heldrake model, if it were half the price it is now I could probably see myself buying one for no other reason than to take a whack at trying to "fix" it...I'd leave the goofy WHF dragon parts off and try to make it look more like the designs from FW.
dreamakuma wrote: I've been into the hobby for 2 years now. I was given an ork army of about 700 points.Now I have close to 5000. The group I'm with has support from each other. we trade, scan each others codexies and have a laptop with armybuilder and said codexices for everyone to use. So the hobby has been pretty ok to get into. That being said, starting a second army has been uphill. I rarelybuy from gb unless it helps with a whole army. I do BA and all I buy is death company for the extra bits every couple months. other than that I buy secondhand and convert.
So your pirating...
A stand up work around.
I pirate too. As a matter of fact, every time some newbie mentions buying a rulebook or a codex, i tell him to torrent a PDF and spend that money on a Land Raider or something.
The DV box brought me back to WH40K but except for 2 DV boxes (bought with 20% discount) and some DA conversion sprues, I have bought everything on Ebay or from friends who wanted to get rid of the "toys".
I agree with the OP that the ultimate price limit has already been reached for a lot of people, and seeing the new DA releases (not to mention the new Hobbit releases...), GW will lose more customers that they will win.
Let's be honest, who pumps most money into the hobby, on a money-per-head ratio? Us old farts! (and by that I just mean everyone spending more than a year and more than the barest necessities on the hobby, so don't get all elitist.) New people come in, buy a starter set, might buy 2-3 vehicles and 2-3 troop extensions and then leave it after a year or so, with a bit of luck ( for us) putting it up on Ebay shortly after.
Now obviously, long-timers were recruited from those young kids, so a certain percentage stays (or returns) to pump more money into the system. But with the prices rising and rising, and Ebay prices for GW stuff being what they are nowadays (pretty attractive to sellers), it is much easier and more attractive to find a cheaper alternative to spend your money on.
Someone said that GW makes most of its money from newbies, which was basically the main reason why GW did not have to listen to the old farts. I doubt that. But even if that is so, is it a sensible move to raise the entry thresholds every year? They are not making any money on the starter sets, that's for sure.
Kilkrazy wrote: I stopped buying most GW stuff a couple of years ago, and price was part of the reason. I can get a lot more for my game dollar from many other systems (especially Historicals).
However it is also true that I don't any more armies. I have two built and two more ready to start building. The ones I am still building will be done with as few GW models as possible.
I would buy an awesome kit like a Tau Orca.
It is the price of the books that worries me. To refresh my codexes for 6th edition will cost £100 at least.
Much like KK, I hit the wall a couple of years ago after that year's particular price rise. The only spending I have done since then has been a couple of terrain kits which are the few things that GW produce that I consider to be good value for money and the 6th Ed rulebook (and I consider that to be a waste of money since I don't play 6th) - anything else has come via Ebay. I have all the armies I would ever need anyway; I don't play competitively so therefore have little motivation to buy the latest shiniest things and I have made the decision not to play 6th so have no need to update my armies. 6th Ed was a big turn off for me - I don't like the rules or the direction the game is taking. Admittedly, I haven't played many games of it yet but the fat that it will cost me £100's just to update all the codexes I need was enough to sway my decision. Much easier to stick with 5th or 4th or 3rd or whatever edition I feel like.
I feel my decision vindicated somewhat by the god-awful sculpts and releases that seem to be coming out latterly; the Chaos release left me cold both in terms of rules and in terms of models (the stupid Zoid models in particular). The upcoming DA release just seems 'same old, same old' to me (with an added price increase to boot) so I don't really feel I am missing out.
I have said it before but it bears repeating, if I were new to this hobby (hell, even if I was a veteran gamer returning now after a hiatus) and wasn't already invested in GW stuff, there would be no way I would be playing/buying GW stuff - not at these prices. The only reason I play GW games is because I have either already spent the money or because it is a game that they no longer support but which is excellent (like Blood Bowl or 2nd Ed Epic).
In my opinion the models aren't as nice as they should be, not for the price I'm being asked to pay. Most of their releases nowadays are pretty damn poor, suffering from one of several problems: either being poorly sculpted in general, looking way too cartoony and in some cases even looking like parodies of 40k models instead of being designs I'm supposed to take seriously, sculpted in boring or static poses, and one thing they seem especially fond of now is covering a model in so much detail, no doubt thinking it makes the model look better and thus worth more, that it actually has the opposite effect and makes the models look poor on account of being too busy.
I agree some of their sculpts are too busy, I guess when computer sculpting makes it easier to add stuff they add more stuff. Mind you, GW is not the only manufacturer guilty for this.
And it's not completely new thing, look at this old DW terminator:
In my opinion the models aren't as nice as they should be, not for the price I'm being asked to pay. Most of their releases nowadays are pretty damn poor, suffering from one of several problems: either being poorly sculpted in general, looking way too cartoony and in some cases even looking like parodies of 40k models instead of being designs I'm supposed to take seriously, sculpted in boring or static poses, and one thing they seem especially fond of now is covering a model in so much detail, no doubt thinking it makes the model look better and thus worth more, that it actually has the opposite effect and makes the models look poor on account of being too busy. I'm not an artist or a sculptor and I still feel like I could have come up with better designs than the heldrake or forge/mauler fiends, or the new DA land speeder and dark talon. I could have thought of a better pose for Belial, too, even a static "command" pose like they were going for could have been much better if his legs weren't so stiff. Just prop his left leg up on a rock or something, hell, he's already looking and pointing his sword in that direction...I dunno, it would have been more interesting if you ask me.
I hear people go on and on about how GW is first in quality, but personally I just don't see it anymore. They're just asking for insane amounts of money for some really goofy-looking models now. And the few cases where they do release quality sculpts are marred by the fact that they're usually in Finecast and overpriced. I don't understand what was wrong with the $30 price point for 5 metal incubi, that's pretty damn reasonable in my opinion and also nicely in impulse-buy range...can't tell you how many times I just bought a random $25-35 box of models at the store because I needed to spend money and couldn't think of what else to get (I have way more DE warriors and scourges than I'll probably ever need...hell, I actually bought vespid once...vespid.). Being nearly $50 for the same models and being lower-quality casts that will require me to waste several hours of my time carefully re-sculpting bits of detail like spikes, fingers, gems, etc.? feth that. I'll just have to be happy with the 15 metal ones I have, I guess, and keep browsing eBay for more, or wait until they come out in plastic 10 years from now with another codex update that makes the DE relevant for all of two months before another BRB gets released and invalidates the entire army...again.
As for cheaper models not being as nice, you don't even have to use another company's models to prove that isn't true. Compare the DE razorwing to the CSM heldrake, the razorwing is obviously the better-looking model there, and also has a more reasonable price to boot: $45 compared to nearly $80. If I was purely interested in buying nice models to collect and display I'd probably buy two razorwings and never even consider buying one ugly heldrake. And as much as I hate the heldrake model, if it were half the price it is now I could probably see myself buying one for no other reason than to take a whack at trying to "fix" it...I'd leave the goofy WHF dragon parts off and try to make it look more like the designs from FW.
I agree with this so much. Personally, i think the sculpting is ridiculous. I can see the sculptor taking a sculpt into a meeting and some one saying "WHAT! there is a bare area of armour on that marine, put a purity seal on it, QUICK"
Most marines look like they have part time jobs in a goth strip club with all the swords, angel wings, purity seals and skulls they wear.
I like simpler sculpts. I guess it all ends up as aesthetics but, coupled with the price i can safely say i will never buy a gw sculpt.
I truly, truly hate the forgefiend, to me ith just looks like someone watched aliens and decided to nuts with the concept, on the other hand, i like alot of skorne skulpts from warmachine.
Not really priced out - I just buy second hand/other manufacturers/scratch build. I don't care if I can't play in a GW store, I won't set foot in them anyway.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:If it were cheaper, it wouldn't be as nice and people would complain.
In my opinion the models aren't as nice as they should be, not for the price I'm being asked to pay. Most of their releases nowadays are pretty damn poor, suffering from one of several problems: either being poorly sculpted in general, looking way too cartoony and in some cases even looking like parodies of 40k models instead of being designs I'm supposed to take seriously, sculpted in boring or static poses, and one thing they seem especially fond of now is covering a model in so much detail, no doubt thinking it makes the model look better and thus worth more, that it actually has the opposite effect and makes the models look poor on account of being too busy. I'm not an artist or a sculptor and I still feel like I could have come up with better designs than the heldrake or forge/mauler fiends, or the new DA land speeder and dark talon. I could have thought of a better pose for Belial, too, even a static "command" pose like they were going for could have been much better if his legs weren't so stiff. Just prop his left leg up on a rock or something, hell, he's already looking and pointing his sword in that direction...I dunno, it would have been more interesting if you ask me.
I hear people go on and on about how GW is first in quality, but personally I just don't see it anymore. They're just asking for insane amounts of money for some really goofy-looking models now. And the few cases where they do release quality sculpts are marred by the fact that they're usually in Finecast and overpriced. I don't understand what was wrong with the $30 price point for 5 metal incubi, that's pretty damn reasonable in my opinion and also nicely in impulse-buy range...can't tell you how many times I just bought a random $25-35 box of models at the store because I needed to spend money and couldn't think of what else to get (I have way more DE warriors and scourges than I'll probably ever need...hell, I actually bought vespid once...vespid.). Being nearly $50 for the same models and being lower-quality casts that will require me to waste several hours of my time carefully re-sculpting bits of detail like spikes, fingers, gems, etc.? feth that. I'll just have to be happy with the 15 metal ones I have, I guess, and keep browsing eBay for more, or wait until they come out in plastic 10 years from now with another codex update that makes the DE relevant for all of two months before another BRB gets released and invalidates the entire army...again.
As for cheaper models not being as nice, you don't even have to use another company's models to prove that isn't true. Compare the DE razorwing to the CSM heldrake, the razorwing is obviously the better-looking model there, and also has a more reasonable price to boot: $45 compared to nearly $80. If I was purely interested in buying nice models to collect and display I'd probably buy two razorwings and never even consider buying one ugly heldrake. And as much as I hate the heldrake model, if it were half the price it is now I could probably see myself buying one for no other reason than to take a whack at trying to "fix" it...I'd leave the goofy WHF dragon parts off and try to make it look more like the designs from FW.
There is little I can add to Sid's excellent post: he really captures a lot of what I've been thinking about GW releases for some time. Just looking at the DA releases, I can't believe that these are things that have been produced by modern companies.
If you want cheap DA & Chaos figures, ebay is your friend right now.
Loads of people are buying and splitting the DV box sets for a small profit, as an example the DA terminator squads are £8 - £10 here in the UK right now.
Sidstyler wrote: In my opinion the models aren't as nice as they should be, not for the price I'm being asked to pay. Most of their releases nowadays are pretty damn poor, suffering from one of several problems: either being poorly sculpted in general, looking way too cartoony and in some cases even looking like parodies of 40k models instead of being designs I'm supposed to take seriously, sculpted in boring or static poses, and one thing they seem especially fond of now is covering a model in so much detail, no doubt thinking it makes the model look better and thus worth more, that it actually has the opposite effect and makes the models look poor on account of being too busy.
I agree to a limited extent-- "most" seems like an overstatement, especially given the really strong Dark Eldar, Necron, GK, and Dark Vengeance releases, but there are definitely models that I get that impression from. The new Dark Angels vehicles are particularly underwhelming, though the Nephilim Jetfighter looks all right to me. However, the cost is high enough that I won't be picking one up. If I'm going to pay 75 USD for a model, it had better be an awesome model. On the other hand, Sammael on jetbike costs like 50 bucks or something these days, but he's awesome enough that I'm fine with it-- but not all sculpts are that quality. If GW wants to charge a premium price, they had better offer a premium product.
Sidstyler wrote: I hear people go on and on about how GW is first in quality, but personally I just don't see it anymore. They're just asking for insane amounts of money for some really goofy-looking models now. And the few cases where they do release quality sculpts are marred by the fact that they're usually in Finecast and overpriced.
I think GW is clearly not first in sculpt quality, but they do have by far the best multi-part plastic kits of any manufacturer-- multi-part plastic kits that many of their metal and Finecast offerings are very compatible with. I know of no other wargames manufacturer that makes it as easy and rewarding to truly make your models your own as GW does.
I personally use printed PDF's of my army books(which I own legitimate copies of) simply because having the ability to have a single sheet out is easier than having the entire book on the table, and I don't want to cut my book up for sake of ease. Having the PDF also allows me to reference pages quickly without having to track down my book which is usually in an army case which may be in the trunk of my car.
I've never had moral issues with sticking it to GW financially in such small ways only because they are blatantly gouging prices these days. 10 years ago I wouldn't have that same outlook.
As for book price increases, the Bretonnian army book was $20 when it released. It is currently 100% the same book and costs $33.
Damn near every other book on the planet goes down in price as it gets older until it becomes a collectible/antique.
Now if GW wants to make a new Bret book and charge $45, fine. At least then we can say the price is due to inflation since the previous one, nicer quality, etc. But charging 50% more for the same product that is now a decade old is ludicrous. And the same goes for pretty much any model that is 10 years old.
Sidstyler wrote: I hear people go on and on about how GW is first in quality, but personally I just don't see it anymore. They're just asking for insane amounts of money for some really goofy-looking models now. And the few cases where they do release quality sculpts are marred by the fact that they're usually in Finecast and overpriced.
I think GW is clearly not first in sculpt quality, but they do have by far the best multi-part plastic kits of any manufacturer-- multi-part plastic kits that many of their metal and Finecast offerings are very compatible with. I know of no other wargames manufacturer that makes it as easy and rewarding to truly make your models your own as GW does.
While this is true, it also bears mentioning that, for the most part, GW are the only manufacturer of multi-part plastic kits of this type. There closest competitor in this regard would be... Mantic? Maybe? I know that they have some plastic kits, but for the most part Mantic is using "restic," no? PP doesn't make plastic kits, as the nature of their game system makes them a bad fit, and Wyrd, while they have moved into plastics, also have a skirmish game that doesn't really lend itself to the kinds of kits GW is famed for.
Other then the upcoming DFG infantry kits, is there really anyone making analogous infantry kits? This is not rhetorical, are there any other makers of similar kits?
Like a lot of other people, i started collecting GW stuff almost 20 years ago, the first thing i bought was a blister pack of terminators for £3.99, 2 metal terminators in the pack (if i recall correctly) and, i still have them. all i've done to them is rebase them and strip and repaint them recently. the same can be said for the rest of my collection, i've amassed a very large collection of miniatures, many of them are still unpainted, and while i don't have as large a collection as some people, i no longer have to but lots of things. that makes me more willing to go out and buy that one thing i want for the army, regardless of the price, since i don't have to buy things en masse.
I guess this sort of makes me the kind of customer the items are prices are targetted against, i have a moderate disposable income, and i don't have to scrimp and save to drop money for a new kit, i just buy it. But if i was just about to get into GW games again, the prices probably would give me pause for thought, the prices are not by any stretch of the imagination reasonable for what you actually get. Perhaps they are reasonable when compared to other hobbies, my wife has a private pilots licence, and she goes flying 2-3 times a month, and this costs us around £150-200 each time she does (we're too poor to buy our own plane >.< ) so in comparison my hobbies, of which wargaming is only one are dirt cheap.
I don't think the prices are completely unreasonable, hobbies are something you don't 'need' to spend money on in the first place, but they are approaching it, when your customers start looking at alternatives to your own models to play your game, you should seriously take a look at your scheme. as an example, i recently looked at FW as an alternative to GW for my marine command squad, sure i spent more on the FW models, but they were better, and the difference wasn't all that bid, expensive isn't much worse than quite expensive after all.
The main problem i can see with the price schemes increasing as they are is that poorer people will be forced out of the hobby, and its not as if there are no alternatives to GW like in the good old days, and in the good old days, citadel miniatures were reasonably priced despite almost no competition. i can't also say that the models are particularly good either. i prefer the clean asthetic of the older miniatures to the busy, over the top gothic feel of the more recent ones. i just don't see a reason for all the stuff they put on the models, i mean, there is no reason for it. if you buy a space marine, and paint him blue, he's an ultra marine, green hes a dark angel, red a blood angel and so forth.
the new models aren't as good quality of the sculpts (imo) and the higher prices are pricing a lot of newer poorer people out, i'll still buy things, but then i can, but it won't be like when i was just out of school and single, and could drop £3-400 a month and not worry about it, maybe 1 kit a month
Any older U.S.A. players in this thread? How much, in say 1995, did 5 Terminators cost you? 10 tactical marines? A carnifex?
Inflation since 1995 has increased in such a way that $1 USD in 1995 is worth just about $1.50 now. So since then, we should theoretically be seeing a 50% price hike, plus say another 10-15% as the company's costs have certainly increased with their size.
If prices have increased at about that rate, this thread is silly and almost everyone posting in it should feel silly.
If not, then continue bemoaning your fate and posting "woe is me, I can't buy plastic" first-world problem posts. There are worse things in life.
If not, then continue bemoaning your fate and posting "woe is me, I can't buy plastic" first-world problem posts. There are worse things in life.
Not really any point in getting all moral like this on a WARGAMING website is it? Yes there are worst things in the world but in the world that this website refers to this is the "worst thing" to a lot of people, so those people decided to see if other people felt similarly and this thread was created. I'm sure everyone has it in perspective to the wider world but this thread and indeed the entire forum is not here to discuss the bigger problems in life.
uberjoras wrote: Any older U.S.A. players in this thread? How much, in say 1995, did 5 Terminators cost you? 10 tactical marines? A carnifex?
Inflation since 1995 has increased in such a way that $1 USD in 1995 is worth just about $1.50 now. So since then, we should theoretically be seeing a 50% price hike, plus say another 10-15% as the company's costs have certainly increased with their size.
If prices have increased at about that rate, this thread is silly and almost everyone posting in it should feel silly.
If not, then continue bemoaning your fate and posting "woe is me, I can't buy plastic" first-world problem posts. There are worse things in life.
and who are you to deny people from sharing their opinions
I think the codex's are the worst, because its just a book and no book to me (that small and that will become useless in a few years) is worth 60 dollars
most rulebooks for other games don't cost that much
and its something you need to play the game, where as models can be bought anywhere from any company from the net
It has for me, and anyone else with limited money or who actually understands the value of it.
The mama's boy GW manager who was harassing Dondrekhan about buying an Island of Blood set when he explained several times that he didn't have the money comes to mind. He had no personal expenses and a 50% discount, and had the most entitled modeling practices I have ever seen. I had a talk with him about why he glued down the weapons on his Leman Russes, and he said that it's because he buys an entire tank every time he wants to have different weapons. I also saw him giving modeling instructions to a kid, and he told him to do the same thing, like a total money grabbing donkeycave.
The best part about this guy was when he announced that both me and Dondrekhan don't have the money to play 40k. "If I spend the money (that I have from living with my parents and not having personal expenses) to make my army WYSIWYG, then my opponent should do the same." "If you don't have the money to make your army WYSIWYG then you don't have enough money to be in the hobby."
If not, then continue bemoaning your fate and posting "woe is me, I can't buy plastic" first-world problem posts. There are worse things in life.
Not really any point in getting all moral like this on a WARGAMING website is it? Yes there are worst things in the world but in the world that this website refers to this is the "worst thing" to a lot of people, so those people decided to see if other people felt similarly and this thread was created. I'm sure everyone has it in perspective to the wider world but this thread and indeed the entire forum is not here to discuss the bigger problems in life.
"First world problems" is quickly becoming drained of all meaning as a catchphrase. It's like saying that because there are people in the world who lost both legs, you're not allowed to say "ouch" when you stub your toe.
One thing for me is that GW isn't really doing any new stuff. When I was into GW big time, about 1997-9, that was the time when new armies were being introduced regularly. Tyranids, Sisters of Battle, Necrons, Dark Eldar, etc. Plus a lot of the Specialist games that are loved even today (Necromunda, Blood Bowl) came out. Now most of the stuff seems to be re-releases made bigger and more Xtreme! than the original, or slight variants on familiar things (the nth new Dreadnought or Land Raider loadout).
uberjoras wrote: Any older U.S.A. players in this thread? How much, in say 1995, did 5 Terminators cost you? 10 tactical marines? A carnifex?
Inflation since 1995 has increased in such a way that $1 USD in 1995 is worth just about $1.50 now. So since then, we should theoretically be seeing a 50% price hike, plus say another 10-15% as the company's costs have certainly increased with their size.
If prices have increased at about that rate, this thread is silly and almost everyone posting in it should feel silly.
If not, then continue bemoaning your fate and posting "woe is me, I can't buy plastic" first-world problem posts. There are worse things in life.
I started in '98 and remember picking up used rhinos for $8 and 10 beautiful new metal terminators for ~$30.
I don't buy any GW these days, but when I look at those models vs. prices
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote: It has for me, and anyone else with limited money or who actually understands the value of it.
The mama's boy GW manager who was harassing Dondrekhan about buying an Island of Blood set when he explained several times that he didn't have the money comes to mind. He had no personal expenses and a 50% discount, and had the most entitled modeling practices I have ever seen. I had a talk with him about why he glued down the weapons on his Leman Russes, and he said that it's because he buys an entire tank every time he wants to have different weapons. I also saw him giving modeling instructions to a kid, and he told him to do the same thing, like a total money grabbing donkeycave.
The best part about this guy was when he announced that both me and Dondrekhan don't have the money to play 40k. "If I spend the money (that I have from living with my parents and not having personal expenses) to make my army WYSIWYG, then my opponent should do the same." "If you don't have the money to make your army WYSIWYG then you don't have enough money to be in the hobby."
I would have some choice words with someone like that...warhammer isn't even my most expensive hobby, but its the only one where when I buy something, I often feel I overpayed (always when I buy new)
I was much more blunt and honest when I was young
no one at GW has ever been that much of a dick to me, nor would I ever put up with it from some guy trying to sell me model soldiers
sometimes I like to listen to some of the garbage they spout off trying to sell these things and reasons why the models are so much
makes me laugh
uberjoras wrote: Any older U.S.A. players in this thread? How much, in say 1995, did 5 Terminators cost you? 10 tactical marines? A carnifex?
Inflation since 1995 has increased in such a way that $1 USD in 1995 is worth just about $1.50 now. So since then, we should theoretically be seeing a 50% price hike, plus say another 10-15% as the company's costs have certainly increased with their size.
If prices have increased at about that rate, this thread is silly and almost everyone posting in it should feel silly.
If not, then continue bemoaning your fate and posting "woe is me, I can't buy plastic" first-world problem posts. There are worse things in life.
I started in '98 and remember picking up used rhinos for $8 and 10 beautiful new metal terminators for ~$30.
I don't buy any GW these days, but when I look at those models vs. prices
I stopped being able to buy Gray Knight Terminators (models are way better, and they're the same price) when I realized the second time that it's $10 for a plastic guy, and it made me feel like a complete loser.
Items of interest: - NOTE: ALL THE FOLLOWING MODELS ARE THE SAME SCULPTS IN THE LIST. I've assumed 1996 for the year, based on models listed. IIRC, if it were 1998, we'd see the Vyper in that list. All funds in USD. According to the OP's post, actual inflation since 1996 should be around +50%. Let's see what we find...
-EDIT JAN 7 2012- KEEP IN MIND THAT THE +% IS INCREASE IN PRICE AS A PERCENTAGE OF 1996 PRICE-
-EDIT 2 - Looks like there may be some errors in the currency for the new price as some seem to be CAD price when I checked on the Warp Spiders... Can use as BENCH MARK ONLY-
-EDIT 3 - Looks like they are all CAD price for the present prices... my error... crazy that Eldrad is $21.75 in the US and $30 in Canada. $33 in Aus/NZ. Go team.
Observations: The old bike kits increased at around 40% (under inflation, with Chaos bike being the lowest at +20%). -edit- This is probably because bikes were SUPREMELY UNAFFORDABLE back in the day, which is why you seldom saw bike armies, and this was also one of the reasons Fat Bloke's White Scars were SO DAMN COOL. -/edit- The buggy seems to be an annomaly as it doubled in price. The metal characters increased all at least doubled their costs, with the popular ones almost tripling in cost with Eldrad tipping the scales at over 3.5x his 1996 cost. Good on ya, old chap.
The key metric in this list here are: Rough Riders and Warp Spiders, which are the only squads that have remained the same between then and now. Both have gone up approximately 120%, more than doubling the cost of inflation.
The pricing and generally awful balance of armies pulled the rug for me.
I bought ~30 gorgeous models from Brother Vinni, and have sold everything else.
It leaves me with a Terminator-heavy list, that I can play for fun.
Sorry GW: You broke Daemonhunters and Daemons out from under me...I'm done.
Its definitely impacted how much I buy, I prefer the Codices in hardcover personally (better collector items that way, harder to damage, my paperback Tau Empire codex is a wreck), but $60 for Terminators is absurd.
Most of the DA price hike is due to the multikit-ability of the new kits, since they have extra sprues for those parts on them, however that doesn't justify $10-20 for me.
uberjoras wrote: If not, then continue bemoaning your fate and posting "woe is me, I can't buy plastic" first-world problem posts. There are worse things in life.
Quit whining about people whining on the internet! Don't you know how lucky you are to even have internet access?!
I'll still continue to buy, I will just go to places like eBay for more of my impulse buys. I get a lot of enjoyment from my hobby and find that spending a bit of my money a month on some nice things does help sweeten up the working life.
I do look at some sets and know that I will never buy them purely due to the cost. I may not be struggling money-wise but I still don't want to ripped off, the new FC White Council for the Hobbit is probably the best example of this recently. The recent "Limited Edition" obsession that GW seem to have as well is pretty annoying, the collectors edition Codices are lovely I'm sure, but they cost about as much as the main rule book?!
For £30 ish for a nice sized box set for my 'nids though every month or so I can't complain really.
I don't think I have bought anything from GW in over a year now. If I buy anything related to the hobby its via Ebay or the swap shop. Otherwise GW prices are getting too steep for me. Its a shame too cause I enjoy supporting my FLGS(although I still find other ways to in board games and such).
Watch as the next thing GW does is to go after Ebay for listing minis. At that point I guess I'll be moving on or playing with an outdated army.
Druid13 wrote: Watch as the next thing GW does is to go after Ebay for listing minis. At that point I guess I'll be moving on or playing with an outdated army.
I don't think GW are going to be going after ebay any time soon. It's completely legal under first sale doctrine or exhaustion doctrine to resell things. Once you've bought something, you are within your right to sell it to someone else, you just aren't allowed to copy it and then distribute the copies or create your own product which infringes on the copyrights of another company/person.
Kingsley wrote: I think GW is clearly not first in sculpt quality, but they do have by far the best multi-part plastic kits of any manufacturer-- multi-part plastic kits that many of their metal and Finecast offerings are very compatible with. I know of no other wargames manufacturer that makes it as easy and rewarding to truly make your models your own as GW does.
While this is true, it also bears mentioning that, for the most part, GW are the only manufacturer of multi-part plastic kits of this type. There closest competitor in this regard would be... Mantic? Maybe? I know that they have some plastic kits, but for the most part Mantic is using "restic," no? PP doesn't make plastic kits, as the nature of their game system makes them a bad fit, and Wyrd, while they have moved into plastics, also have a skirmish game that doesn't really lend itself to the kinds of kits GW is famed for.
Other then the upcoming DFG infantry kits, is there really anyone making analogous infantry kits? This is not rhetorical, are there any other makers of similar kits?
Wargames Factory, Defiance Games, and Dreamforge are trying but are not up to GW quality (yet?), and there are also a few manufacturers making multi-part plastic WW2 infantry but I've been generally unimpressed. I think the lack of competition in this field is in part due to how well GW has sewn up the market-- others are wary to enter into it because it's such a high bar to pass and has many expensive barriers to entry.
uberjoras wrote:Any older U.S.A. players in this thread? How much, in say 1995, did 5 Terminators cost you? 10 tactical marines? A carnifex?
I calculated inflation-adjusted prices a while back using the Internet Archive and found that inflation-adjusted prices for my Marines had actually gone down since 2004 thanks to the availability of models for very cheap in starter sets. Some armies (Necrons, certain Dark Eldar builds) have experienced an outright price drop, but this generally comes from metal kits being converted to plastic. I expect Sisters will look similar if and when they get their big redesign.
Kingsley wrote: I think GW is clearly not first in sculpt quality, but they do have by far the best multi-part plastic kits of any manufacturer-- multi-part plastic kits that many of their metal and Finecast offerings are very compatible with. I know of no other wargames manufacturer that makes it as easy and rewarding to truly make your models your own as GW does.
While this is true, it also bears mentioning that, for the most part, GW are the only manufacturer of multi-part plastic kits of this type. There closest competitor in this regard would be... Mantic? Maybe? I know that they have some plastic kits, but for the most part Mantic is using "restic," no? PP doesn't make plastic kits, as the nature of their game system makes them a bad fit, and Wyrd, while they have moved into plastics, also have a skirmish game that doesn't really lend itself to the kinds of kits GW is famed for.
Other then the upcoming DFG infantry kits, is there really anyone making analogous infantry kits? This is not rhetorical, are there any other makers of similar kits?
Wargames Factory, Defiance Games, and Dreamforge are trying but are not up to GW quality (yet?), and there are also a few manufacturers making multi-part plastic WW2 infantry but I've been generally unimpressed. I think the lack of competition in this field is in part due to how well GW has sewn up the market-- others are wary to enter into it because it's such a high bar to pass and has many expensive barriers to entry.
.
I'll post this image again:
That's the new production DFG infantry that's about to be released. If the rest of the range is up to that spec... GW's in hot water as of now. I like Space Marines, I'm painting a bunch up as we speak. But for sculpt quality DFG is knocking GW out of the park.
That's the new production DFG infantry that's about to be released. If the rest of the range is up to that spec... GW's in hot water as of now. I like Space Marines, I'm painting a bunch up as we speak. But for sculpt quality DFG is knocking GW out of the park.
Maybe this is GWs big plan: They wait for the competition to catch them up and then suddenly spring their trap, reducing prices on all their products dragging all the non-believers back into the fold and blowing everyone's minds witht he spectacularity of their move!!
Oh feth...I've blown their cover and ruined the plan...i expect imminent Inquisition arrival.
That's the new production DFG infantry that's about to be released. If the rest of the range is up to that spec... GW's in hot water as of now. I like Space Marines, I'm painting a bunch up as we speak. But for sculpt quality DFG is knocking GW out of the park.
That image doesn't impress me much. The Tactical Marine sprue has been around since 1998, so that image compares a new model to a 15-year old one. If you put that DFG guy up next to the Dark Vengeance Chosen or some of the new Dark Eldar stuff it would look a lot less disparate-- especially since it looks like that's one of the marines that even uses the old, softer plastic! Further, I suspect the DFG stuff has less posability, accepts less bitz for conversions, etc.
In other words, the DFG guy looks like a good first step, especially relative to what Defiance or Wargames Factory can produce, but saying they've surpassed GW seems premature at best.
Leth wrote: When compared to other luxury products its really not bad in the disposable income category.
I mean 10 years of wargaming costs less than a ring of metal with a worthless rock on it, with better resale value to.
Last I checked that ring doesn't deprecate in value over time. Warhammer should be best described as expensive toys, luxury denotes vanity items meant as pubic displays of social worth.
That's the new production DFG infantry that's about to be released. If the rest of the range is up to that spec... GW's in hot water as of now. I like Space Marines, I'm painting a bunch up as we speak. But for sculpt quality DFG is knocking GW out of the park.
That image doesn't impress me much. The Tactical Marine sprue has been around since 1998, so that image compares a new model to a 15-year old one. If you put that DFG guy up next to the Dark Vengeance Chosen or some of the new Dark Eldar stuff it would look a lot less disparate-- especially since it looks like that's one of the marines that even uses the old, softer plastic! Further, I suspect the DFG stuff has less posability, accepts less bitz for conversions, etc.
In other words, the DFG guy looks like a good first step, especially relative to what Defiance or Wargames Factory can produce, but saying they've surpassed GW seems premature at best.
If you check out the contents of a 20 man Stormtrooper kit I'd say you're getting much more pose variety, not to mention a ridiculous amount of bits, even before you add accessory packs which from the image included with said pack will allow for some pretty complex poses like getting ready to leap over cover, without cutting up a model and busting out the green stuff.
That's the new production DFG infantry that's about to be released. If the rest of the range is up to that spec... GW's in hot water as of now. I like Space Marines, I'm painting a bunch up as we speak. But for sculpt quality DFG is knocking GW out of the park.
That image doesn't impress me much. The Tactical Marine sprue has been around since 1998, so that image compares a new model to a 15-year old one. If you put that DFG guy up next to the Dark Vengeance Chosen or some of the new Dark Eldar stuff it would look a lot less disparate-- especially since it looks like that's one of the marines that even uses the old, softer plastic! Further, I suspect the DFG stuff has less posability, accepts less bitz for conversions, etc.
In other words, the DFG guy looks like a good first step, especially relative to what Defiance or Wargames Factory can produce, but saying they've surpassed GW seems premature at best.
From the most recent DA release;
With respect to the contents of Dark Vengeance,
GW suffers from increasingly falling into self-parody: their proportions were always bad, they are now simply covering them over with a verdigris of... stuff. Skulls, horns, spikes, chains... they seem to have all the aesthetic sense of a mid-90's cover of Heavy Metal magazine.
That image doesn't impress me much. The Tactical Marine sprue has been around since 1998, so that image compares a new model to a 15-year old one. If you put that DFG guy up next to the Dark Vengeance Chosen or some of the new Dark Eldar stuff it would look a lot less disparate-- especially since it looks like that's one of the marines that even uses the old, softer plastic! Further, I suspect the DFG stuff has less posability, accepts less bitz for conversions, etc.
In other words, the DFG guy looks like a good first step, especially relative to what Defiance or Wargames Factory can produce, but saying they've surpassed GW seems premature at best.
If you check out the contents of a 20 man Stormtrooper kit I'd say you're getting much more pose variety, not to mention a ridiculous amount of bits, even before you add accessory packs which from the image included with said pack will allow for some pretty complex poses like getting ready to leap over cover, without cutting up a model and busting out the green stuff.
That's an excellent point: while GW maintains the same, increasingly dated, sensibilities, people with access to modern casting are producing simply amazing stuff, with options that GW doesn't even pretend to offer.
Another point, to say "The Tactical Marine sprue has been around since 1998, so that image compares a new model to a 15-year old one." begs the question: why is it that when one goes to GW's website to buy troops for a brand new release, they get...
For $37.25! If they intended to sell at top quality prices, it is no exculpation to say that their sculpts are painfully out of date.
In other words, the DFG guy looks like a good first step, especially relative to what Defiance or Wargames Factory can produce, but saying they've surpassed GW seems premature at best.
From the most recent DA release;
With respect to the contents of Dark Vengeance,
GW suffers from increasingly falling into self-parody: their proportions were always bad, they are now simply covering them over with a verdigris of... stuff. Skulls, horns, spikes, chains... they seem to have all the aesthetic sense of a mid-90's cover of Heavy Metal magazine.
I guess I don't understand your point or our æsthetic preferences differ. All those models look overwhelmingly better to me than any of the Eisenkern guys.
Buzzsaw wrote: GW suffers from increasingly falling into self-parody: their proportions were always bad, they are now simply covering them over with a verdigris of... stuff. Skulls, horns, spikes, chains... they seem to have all the aesthetic sense of a mid-90's cover of Heavy Metal magazine.
That's actually the first time I've heard complaints about the Chaos in Dark Vengeance. Everyone else I've spoken to about them sees them as a return to form for Chaos, the techno-organic look the armour had back in the early days. Also the basis for the complaints that there was no plastic Chosen box set for people wanting to use them as their troops choices.
Buzzsaw wrote: GW suffers from increasingly falling into self-parody: their proportions were always bad, they are now simply covering them over with a verdigris of... stuff. Skulls, horns, spikes, chains... they seem to have all the aesthetic sense of a mid-90's cover of Heavy Metal magazine.
That's actually the first time I've heard complaints about the Chaos in Dark Vengeance. Everyone else I've spoken to about them sees them as a return to form for Chaos, the techno-organic look the armour had back in the early days. Also the basis for the complaints that there was no plastic Chosen box set for people wanting to use them as their troops choices.
Really? I've seen them all over the place even on this website.
Now I thought the DE Chaos Marines were excellent - reminded me of the older Chaos Marines back from 1st edition when I first got into the game, and beautifully made sculpts. I was gutted when the rest of the Chaos range looked like it was something that could have been part of a new range from Tomix-toy, complete with little spring-loaded plastic missiles. The Dark Angels on the other hand are awful - more than anything they are just ... well, boring, which I think is the worst thing that you can say about any miniature design. There is nothing whatsoever that would make me want to choose those over miniatures I could have bought 15 years ago, and the attempts at additions (big wings, robes) just feel forced/contrived. To be honest I wouldn't want to buy them if they were half the price, so perhaps the price is meaningless in that situation.
Regarding the OP I don't think there is a 'magic number' - there is no wall of pricing that will suddenly stop people buying. All that will happen is that less and less people will be able to afford/willing to buy, leading to a gradual reduction in sales.
In other words, the DFG guy looks like a good first step, especially relative to what Defiance or Wargames Factory can produce, but saying they've surpassed GW seems premature at best.
From the most recent DA release;
...
GW suffers from increasingly falling into self-parody: their proportions were always bad, they are now simply covering them over with a verdigris of... stuff. Skulls, horns, spikes, chains... they seem to have all the aesthetic sense of a mid-90's cover of Heavy Metal magazine.
I guess I don't understand your point or our æsthetic preferences differ. All those models look overwhelmingly better to me than any of the Eisenkern guys.
Fafnir wrote:Proportions
Well, there is no accounting for tastes, so if one is a fan of the encrusted look, that's one's prerogative.
But if we put that aside, surely I'm not alone in noting that GW's sculpts, especially their terminators, are terribly badly proportioned, yes?
I don't really get what people see in them. Sure, I had a Space Marine army when I was 12 (and if I was still 12 I may think these were awesome), but I think I'd be embarassed to have stuff like this in my collection now. They guy with the sword is a terrible model, so lacking in life, or motion, or anything... I think you could only ever paint him as a statue to get away with it.
Riquende wrote: I don't really get what people see in them. Sure, I had a Space Marine army when I was 12 (and if I was still 12 I may think these were awesome), but I think I'd be embarassed to have stuff like this in my collection now. They guy with the sword is a terrible model, so lacking in life, or motion, or anything... I think you could only ever paint him as a statue to get away with it.
I don't mind his pose, but he's just got way too much going on. He's got so many little details that nothing actually stands out and it just looks unorganised and silly. That said, I don't dislike the Chaos models, because it fits Chaos to have a chaotic and overly busy look.
GW models these days are a bit hit and miss. Some I really like, others, they just look silly.
Well, there is no accounting for tastes, so if one is a fan of the encrusted look, that's one's prerogative.
But if we put that aside, surely I'm not alone in noting that GW's sculpts, especially their terminators, are terribly badly proportioned, yes?
Oh, you're right. Terminators have extremely silly proportions. But I'll take characterful models with wonky proportions over bland ones with ideal proportions any day.
Kingsley wrote: Oh, you're right. Terminators have extremely silly proportions. But I'll take characterful models with wonky proportions over bland ones with ideal proportions any day.
I agree to a point. A point which GW often oversteps.
Well, there is no accounting for tastes, so if one is a fan of the encrusted look, that's one's prerogative.
But if we put that aside, surely I'm not alone in noting that GW's sculpts, especially their terminators, are terribly badly proportioned, yes?
Oh, you're right. Terminators have extremely silly proportions. But I'll take characterful models with wonky proportions over bland ones with ideal proportions any day.
Alas that GW makes silly proportioned minis with bland character! Just ribbing you, someone has to like durian after all.
In all fairness, I do see your point. For me whatever virtues the majority of GW's lines have are overwhelmed by the technical incompetence and utter disregard for scale/proportion. Looking at most releases I feel like I'm seeing Gumby covered with the bric-a-brack of 40,000 years.
As for book price increases, the Bretonnian army book was $20 when it released. It is currently 100% the same book and costs $33.
Damn near every other book on the planet goes down in price as it gets older until it becomes a collectible/antique.
I call BS on that. Can you point me to a book currently in print production that costs less today than it did 5 years ago? What about 10 or 20? Even paperback books have gone up 30%+ in just the past 2 or 3 years just from reprinting.
Now, you can buy used books for cheaper than a brand new one... Just like you can buy a used codex for less than a brand new one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aipoch wrote: It's just poor business practice on their part. Anyone who's taken even an introductory economics course can confirm that there's at least two ways to go about things: Charge a lot for your product and have fewer people buy it, or charge less for your product and have more people buy it. If GW is convinced that, by some miracle of the cosmos, their company is the only company whose product has a set number of people who will buy it regardless of the cost, then by all means they're doing a great job.
The main driver of pricing an item is its perceived value weighed against the number of people who will buy at a given price point.
Contrary to your statement, it's not a simple bell curve. More often than not, you can take something, anything and attempt to sell it for $1. However, the perceived value of that item will be negligible and you won't sell many. You can then turn around and put $10 price tag on it and people will start thinking it's worth more and you'll sell more. The trick is to continue raising the prices until the price exceeds the perceived value by an amount large enough to reduce sales.
Or at least, that's what a lot of people thought a few years ago. In recent times, companies have learned that you don't stop there. Instead you need to keep going in order to maximize profits from a given quantity produced. So the company takes a look at production counts vs revenue. For example, if they produce 1000 units and bring in $50/unit then their revenue is $50,000. If they product 750 units and bring in $75/unit then their revenue is $56,250. If they produce 500 units at $90, then their revenue is $45,000. Obviously the pricing sweet spot then is somewhere between $75 and $90. Of course, once you have market dominance then your perceived value is already high as people believe your crack must be better than the next guys simply because they know people buying it. It's a little more complicated than this as you have to also consider production costs; however, at the quantities GW sells a production quantity difference of 30 or 40% isn't going to change per unit costs by very much.
It generally takes years to figure out those numbers. Worse, they change to some extent depending upon external economic conditions. So, you may be able to sell 750 units at $75 this year, but if the economy crashes you might only sell 400 at that rate. Adding to the complexity is that each sector is impacted differently with hobby spending is one area that doesn't follow the norm very closely. In our case, the people who can generally afford to pay $50 for 5 little plastic men today will probably still afford it at $60 or even $80...
With that said, each price increase makes it a bit easier for other companies to start taking a bite out of GW's market dominance. There are several ways to attack a market leader but they all boil down to making a product with a higher perceived value. In this market there are several ways of doing that all based around quality/price/quantity. Quality is a bit nebulous as it somewhat depends on the buyer; price and quantity though are much more easily controlled. Point is they just need to lower one of those points to increase value to the customer. It might be producing at the same (or better) quality, keeping the same price but delivering a game that requires fewer miniatures to play. Another might be the same/better quality, slightly lower price, same quantity.
Regardless, it's a tricky thing for competitors. If they price too much lower than the market leader then perceived value will kill them. In the meantime GW, as the market leader, can respond by trying to raise quality (Finecast - whatever else you might think, it has destroyed the perceived value of metal models) or to change the game requiring new types of models other games don't use (Flyers) or by lowering model count (Grey Knights).
In any event, if GW loses market dominance then radical changes will come to the industry. Whether good or bad, it will be radical.
tldr; don't hold your breath about prices going lower. They won't.
eh if GW made models that looked like they were from Heavy Metal magazine I would like them a lot more then I do lol (fun fact, a white dwarf of eons past had the cover artwork to the movie, on its cover)
though GW seems to have a fear of women, methinks they have a Top Gun approach to manliness lol
As for book price increases, the Bretonnian army book was $20 when it released. It is currently 100% the same book and costs $33.
Damn near every other book on the planet goes down in price as it gets older until it becomes a collectible/antique.
I call BS on that. Can you point me to a book currently in print production that costs less today than it did 5 years ago? What about 10 or 20? Even paperback books have gone up 30%+ in just the past 2 or 3 years just from reprinting.
Now, you can buy used books for cheaper than a brand new one... Just like you can buy a used codex for less than a brand new one.
I call BS on that. Can you point me to a book currently in print production that costs less today than it did 5 years ago? What about 10 or 20? Even paperback books have gone up 30%+ in just the past 2 or 3 years just from reprinting.
Now, you can buy used books for cheaper than a brand new one... Just like you can buy a used codex for less than a brand new one.
Print material is just that, regardless of the content in it. Both are quality products. Both are hard bound and illustrated and yet one has 100+ more pages of printed material than the other and costs a great deal less.
Guess who sells more copies?
The average person who are in the GW hobby are being priced out of it. Only the hardcore are still in it and they will pay regardless.
The main driver of pricing an item is its perceived value weighed against the number of people who will buy at a given price point.
Contrary to your statement, it's not a simple bell curve. More often than not, you can take something, anything and attempt to sell it for $1. However, the perceived value of that item will be negligible and you won't sell many. You can then turn around and put $10 price tag on it and people will start thinking it's worth more and you'll sell more. The trick is to continue raising the prices until the price exceeds the perceived value by an amount large enough to reduce sales.
Or at least, that's what a lot of people thought a few years ago. In recent times, companies have learned that you don't stop there. Instead you need to keep going in order to maximize profits from a given quantity produced. So the company takes a look at production counts vs revenue. For example, if they produce 1000 units and bring in $50/unit then their revenue is $50,000. If they product 750 units and bring in $75/unit then their revenue is $56,250. If they produce 500 units at $90, then their revenue is $45,000. Obviously the pricing sweet spot then is somewhere between $75 and $90. Of course, once you have market dominance then your perceived value is already high as people believe your crack must be better than the next guys simply because they know people buying it. It's a little more complicated than this as you have to also consider production costs; however, at the quantities GW sells a production quantity difference of 30 or 40% isn't going to change per unit costs by very much.
It generally takes years to figure out those numbers. Worse, they change to some extent depending upon external economic conditions. So, you may be able to sell 750 units at $75 this year, but if the economy crashes you might only sell 400 at that rate. Adding to the complexity is that each sector is impacted differently with hobby spending is one area that doesn't follow the norm very closely. In our case, the people who can generally afford to pay $50 for 5 little plastic men today will probably still afford it at $60 or even $80...
With that said, each price increase makes it a bit easier for other companies to start taking a bite out of GW's market dominance. There are several ways to attack a market leader but they all boil down to making a product with a higher perceived value. In this market there are several ways of doing that all based around quality/price/quantity. Quality is a bit nebulous as it somewhat depends on the buyer; price and quantity though are much more easily controlled. Point is they just need to lower one of those points to increase value to the customer. It might be producing at the same (or better) quality, keeping the same price but delivering a game that requires fewer miniatures to play. Another might be the same/better quality, slightly lower price, same quantity.
Regardless, it's a tricky thing for competitors. If they price too much lower than the market leader then perceived value will kill them. In the meantime GW, as the market leader, can respond by trying to raise quality (Finecast - whatever else you might think, it has destroyed the perceived value of metal models) or to change the game requiring new types of models other games don't use (Flyers) or by lowering model count (Grey Knights).
In any event, if GW loses market dominance then radical changes will come to the industry. Whether good or bad, it will be radical.
tldr; don't hold your breath about prices going lower. They won't.
Great post. Though it's the last bty that is probably the bottom line. Not only has GW priced themselves into luxury goods, they are now reliant on those high prices to convince people that they are the highest quality product. If GW really feels the pinch, they could stop or slow price raises, and they may introduce new products at a slightly lower price point (very unlikely) but I don't think you will ever see them lowering prices across the board. That would be tantamount to saying:
"We were wrong", something GW seems loathe to do.
"Our product isn't worth quite as much as we thought", which would be be a literal statement of fact and a blow to their image as "the best ".
On the subject of perceived value of the printed material, I suspect that Games Workshop will more and more find their stuff getting pirated. I'm not saying that's right, but you can look at examples in the music industry and movie industry to see how a market will inflate prices until people can no longer afford to pay the prices, and will perhaps break laws they wouldn't have if the product was reasonably priced in the first place.
Eg; I can remember when CD's first came out. (showing my age?) you could pick up pretty new albums for around £7.99
Now it costs pennies to print a CD per unit if you are shifting volume, so the costs haven't changed much. Over time, the price was inflated, until it got to the point some new releases were £15-£20. This wasn't because production costs increased - a bit of metal foil encased in clear plastic is not expensive. So a lot of people who used to be happy to pay, started torrenting/copying to minidisc etc. Once the music industry realised that they had left the door open and the horse had bolted, they brought the prices back down again to try and recapture sales, but they had blown it. The movie industry is similar - they bring out a format that no-one can copy, and the prices go up to silly levels. Someone cracks the format, and the prices fall. They bring out a new format, and we start all over again...
Games Workshop are getting to the price point for printed material, that people will start torrenting them in droves if they aren't already - most people I know either have, or have access to a tablet type device, which I suspect is going to cause GW a big dent in profits over the next few years. Again, I'm not saying that's right, it's just a fact of life. The higher the cost of something, the more worthwhile it is for pirates to copy/counterfeit it.
Out of interest, since part of the issue for many is the bad designs, would folks say that the last really good (all round releases, ie. all models bar one/maybe two) release would be IG or DE? Personally I thought Gaurd were excellent and then it went downhill a bit (I can't remember which was more recent though, guard or DE - which was also excellent).
Imperial Monkey wrote: Out of interest, since part of the issue for many is the bad designs, would folks say that the last really good (all round releases, ie. all models bar one/maybe two) release would be IG or DE? Personally I thought Gaurd were excellent and then it went downhill a bit (I can't remember which was more recent though, guard or DE - which was also excellent).
The most recent of those two was DE, which also marks my divorce of 40K curiously enough. DE was when Failcrap was released and after DE came GK(? correct me if I'm wrong), that started IMO the since running trend of boring, over-busy or generally toy-like new models.
Imperial Monkey wrote: Out of interest, since part of the issue for many is the bad designs, would folks say that the last really good (all round releases, ie. all models bar one/maybe two) release would be IG or DE? Personally I thought Gaurd were excellent and then it went downhill a bit (I can't remember which was more recent though, guard or DE - which was also excellent).
The IG release was unfortunately in many ways a sad event as well. It was really good at selling chimeras and guardsmen and meltagun bits, but everything got more expensive, reorganized the 20man IG boxes to significantly more expensive 10man boxes, took the vehicle upgrade sprue out of tank kits and started charging $15 for it, and when they re-did the Chimera and Basilisk kits, they managed to make the Chimera turret look even worse and made no effort to make a multi-kit including Griffons, Medusa and Collossus guns, nor Hydra flak tanks.
Kilkrazy wrote: There have been "busy" models since the first edition metal Terminators.
I don't know how much worse it has got as a general rule.
True, there have always been some busy models, but it's gotten much more pronounced.
Compare _____ of today vs those from RT/2nd edition,
Grey Knight Terminators
Blood Angel Death Company
SM Vets
CSM charachters
SM Dreadnaughts.
etc, etc.
More skulls, more ribbons, more filigree. Some folks like it some don't. Some say it reflects bigger figs and better technology, some think it's excess for the sake of selling new products. Whatever conclusions you draw from the increase in detail and ornamentation it's pretty hard to deny that it has happened.
I've got a GK terminator captain (not sure what his name is..) in my hand and it's more greebled than anything the old days. It's also a hell of alot bigger...
In other words, the DFG guy looks like a good first step, especially relative to what Defiance or Wargames Factory can produce, but saying they've surpassed GW seems premature at best.
From the most recent DA release;
...
GW suffers from increasingly falling into self-parody: their proportions were always bad, they are now simply covering them over with a verdigris of... stuff. Skulls, horns, spikes, chains... they seem to have all the aesthetic sense of a mid-90's cover of Heavy Metal magazine.
I guess I don't understand your point or our æsthetic preferences differ. All those models look overwhelmingly better to me than any of the Eisenkern guys.
Fafnir wrote:Proportions
Well, there is no accounting for tastes, so if one is a fan of the encrusted look, that's one's prerogative.
But if we put that aside, surely I'm not alone in noting that GW's sculpts, especially their terminators, are terribly badly proportioned, yes?
I think both those pictures have some cool models in.
Sure some are a tad busy (3 targeting modules?!) but they look great in my book, I've been impressed with all their latest since the last space hulk blew me away.
Have you seen the state of the old ones?! Like the awful space wolves one they released into FC last year?
They sucked, these merely look a bit out of proportion, but I think it's a good look.
Superman isn't in proportion either! I like comic style poses and art, and I want my hero's to look that way, I certainly don't want them having anatomically correct bicep to waist ratios either!
Imperial Monkey wrote: Out of interest, since part of the issue for many is the bad designs, would folks say that the last really good (all round releases, ie. all models bar one/maybe two) release would be IG or DE? Personally I thought Gaurd were excellent and then it went downhill a bit (I can't remember which was more recent though, guard or DE - which was also excellent).
The IG release was unfortunately in many ways a sad event as well. It was really good at selling chimeras and guardsmen and meltagun bits, but everything got more expensive, reorganized the 20man IG boxes to significantly more expensive 10man boxes, took the vehicle upgrade sprue out of tank kits and started charging $15 for it, and when they re-did the Chimera and Basilisk kits, they managed to make the Chimera turret look even worse and made no effort to make a multi-kit including Griffons, Medusa and Collossus guns, nor Hydra flak tanks.
I was really referring solely to the sculpts. I mean they redesigned the leman russ, a seminal and lovely model and din't kill it completely as GW is often wont to do. I think the new Russ looks even better than the last rendition (even if the proportions have got worse...).
I think that the recent Kingdom Death KS shows there is a large number of people willing to pay GW prices and then some for figures and games. And some are willing to pay those prices just on sketches alone. GW may be pushing the price envelope, but resistance won't be as big a people think.
For all the people deriding GW, how many of you threw money at KD? In the KD thread, some big GW critics from this board threw out some eye popping numbers for vaporware.
If anything, the KD:KS will convince other companies that they are undercharging for figures.
The thing is, compare the sculpts of KD models to GW's models. Way higher quality. Looking at the KD models sitting on my desk right now, I can say for certain that they blow everything GW has ever done out of the water. Furthermore, the quality of the castings themselves is fantastic, far better than GW's finecast, or even Forgeworld's offerings.
I'm not adverse to paying premium prices. The thing is, when I do, I sure as hell better be getting premium. If other companies want to charge as much as KD does, they better be prepared to make the best figures in the entire industry, because that's what KD is doing right now.
Fafnir wrote: The thing is, compare the sculpts of KD models to GW's models. Way higher quality. Looking at the KD models sitting on my desk right now, I can say for certain that they blow everything GW has ever done out of the water. Furthermore, the quality of the castings themselves is fantastic, far better than GW's finecast, or even Forgeworld's offerings.
I'm not adverse to paying premium prices. The thing is, when I do, I sure as hell better be getting premium. If other companies want to charge as much as KD does, they better be prepared to make the best figures in the entire industry, because that's what KD is doing right now.
Not seeing any in person yet (ordered the resin Watcher) I'll have to take your word on that. Still my point remains that people are willing to pay those prices for figures. Also, will be interesting to compare GW plastic to KD plastic. While we agree that GW's resin casting is poor, their plastic molding is top notch. On other forums, Poots stated he was basing his pricing on "GW rates". That he was successful is unfortunately a validation of "GW rates".
If the casting comes even close to the quality of the resin models, hell, if it ends up being the same quality as GW's plastics, they'll still be a far better value. At least compared to GW's more recent, and absolutely silly, offerings.
Fafnir wrote: If the casting comes even close to the quality of the resin models, hell, if it ends up being the same quality as GW's plastics, they'll still be a far better value. At least compared to GW's more recent, and absolutely silly, offerings.
Given the silliness shown in this thread, will agree there.
Still debating of switching my resin selections to plastic to get more figures from KD. Want to think they will be good, but don't want to be burned
Imperial Monkey wrote: Out of interest, since part of the issue for many is the bad designs, would folks say that the last really good (all round releases, ie. all models bar one/maybe two) release would be IG or DE? Personally I thought Gaurd were excellent and then it went downhill a bit (I can't remember which was more recent though, guard or DE - which was also excellent).
Tyranids (which landed between Guard and DE) was a good release when concerning the figs (not that there were many). The Gargoyle and Ravener kits are amazing. The Pyrovore is actually a really beastly cool model. The Trygon is fantastic (though I still prefer the Carnifex model). The Hive Guard was executed well, though it could have used a second body for variety. The Venomthrope looks great. Even the belated second wave was great - the Hive Tyrant didn't change the already great design, and the Winged variant was convincingly gigantic. The Tervigon/Tyrannofex kit is the only real point of contention - some people love the model (I know I do) and some don't.
Though the Tyranid line is mostly sucessful because GW picked a few key design ideas over 3rd and 4th editions, executed them well, and stuck to their guns with future releases.
OK, here is another question – what do you consider “the hobby” to be?
If it is purely the gaming aspect then yes GW are the most expensive since you need to buy more stuff than any other game to play, but by that logic pretty much all wargames are more expensive than Monopoly which is also a game that is played between real life people.
To me "the hobby" also includes the collecting, building, converting and painting of the miniatures – indeed as I’ve got older this has become the “main” part of the hobby to me and gaming actually comes second – if you factor all that in you can get a lot more stuff to build/convert/paint with £100 from GW than you can with £100 from anyone else.
So to say “the hobby” is more expensive under GW really depends on what you consider “the hobby” to be about.
Fafnir wrote: The thing is, compare the sculpts of KD models to GW's models. Way higher quality. Looking at the KD models sitting on my desk right now, I can say for certain that they blow everything GW has ever done out of the water. Furthermore, the quality of the castings themselves is fantastic, far better than GW's finecast, or even Forgeworld's offerings.
Well, that's arguable. I think the KD stuff is incredibly overrated. I mean, it's obviously showing good technical skills, but I wouldn't buy any of it.
And besides the issues that are up to personal preference, there's a reason why they're able to sell for less than GW (at least what we expect GW would charge for the same model): they don't have a full product line. They have a small number of sculptors making a very limited range of products (so they can spend lots of time on each of them), with a limited sales volume (so they don't have to sacrifice design quality for mass production), and they don't have any retail stores/fluff authors/game designers/etc to pay. They've reduced their entire business to the bare minimum required to produce a few art project models, and that's it. That's fine if you want a cool model to paint, but less useful if you're looking for a fully-developed game to play.
Stranger83 wrote: OK, here is another question – what do you consider “the hobby” to be?
In the context of this discussion, "the hobby" is GW centric. GW often uses that phrase as exclusively theirs along with "Build. Paint. Play." and I made this thread within that context. This includes kitbashing and converting GW product.
Obviously there are alternatives to GW and part of what people are doing is migrating, whole or in part, to other companies. I'm simply asking if the latest round of prices is providing an additional impetus to leave GW products behind.
And besides the issues that are up to personal preference, there's a reason why they're able to sell for less than GW (at least what we expect GW would charge for the same model): they don't have a full product line. They have a small number of sculptors making a very limited range of products (so they can spend lots of time on each of them), with a limited sales volume (so they don't have to sacrifice design quality for mass production), and they don't have any retail stores/fluff authors/game designers/etc to pay. They've reduced their entire business to the bare minimum required to produce a few art project models, and that's it. That's fine if you want a cool model to paint, but less useful if you're looking for a fully-developed game to play.
While this is true, that doesn't justify GW's prices. Keep in mind that, at the end of the day, I'm not paying for the salesman's wage, the store's rent, the sculptor's skills, or the designer's time. I'm paying for the product.
And keep in mind, GW is not a game company, they are, by their own admission, a model company.
Fafnir wrote: While this is true, that doesn't justify GW's prices. Keep in mind that, at the end of the day, I'm not paying for the salesman's wage, the store's rent, the sculptor's skills, or the designer's time. I'm paying for the product.
Yes, but you are paying for the rules, for the rest of the game beyond the single model you buy, etc. You can't compare GW's models, which exist in the context of a fully developed mass-produced game, to models by a small company making a few art projects and nothing else.
And keep in mind, GW is not a game company, they are, by their own admission, a model company.
Nonsense. They can say that as an excuse for why their rules suck and their playtesting is nonexistent, but if GW's models weren't part of a game they wouldn't exist as a company anymore.
Peregrine wrote: ...if GW's models weren't part of a game they wouldn't exist as a company anymore.
True but the games exist for the sole purpose of driving the sales of plastic models. This is why the rules are usually not well balanced and always being changed every few years to favor the new stuff coming out. Someone new can buy pretty much anything on the shelf but how do you get those veterans who already have all the models they need to buy even more? You change the rules to where they need more than they have and you favor new stuff like terrain or fliers or big monsters that you're going to be rolling out over the next several years.
Now this line GW's feeding the court in the CH lawsuit about primarily selling models to collectors instead of gamers? That's the stuff of fiction.
Stranger83 wrote: OK, here is another question – what do you consider “the hobby” to be?
In the context of this discussion, "the hobby" is GW centric. GW often uses that phrase as exclusively theirs along with "Build. Paint. Play." and I made this thread within that context. This includes kitbashing and converting GW product.
Obviously there are alternatives to GW and part of what people are doing is migrating, whole or in part, to other companies. I'm simply asking if the latest round of prices is providing an additional impetus to leave GW products behind.
No.
The rising GW prices will drive away potential new customers, but at least in my gaming group we all have (had), several complete 40K and WHFB armies that would require minimal maintenance to keep up to date with the rules if we choose to continue with GW. Besides, we are all spending just as much in our new games as we did in GW (we just get allot more "bang for our buck" for several different systems).
What drove people away from GW in my gaming group at least was the reduced quality across the board in GW's latest offerings: worse rules in WHFB and 40K, worse fiction and lets be honest, worse design quality of their models.
Imperial Monkey wrote: Out of interest, since part of the issue for many is the bad designs, would folks say that the last really good (all round releases, ie. all models bar one/maybe two) release would be IG or DE? Personally I thought Gaurd were excellent and then it went downhill a bit (I can't remember which was more recent though, guard or DE - which was also excellent).
Dark Vengeance, probably. I'm tempted to say Chaos Space Marines-- the Raptors/Warp Talons, Warpsmith, Dark Apostle, and Aspiring Champion were all awesome-- but the fact that the two weaker designs (Heldrake and Forgefiend) were also the two big kits of the release makes me less positive overall.
I was going to say Dark Vengeance as well, but then I realized that the only models in the entire kit that appealed to me were the Chosen and Chaos Lord.
The Dark Angels on a whole weren't bad, but weren't particularly great either. They were there. As were the cultists.
The Hellbrute was absolutely horrendous.
Essentially, the fact that I only saw value in 6 of 48 models doesn't make it a "really good" release for me.
I want to say that Grey Knights were a solid release, but then I remember that the only worthwhile models in that release were the Terminators (which, for the record, were absolutely fantastic and were a great improvement on the already fantastic metal GK terminators. I was originally scared that GW would ruin the look completely, so spent my time near the release buying up as many metal GKT as I could... only to be pleasantly surprised and buying 3 boxes of the new GKT at release).
The PAGK kit managed to make the proportions appear more comical than ever with the oversized heads and weapons (admittedly, I never liked PAGK, but I but my distaste for them came from fluff reasons more than anything else).
The Dreadknight is beyond awful, I don't think I need to talk about that one, and none of the characters in the release had new models that looked particularly appealing (Crowe's design isn't actually horrible, coming from a guy who's ALWAYS hated PAGK, but his pose just kills the model, and Draigo's model offered nothing that I felt I could do better through a conversion).
I'll cast my vote for Dark Eldar. With the exception of Lelith and the Lhamian, GW just proves again and again that they are absolutely incapable of sculpting women, but otherwise, the release is actually really solid throughout.
The release never compelled me to buy anything DE, but it's certainly the last release that had more good than bad in it.
Fafnir wrote: The Hellbrute was absolutely horrendous.
I actually like the Hellbrute. I'm getting ready to do a kitbash with it, it fact to make it even more cool. And the cultists make great Necromunda models. But value is where you see it, I guess.
The rising GW prices will drive away potential new customers, but at least in my gaming group we all have (had), several complete 40K and WHFB armies that would require minimal maintenance to keep up to date with the rules if we choose to continue with GW. Besides, we are all spending just as much in our new games as we did in GW (we just get allot more "bang for our buck" for several different systems).
What drove people away from GW in my gaming group at least was the reduced quality across the board in GW's latest offerings: worse rules in WHFB and 40K, worse fiction and lets be honest, worse design quality of their models.
Similar situation here. Warhammer fantasy in particular took a major hit with people flooding away to other systems and games.
To me "the hobby" also includes the collecting, building, converting and painting of the miniatures – indeed as I’ve got older this has become the “main” part of the hobby to me and gaming actually comes second –
if you factor all that in you can get a lot more stuff to build/convert/paint with £100 from GW than you can with £100 from anyone else.
That's just not correct, GW kits are far more expensive than almost anyone else's kits. I grant you that they do come with more bits, but there are plenty of other places to get bits or other supplies for conversion.
I can buy twice as many figs and vehicles (and bits to convert them if I want) from companies other than GW. Since switching over mostly to non indie games and miniatures, I've spend less and been able to buy far more minis and vehicles.
GW hits you with a double whammy. Not only does their stuff cost more, but you need more of it.
Or put another way...
You spend more, get less, and then you have to spend more again!
I dont understand why people compare retail to retail. Compare obtained at price to obtained price. Gw i can always get for 20 to 30 percent off new.
It took me a long time to learn that quantity for the sake of quantity is not a good thing(move 4 times in one year, twice in one winter). I found that when i had lots of armies that i needed to work on i was less satiated. So i implemented a rule that for the most part stuff had to be sold to fund new stuff. I am down to keeping two armies now, from 8 or 9 two years ago. This allows me to really put more of myself into each army. Does it mean i have less overall stuff? Sure, but i value each piece more outside of the cost of the model.
I have liked most of Gws kits recently, with all the raised detail someone with my skills can take time and make it look good. Are some of them goofy? Sure but i still like them, then again i look forward to having a son so i can hang out in toys are us again, get me some of them gi Joes.
Also a side note on proportions. I am by no means a good detail painter, saw the picture of the dude up there and said to myself "i could never make that look good ". However with gws proportions i can paint something to a decent standard, something that is difficult to do with other ranges.
Fafnir wrote: While this is true, that doesn't justify GW's prices. Keep in mind that, at the end of the day, I'm not paying for the salesman's wage, the store's rent, the sculptor's skills, or the designer's time. I'm paying for the product.
Actually, the price which charged for the product should reflect all the costs to create, manufacture, market and sell the product, plus a bit for profit. If all these costs aren't covered, then the company will eventually go out of business because people don't work for free and materials aren't free either.
Let's look at terminators
- Deathwing Command Squad - $60
- Space Marine Terminator Squad - $50
- Space Marine Terminator Close Combat Squad - $50
- Grey Knight Terminators - $50
- Space Wolves Wolf Guard Terminators - $50
- Chaos Space Marine Terminators - $50
All the models are basically the same at their core. One could argue that the CSM should be completely different because they are corrupt or old or significantly divergent. At a minimum, there are 5 terminator kits which are basically the same thing with some added sculpting; all of which require different molds because stuff is caste in. If GW really wanted to reduce cost, make it easier for the players and still fill the same slots, they should release a core terminator kit (base, head, body, legs), a weapons kit and a chapter specific kit. Yes, that's three kits for one model, but I as a player now only have to spend $10 to get CSM lightning claws, where now I have to spend $25 per lightning claw, wasting $15 of the box.
Fafnir wrote: And keep in mind, GW is not a game company, they are, by their own admission, a model company.
To me "the hobby" also includes the collecting, building, converting and painting of the miniatures – indeed as I’ve got older this has become the “main” part of the hobby to me and gaming actually comes second –
if you factor all that in you can get a lot more stuff to build/convert/paint with £100 from GW than you can with £100 from anyone else.
That's just not correct, GW kits are far more expensive than almost anyone else's kits. I grant you that they do come with more bits, but there are plenty of other places to get bits or other supplies for conversion.
I can buy twice as many figs and vehicles (and bits to convert them if I want) from companies other than GW. Since switching over mostly to non indie games and miniatures, I've spend less and been able to buy far more minis and vehicles.
GW hits you with a double whammy. Not only does their stuff cost more, but you need more of it.
Or put another way...
You spend more, get less, and then you have to spend more again!
I had this discussion earlier and using Warmahordes, Infanity and Malfaux (all the "cheaper" companies) as examples were more expensive on a box set by box set basis (though GW need more box sets to make an army so are more expensive) Can you give me examples of companies which release similar scale models (i.e 28mm) that are cheaper than GW?
I’ve just looked at the online retailer that I use for the majority of my game shopping and looked at the cost of a starter box for 40k (i.e. DV) and a starter box for Warmachine (which is often given as a shining example of low cost models) The cost of DV was £46.13 the cost of Warmachine was £62.96 – so Warmachine costs more!! OK, so lets look at what is included, in DV you get a total 48 miniatures (I won’t count rulebooks and such as both games come with these), in the Warmachine one you get 17 miniatures so you get 31 more in the DV box!!! Now I don;t know the size of said miniatures, but the DV box looks a lot better value to me here.
Now I admit I’ve never played Warmachine/Hordes (I have played a lot of other game systems though, I’m no GW fanboy) so I don’t know what these make in games terms but from a miniature stand point the cost here is the same. Yes arguments could be made about miniature quality and the look of the minis (personally I prefer the new style 40k minis to the old style, but to each his own and if you don’t like the new ones you are entitled to your opinion) but in pure terms of their cost in the market they are pretty much the same. I do however agree that I would much rather GW switch to a “normal” proportion design to the “heroic” design, but I think we can all agree that that can’t really happen now – can you imagine the uproar if GW suddenly said that all models are obsolete?
Looking at individual box sets if I compare a GW box of space marines to a warmachine box of Khador Winter Guard Rifle Corps (again I have no idea if this is a “standard” troop choice for warmachine, I’m just picking the first “unit” looking box I came across) you get 10 marines for £17.25 and 10 Khador Winter Guard Rifle Corps for a price of £26.96 – again GW come in much under priced.
OK, I admit that I don;t know what is needed for a game, and 10 Guard Rifle might make a full army, whilst you need 3 boxes of marines to make a full army – but in pure model costs GW are cheaper across the board. Can someone tell me what I am missing?
Looking at other things, I recently bought a Raging Heroes Manticore for £40, the GW price for a Manticore is £24.38. Now I admit I’m not a fan for the GW model (hence why I bought the Raging Heroes one) but here GW are actually the cheaper choice, nearly half the price.
Whilst I admit that GW has gone up massively in price of late, I do argue some what that they are over priced. Given that the costs now seem similar to the competition I think a better argument is that they previously were underpriced (which will no doubt get shouted down on here, but the quick 10 minuates research I just did seems to say that).
OK, yes I'll grant you that but that is still 1 cheaper to 3 more expensive (on a model by model perspective). Also I thing Mantic stuff are terrible (but that's just me)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying gw are cheap, but the argument was they are much more than everyone else per model and that just isn't true, a lot of the time you can get more physical GW stuff for the same price than you can other companies stuff.
I had this discussion earlier and using Warmahordes, Infanity and Malfaux (all the "cheaper" companies) as examples were more expensive on a box set by box set basis (though GW need more box sets to make an army so are more expensive) Can you give me examples of companies which release similar scale models (i.e 28mm) that are cheaper than GW?
Perry's is cheaper, though definately harder to find as (as far as I can tell) you can only buy direct (certainly the only place I've seen them). Fireforge is cheaper on a model per model basis too from the few things I've seen, though not massively. Warlord is roughly the same price per model (somethings being cheaper and some being more expensve, but only by a few pence each model).
Not heard of the others you mention and they don't sell them at any of the 3 stores I use so I can't really comment on if they are cheaper or not, though if you can't find something for sale it's difficult to say that its a better option to buy that - but maybe they are bigger in your part of the world so easier to get.
Actually, I take the perry's back, I see they are now being stocked at my online game store, which is fantastic.
Stranger83 wrote:Perry's is cheaper, though definately harder to find as (as far as I can tell) you can only buy direct (certainly the only place I've seen them). Fireforge is cheaper on a model per model basis too from the few things I've seen, though not massively. Warlord is roughly the same price per model (somethings being cheaper and some being more expensve, but only by a few pence each model).
Not heard of the others you mention and they don't sell them at any of the 3 stores I use so I can't really comment on if they are cheaper or not, though if you can't find something for sale it's difficult to say that its a better option to buy that - but maybe they are bigger in your part of the world so easier to get.
Actually, I take the perry's back, I see they are now being stocked at my online game store, which is fantastic.
Wayland Games stock all of them - just type the name into the search bar.
So they do, though I havn't used Wayland in a long time - had 2 bad experiances in a row which is my "out" clause until one of the others does the same thing.
Actually, I take back he comment about Warlord games too, hadn't realised it was 20 to a box and not 10 (first site doesn;t show this info). that makes each mini about 20p cheaper - still not talking massive money (in a 100 model army it's £20 more) but I will give that each one is cheaper than GW (from the 4-5 boxes I checked out)
Humm, Conquest games, 12 Norman Knights at £16, not massively better than 10 Marines at £17 - again hardly enough to claim that GW are MASSIVELY over the competition, though admittedly they are higher.
Gripping bear is better, over £1 saving per mini, that certainly makes a difference.
So I'll give you, GW are at the middle of the deck cost wise (over most historicals [which they don't compete with] but under most fantasy/sci-fi[which they do]) on a mini per mini basis.
I’ve just looked at the online retailer that I use for the majority of my game shopping and looked at the cost of a starter box for 40k (i.e. DV) and a starter box for Warmachine (which is often given as a shining example of low cost models) The cost of DV was £46.13 the cost of Warmachine was £62.96 – so Warmachine costs more!! OK, so lets look at what is included, in DV you get a total 48 miniatures (I won’t count rulebooks and such as both games come with these), in the Warmachine one you get 17 miniatures so you get 31 more in the DV box!!! Now I don;t know the size of said miniatures, but the DV box looks a lot better value to me here.
Now I admit I’ve never played Warmachine/Hordes (I have played a lot of other game systems though, I’m no GW fanboy) so I don’t know what these make in games terms but from a miniature stand point the cost here is the same. Yes arguments could be made about miniature quality and the look of the minis (personally I prefer the new style 40k minis to the old style, but to each his own and if you don’t like the new ones you are entitled to your opinion) but in pure terms of their cost in the market they are pretty much the same. I do however agree that I would much rather GW switch to a “normal” proportion design to the “heroic” design, but I think we can all agree that that can’t really happen now – can you imagine the uproar if GW suddenly said that all models are obsolete?
Looking at individual box sets if I compare a GW box of space marines to a warmachine box of Khador Winter Guard Rifle Corps (again I have no idea if this is a “standard” troop choice for warmachine, I’m just picking the first “unit” looking box I came across) you get 10 marines for £17.25 and 10 Khador Winter Guard Rifle Corps for a price of £26.96 – again GW come in much under priced.
OK, I admit that I don;t know what is needed for a game, and 10 Guard Rifle might make a full army, whilst you need 3 boxes of marines to make a full army – but in pure model costs GW are cheaper across the board. Can someone tell me what I am missing?
Looking at other things, I recently bought a Raging Heroes Manticore for £40, the GW price for a Manticore is £24.38. Now I admit I’m not a fan for the GW model (hence why I bought the Raging Heroes one) but here GW are actually the cheaper choice, nearly half the price.
Whilst I admit that GW has gone up massively in price of late, I do argue some what that they are over priced. Given that the costs now seem similar to the competition I think a better argument is that they previously were underpriced (which will no doubt get shouted down on here, but the quick 10 minuates research I just did seems to say that).
OK, yes I'll grant you that but that is still 1 cheaper to 3 more expensive (on a model by model perspective). Also I thing Mantic stuff are terrible (but that's just me)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying gw are cheap, but the argument was they are much more than everyone else per model and that just isn't true, a lot of the time you can get more physical GW stuff for the same price than you can other companies stuff.
What you missed out was the fact that 1 you will usually have no more than 2 units of winterguard, if any in a force and 2 those marines are now £20 something pounds 50-75P for 10 and i need around 3-4 boxes in my army of smurfs.
GW are the very opposite of cheap with their sale increasin disproportionatly. The sculpts are as others have said staying on average the same withe the exception that they appear to have to taken to covering everything in skulls. Dont get me wrong-i like skulls. And i believe that they look great on models, bases, dioramas, etc but GW are going OTT with some buildings having entire walls of skulls! Infact the alighnment of many models is called into question-are they really Imperial, Ork or whatever or really Khorne worshippers?
I personaly still play WHFB and 40K but i rarley-its easyer to take my Cryx force into the club than lug a huge case 3-4 miles. Also a decent size Warmachines force can be purchased for around £50 including the rule book, counters etc....
With almost any GW game to buy new will cost me in the region of £150-£200 atleast.
I’ve just looked at the online retailer that I use for the majority of my game shopping and looked at the cost of a starter box for 40k (i.e. DV) and a starter box for Warmachine (which is often given as a shining example of low cost models) The cost of DV was £46.13 the cost of Warmachine was £62.96 – so Warmachine costs more!! OK, so lets look at what is included, in DV you get a total 48 miniatures (I won’t count rulebooks and such as both games come with these), in the Warmachine one you get 17 miniatures so you get 31 more in the DV box!!! Now I don;t know the size of said miniatures, but the DV box looks a lot better value to me here.
Now I admit I’ve never played Warmachine/Hordes (I have played a lot of other game systems though, I’m no GW fanboy) so I don’t know what these make in games terms but from a miniature stand point the cost here is the same. Yes arguments could be made about miniature quality and the look of the minis (personally I prefer the new style 40k minis to the old style, but to each his own and if you don’t like the new ones you are entitled to your opinion) but in pure terms of their cost in the market they are pretty much the same. I do however agree that I would much rather GW switch to a “normal” proportion design to the “heroic” design, but I think we can all agree that that can’t really happen now – can you imagine the uproar if GW suddenly said that all models are obsolete?
Looking at individual box sets if I compare a GW box of space marines to a warmachine box of Khador Winter Guard Rifle Corps (again I have no idea if this is a “standard” troop choice for warmachine, I’m just picking the first “unit” looking box I came across) you get 10 marines for £17.25 and 10 Khador Winter Guard Rifle Corps for a price of £26.96 – again GW come in much under priced.
OK, I admit that I don;t know what is needed for a game, and 10 Guard Rifle might make a full army, whilst you need 3 boxes of marines to make a full army – but in pure model costs GW are cheaper across the board. Can someone tell me what I am missing?
Looking at other things, I recently bought a Raging Heroes Manticore for £40, the GW price for a Manticore is £24.38. Now I admit I’m not a fan for the GW model (hence why I bought the Raging Heroes one) but here GW are actually the cheaper choice, nearly half the price.
Whilst I admit that GW has gone up massively in price of late, I do argue some what that they are over priced. Given that the costs now seem similar to the competition I think a better argument is that they previously were underpriced (which will no doubt get shouted down on here, but the quick 10 minuates research I just did seems to say that).
OK, yes I'll grant you that but that is still 1 cheaper to 3 more expensive (on a model by model perspective). Also I thing Mantic stuff are terrible (but that's just me)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying gw are cheap, but the argument was they are much more than everyone else per model and that just isn't true, a lot of the time you can get more physical GW stuff for the same price than you can other companies stuff.
What you missed out was the fact that 1 you will usually have no more than 2 units of winterguard, if any in a force and 2 those marines are now £20 something pounds 50-75P for 10 and i need around 3-4 boxes in my army of smurfs.
GW are the very opposite of cheap with their sale increasin disproportionatly. The sculpts are as others have said staying on average the same withe the exception that they appear to have to taken to covering everything in skulls. Dont get me wrong-i like skulls. And i believe that they look great on models, bases, dioramas, etc but GW are going OTT with some buildings having entire walls of skulls! Infact the alighnment of many models is called into question-are they really Imperial, Ork or whatever or really Khorne worshippers?
I personaly still play WHFB and 40K but i rarley-its easyer to take my Cryx force into the club than lug a huge case 3-4 miles. Also a decent size Warmachines force can be purchased for around £50 including the rule book, counters etc....
With almost any GW game to buy new will cost me in the region of £150-£200 atleast.
You do the maths.
Actually, I havn't missed that point at all, which if you took the time to read the posts I've put you'll see (infact in the post you quote I've made almost the exact same point as you, word for word) - I was making the point that, on a mini by mini basis GW are cheaper. Now if the hobby is all about the games then yes GW are more expensive - but as I've got older I've gotten more into painting/converting than gaming so - to me GW give me more minis for my cash. Again, it all depends on what your view the hobby as.
Also, unless the price of a box of 10 marines has jumped up £5 in the last 3 days then they are still £17.50 - again, read the post and you'll see that I used the exact price I could buy them from at the time I posted it.
Finally, with regards to design. Currently building a CSM "army" and so far, over 70 models in, I've come across one Chaos lord that had a single skull on it (admittedly I do use models from other ranges to "bulk out" the force, but it is mainly GW stuff) - hardly "covered in skulls". I can't comment of terrain as I build my own so have never looked at it.
Stranger83 wrote: Perry's is cheaper, though definately harder to find as (as far as I can tell) you can only buy direct (certainly the only place I've seen them). Fireforge is cheaper on a model per model basis too from the few things I've seen, though not massively. Warlord is roughly the same price per model (somethings being cheaper and some being more expensve, but only by a few pence each model).
Not heard of the others you mention and they don't sell them at any of the 3 stores I use so I can't really comment on if they are cheaper or not, though if you can't find something for sale it's difficult to say that its a better option to buy that - but maybe they are bigger in your part of the world so easier to get.
Actually, I take the perry's back, I see they are now being stocked at my online game store, which is fantastic.
I live in Halifax, Canada, the only store that sells anything 28mm is the GW, so I do all my ordering online, both from the UK (for non GW) and the US.
From Wayland:
12 GW hunter Orcs, 17 pounds; 1.41 pounds per model
6 GW hunter Orcs, 21.25 pounds; 3.54 pounds per model
10 GW Daemons, 14.4 pounds; 1.44 pounds per model
10 GW Seletons, 12.4 pounds; 1.24 pounds per model
5 GW Blackknights/Hexwraiths, 16 pounds; 3.2 pounds per model
48 FireForge Foot Sergeants, 25.20; 0.53 pounds per model
12 FireForge Mounted Knights, 17 pounds; 1.41 pounds per model
44 Conquest Norman Infantry, 18 pounds; 0.41 pounds per model
15 Conquest Norman Cavalry, 18 pounds; 1.2 pounds per model (Note this is an estimate, Conquest repacked the Cavalry and Wayland don't have any of the new boxes, but going of the standard discount and RRP)
40 Perry WotR Infantry, 16.2 pounds; 0.41 pounds per model
12 Perry Late Medieval knights, 16.2 pounds; 1.35 pounds per model
48 Victrix Hoplites, 20.65 pounds; 0.43 pounds per model
44 Gripping Beast Vikings/Saxons, 18 pounds; 0.41 pounds per model
40 Warlord Celts, 18 pounds; 0.45 pounds per model
10 Warlord Celt Cavalry, 19.8 pounds; 1.98 pounds per model
40 Warlord Macedonian Phalangites, 18 pounds; 0.45 pounds per model
40 Warlord Pike & Shotte Infantry, 18 pounds; 0.45 pounds per model
12 Warlord Pike & Shotte Cavalry, 16.2 pounds; 1.35 pounds per model
18 Warlord Pike & Shotte Firelocks, 10.8 pounds; 0.6 pounds per model
10 GW Cadian Guardsmen, 14.4 pounds; 1.44 pounds per model
25 Warlord WWII British infantry, 18 pounds; 0.72 pounds per model
Now there is a selection of rough apple for apple products. I'm not sure how you define "not massively" or "roughly the same price per model", but to me less than half the price per model is massively cheaper, and right around half the price is not roughly the same. I haven't put in Conquest Games Normans, as they are a bit trickier to find other than ordering direct (but they are based you are in the UK, so ordering direct would be easier for you than me, and I managed). As for availability, you can find all of them on Wayland in the UK, and the Warstore in the US, as well as most of them on other online sites, so I'm not sure if you were talking about local stores or not.
Edit, I noticed you compared the cost of a mounted model to that of a GW space marine. That's just not being honest, why not compare the Conquest mounted model to a GW mounted model (Say a empire knight)? Also, I added in Conquest Games normans as I now see that Wayland have finally added the Infantry to the webstore.
It's also good to remember that some Warhammer factions started off as being historical based. Empire is 16th century Germans. Brettonia is 100 Years War. Araby is 15th century Ottomans. Kislev is Grand Duchy of Lithuania mashed in with some Mideival Russians and Ukranians. Then they simply added in Tolkein lik fantasy races, Moorcock's chaos idea and a few others. Are Skaven their only real original idea?
Anyway, the point is that historical miniatures are more than appropriate for the foundation of quite a few WFB armies. In the last 10+ years GW has departed from the direct historical correlation in order to make their factions more distinct so they can be licensed and protected as IP. More skulls, more extreme details, a move towards comic book angry faces on every model, etc.,.
A while back I read a thread on TMP about someone using Warhammer plastics as their Warmachine army. They used Empire handgunners as Cygnar long gunners, Empire state troopers with sword & shield as Cygnar Sword Knights. They converted up some Empire knights with some tesla coils and painted them up as Storm Lances. All in all, it wored really well and was less than half the price of the actual Cygnar models. The only thing they used of the Warmachine line was the jacks and casters-- and even then, I bet between third party bitz and GW plastics you could get around that as well.
I remember someone posting, why don't you just use historicals? Scale. As well as distinguishing their models with skulls and screaming visages of comic anger, GW models (and PP's) are mal-proportioned and larger in scale. The 28mm historicals like the Perry's and Fireforge are real 28mm with real human proportions whereas GW and PP are distorted comic book caricatures and thus historicals are more compatible with LOTR than with WFB/PP/40k.
But in 40k and WFB you also have inconsistent scale. Regular guardsmen are slightly taller than a space marine. As long as you're consistent for your army, it won't really matter that much if your historicals look smaller and more human than your opponent's GW armies.
Imperial Monkey wrote: Out of interest, since part of the issue for many is the bad designs, would folks say that the last really good (all round releases, ie. all models bar one/maybe two) release would be IG or DE? Personally I thought Gaurd were excellent and then it went downhill a bit (I can't remember which was more recent though, guard or DE - which was also excellent).
Necrons for me (except for Flayed Ones).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
agustin wrote: Are Skaven their only real original idea?
In so far as bipedal rat men are an original concept, yes.
I had this discussion earlier and using Warmahordes, Infanity and Malfaux (all the "cheaper" companies) as examples were more expensive on a box set by box set basis (though GW need more box sets to make an army so are more expensive) Can you give me examples of companies which release similar scale models (i.e 28mm) that are cheaper than GW?
And I have already pointed out earlier in this thread that Infinity is cheaper per model than GW if you will compare metal/resin to metal (which is what Infinity figures are made of).
Infinity figures average 8.75 euros for an infantry-sized metal model.
GW figures range from 11-16 euros on power-armored, infantry sized models on marines. Necrons are 9.30 to 16 euros. IG is 8.50 to 16 euros. Orks are 16-18 euros.
Even if you compare it per model, if you consider the material, Infinity is cheaper. Now, if you compare metals to plastic, that's just dishonest.
IMHO, GW's pricing structure has hit the point that it is deterring "informed" potential customers out of the hobby.
Question: Can you play Warhammer 40k right out of the box if I buy Dark Vengeance?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Can more than one player play using the contents of the box?
Answer: Yes.
The absolute cheapest way to start playing is Dark Vengeance, playing Dark Vengance scenarios only. Cost: $100USD
Question: Can you play against other players with models outside Dark Vengance?
Answer: No.
The absolute cheapest way to start playing against other players at non-standard points totals is by using the Chaos side in DV.
Cost: $150 USD (DV + Codex) At this point, the customer is probably starting to get deterred, as you need to buy a book and receieve no additional models for an increase in startup costs of 50%!
The DA get you a bit closer to standard points values, but you need to buy another troop.
Cost: $175 USD (DV + Codex +$25 5 man troop box). This doesn't help things either as DV comes with 48 models for $99 and the add on models are 2.5x as expensive (and often don't even look as good, and you STILL have to buy the $50 codex to use them.)
If DA or Chaos aren't your bag then you're stuck with:
Battleforce + Rulebook (as it's marginally cheaper than DV) + Codex + $20 HQ Cost: $265 USD
Granted, in the grand scheme of things as mini gamers this isn't bad at all - especially since the DA portion of DV is pretty well stocked, but from a new customer perspective, the appearance of value that DV offers goes downhill immediately, considering that your first $100 investment gets you tons of stuff, and your second $100 gets you almost nothing but is necessary to "unlock" play outside the starter kit. IMHO I don't see how staffers can be expected to defend this structure to new customers. It's like: Selling a console for $100 - able to play the 1 preloaded game, but to play new games, you need to buy the $50 proprietary addon media reader OR selling cars for $10k. It operates and you CAN drive it (on your own property), but you need to spend another $10k to buy the government mandated "upgrade" equipment before you can drive it on public roads (and interact with other drivers).
-edit- I realize that you've always had to buy the addons to play the full game, however in the past, the starters:
3rd ED starter contains the actual retail models w/ full retail BBB "get you by rules" w/ full rulebook, so there was zero shift in percieved value between the starter and the addons since they were one and the same.
Battle for McCragge contained fewer models but for cheaper - There was less of a disparity between price of the models in the starter vs addons, so less of a shift in "value" - 4th ED BfM In addition the starter cost + codex didn't break the magical $100 barrier - $65BfM +$30 codex.
AoBR starts this whole slide into the shift in "value" between starter contents and addon contents. Granted, back then we were still looking at $30 codexes, so the cheapest first mandatory upgrade to break outside the starter box didn't sting quite as much even though it still represented a +50% increase in startup w/ no extra models.
DV provides a crap ton of great looking models in the starter giving a perception of "strong" value, and then follows it up with expensive upgrades and high priced "older models" which look comparatively dated - esp. the 90's era basic marines for a perception of "poor" value on the necessary add-ons.
Dawnbringer wrote: Edit, I noticed you compared the cost of a mounted model to that of a GW space marine. That's just not being honest, why not compare the Conquest mounted model to a GW mounted model (Say a empire knight)? Also, I added in Conquest Games normans as I now see that Wayland have finally added the Infantry to the webstore.
So I did, I apologise, I was quickly zooming around the site (as I said, hadn't heard of these before) and just picked the first "boxed set" I came across, so yes, I'll conceed that point and the box sets you list for them do show them as being cheaper.
By not massively different I mean when it is around 20p difference, if 100 models are going to cost me £170 as opposed to £150 (or another similar amount) then I really don;t see the massive difference there.
But of cause all these are historical miniatures - nothing wrong with that and I accept they are cheaper and if thats the look you want then go for it (I myself have some WW2 tanks in my guard army). If your wanting something Sci-Fi, Fantasy however then GW are one of the cheapest around- or at the very worst are mid range (again, taking about on a model per model basis here - not the cost of an army).
The argument of heroic scale/normal scale isn;t the issue here, some people prefer heroic scale (like me) whilst others perfer normal scale, again, choose which you want but this thread is about the cost of GW pricing people out of the "hobby" and if "the hobby" only meant the games then yes they are, but in the terms of the entire hobby (i.e. painting/kitbashing) then - for the Sci-Fi/Fantasy stuff they do they are one of the cheapest - now you might think they are cheap because they are rubbish - but in that case it's not the cost that is putting you off, it's the style - and that is a different argument.
Is Mantic not considered Sci-Fi and Fantasy? Infinity? I've already pointed out that Infinity is cheaper per model. And Mantic is definitely cheaper than GW. In fact, that's Mantic's selling point and marketing strategy.
I had this discussion earlier and using Warmahordes, Infanity and Malfaux (all the "cheaper" companies) as examples were more expensive on a box set by box set basis (though GW need more box sets to make an army so are more expensive) Can you give me examples of companies which release similar scale models (i.e 28mm) that are cheaper than GW?
And I have already pointed out earlier in this thread that Infinity is cheaper per model than GW if you will compare metal/resin to metal (which is what Infinity figures are made of).
Infinity figures average 8.75 euros for an infantry-sized metal model.
GW figures range from 11-16 euros on power-armored, infantry sized models on marines. Necrons are 9.30 to 16 euros. IG is 8.50 to 16 euros. Orks are 16-18 euros.
Even if you compare it per model, if you consider the material, Infinity is cheaper. Now, if you compare metals to plastic, that's just dishonest.
Comparing the quality of the figure however (or what it is made out of) is again a different issue - you might prefer to pay more for metal because you view it as a better medium to work with - but then you are not making your decision on price so to say GW prices are putting you off is wrong.
The point is that on a solely price issue (which is what this thread is about, looks/quality/style are all important, but this thread is about price) you get more "hobby stuff" from GW for the price than you do the other SciFi-Fantasy stuff (though not the historical stuff, which I've never noticed before - but thats probably because I just spend my monthly mini budget on stuff I like the look of and don't overly bother about the price).
Yes, from the game stand point you need to spend more for the GW stuff - but from the hobby stand point, of which the game is a part but not the be all and end all (at least to me - others may disagree), you get more stuff to "hobby" with from GW for the same amount of money that you do the others.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
heartserenade wrote: Is Mantic not considered Sci-Fi and Fantasy? Infinity? I've already pointed out that Infinity is cheaper per model. And Mantic is definitely cheaper than GW. In fact, that's Mantic's selling point and marketing strategy.
Yes, Mantic are cheaper - hence why I say "one of the cheapest" and not "the cheapest". Infinaty is cheaper for metal models sure - but please see what I put above as my reply to that.
heartserenade wrote: Even if you compare it per model, if you consider the material, Infinity is cheaper. Now, if you compare metals to plastic, that's just dishonest.
Have you looked at the price per figure of Perry or Gripping Beast metal miniatures? Perry is 6 for £6.50
Infinity is way cheaper than GW on a like-model-to-like-model range. Though nothing Corvus Belli sells is as bad as finecast.
RiTides wrote: We don't know yet, it may be $40... was $30 per box of 20 via KS, but only if you bought 3.
It's a Steal at $30, retail won't be that low.
Not saying they are ugly models or anything but $40 would push them toward the "GW premium kind of thing" which i am no longer doing.
I think you may be pricing yourself out of the market there. Consider that GW generally sells 10 basic troopers for... I was going to say $25, but looking at the site, I see 10 Chaos Space Marines are $37.25(!).
Vanilla Space Marines are 10 for $37.25, or 5 for $25 (what? How is that even possible?).
Honestly, when I started responding, I was going to chastize you and point out that 20 Dreamforge troopers at $40 would be 25% cheaper then 20 GW troops at $50... but like you I apparently was thinking ofGW prices from years ago.
A more appropriate comparison, such as to tactical marines, would be $40 for 20 compared to $74.50(!), the GW minis having an almost inconceivable 80%+ increase in price!
The only thing even vaugely comparable are 20 DE troops/IG, where 20 runs you $58. Only a 45% premium compared to GW.
Damn, I thought I was getting a good deal with Mark... I didn't realize that GW had gone berserk in the time since I stopped playing...
Now, the point here isn't (just) to point out that DFG's Stormtroopers are an excellent value* but that GW's prices are, well, crazy.
Chaos space marines are nearly $4 each?
Immortals are $6?
Imperial Guard and DE troops are $3 each?
The simple fact is that GW charges what it does because it can. But why can it? Because until very recently the limitations on entering the marketplace of hard plastic figures were so daunting that they really didn't have any competitors (as the notations above show, they have plenty of competition in the area of fantasy/historical and, not by co-incidence, their prices are more reasonable).
For the most part GW simply hasn't had any real competition in terms of sci-fi infantry. PP and Wyrd don't make kits of the same type, since the nature of their games are vastly different, same for Infinity. The only real competition they have had is Mantic, and Mantic suffers from the problem of a) a lot of aesthetic drift (that is, it's very clear when two different sculptors are working on lines) and b) financial constraints.
Mantic didn't go the kickstarter route initially, so they have not been able to make everything in hard plastic, leaving their lines full of things that many hobbyists don't like, things like hybrid plastic-metal kits, sprue reuse and switching from plastic to restic. On top of that, the simple fact is that the casters they have used on some of their plastic projects (q.v. goblins) simply haven't been able to deliver the quality they expected.
*Although it's worth pointing out the number of bits you get in a 20 man kit dwarfs anything, to the best of my knowledge, put out by anyone else. Heck, the accessory sprue contains parts to make 3 Mules!
Yes, Mantic are cheaper - hence why I say "one of the cheapest" and not "the cheapest". Infinaty is cheaper for metal models sure - but please see what I put above as my reply to that.
So what companies are pricier than GW that sells Sci-Fi and fantasy, then? Care to give examples?
It seems you need a load of qualitative exceptions in order to make GW look cheap. The miniature range needs to:
a) need to be Sci-fi or Fantasy, and exclude historicals
b) should ignore the material, even if GW itself has price disparity between its materials
What if I want a SoB army, which is mostly all metal? Will GW still be cheaper because you get more more with your money? No.
Conveniently, those who produce plastics are mostly historicals and those who produce in metal/resin (which you compare to plastics) are almost always cheaper than their GW counterparts. Anything can look cheap if you put enough exceptions on your parameters (i.e. Ferrari is the one of the cheapest car if we're only comparing cars with animal logos!).
Note: I know nothing of cars and I do not know what's cheaper on the average: a Ferrari, a Lamborghini or a Jaguar. But you get my point.
Well the prices I quoted for GW when compared to Warmahordes/Malfaux and infinaty were all the exact prices as they stood at that moment for me to buy them from my online retailer of choice - so certainly wasn't prices from a few years ago. OK, yes GW might have a RRP over what others charge, and so are getting a larger discout that the other lines - but so what? what matters to me is the price I pay for them. I recently bought a game in the Steam sale that cost me £10 - the RRP is £60, but I'm not going to say "OMG I it was £60 for the game - it is SOOO overpriced" because it wasn't £60 - it was £10.
Again, I cannot comment on the DFG stuff - I have seen them in passing (and I thought they looked quite nice for something "different") but haven't priced them up yet to see what you get or the cost of them. But even if there is 1/2 companies who are cheaper on a model per model basis - that suddenly doesn't make GW the most expensive.
Now I admit that a complete combination of GW failing may well put you off them - you may not like the style, you may not like the fact that the games are more expensive due to the number of models, you may not like the medium that the models are made out of , you may not like the rules and I'm sure there are others that don't spring immediately to mind.
But to say that GW are pricing people out of the hobby but not say the same about others that - from a hobby stand point (if like me the hobby is more than just playing the game) - are more expensive seems wrong to me.
Yes, Mantic are cheaper - hence why I say "one of the cheapest" and not "the cheapest". Infinaty is cheaper for metal models sure - but please see what I put above as my reply to that.
So what companies are pricier than GW that sells Sci-Fi and fantasy, then? Care to give examples?
It seems you need a load of qualitative exceptions in order to make GW look cheap. The miniature range needs to:
a) need to be Sci-fi or Fantasy, and exclude historicals
b) should ignore the material, even if GW itself has price disparity between its materials
What if I want a SoB army, which is mostly all metal? Will GW still be cheaper because you get more more with your money? No.
Conveniently, those who produce plastics are mostly historicals and those who produce in metal/resin (which you compare to plastics) are almost always cheaper than their GW counterparts. Anything can look cheap if you put enough exceptions on your parameters (i.e. Ferrari is the one of the cheapest car if we're only comparing cars with animal logos!).
Note: I know nothing of cars and I do not know what's cheaper on the average: a Ferrari, a Lamborghini or a Jaguar. But you get my point.
I've already show the comparison twice - but I'll do so again for you:
I’ve just looked at the online retailer that I use for the majority of my game shopping and looked at the cost of a starter box for 40k (i.e. DV) and a starter box for Warmachine (which is often given as a shining example of low cost models) The cost of DV was £46.13 the cost of Warmachine was £62.96 – so Warmachine costs more!! OK, so lets look at what is included, in DV you get a total 48 miniatures (I won’t count rulebooks and such as both games come with these), in the Warmachine one you get 17 miniatures so you get 31 more in the DV box!!! Now I don;t know the size of said miniatures, but the DV box looks a lot better value to me here.
Now I admit I’ve never played Warmachine/Hordes (I have played a lot of other game systems though, I’m no GW fanboy) so I don’t know what these make in games terms but from a miniature stand point the cost here is the same. Yes arguments could be made about miniature quality and the look of the minis (personally I prefer the new style 40k minis to the old style, but to each his own and if you don’t like the new ones you are entitled to your opinion) but in pure terms of their cost in the market they are pretty much the same. I do however agree that I would much rather GW switch to a “normal” proportion design to the “heroic” design, but I think we can all agree that that can’t really happen now – can you imagine the uproar if GW suddenly said that all models are obsolete?
Looking at individual box sets if I compare a GW box of space marines to a warmachine box of Khador Winter Guard Rifle Corps (again I have no idea if this is a “standard” troop choice for warmachine, I’m just picking the first “unit” looking box I came across) you get 10 marines for £17.25 and 10 Khador Winter Guard Rifle Corps for a price of £26.96 – again GW come in much under priced.
Looking at other things, I recently bought a Raging Heroes Manticore for £40, the GW price for a Manticore is £24.38. Now I admit I’m not a fan for the GW model (hence why I bought the Raging Heroes one) but here GW are actually the cheaper choice, nearly half the price.
Whilst I admit that GW has gone up massively in price of late, I do argue some what that they are over priced. Given that the costs now seem similar to the competition I think a better argument is that they previously were underpriced (which will no doubt get shouted down on here, but the quick 10 minuates research I just did seems to say that).
I also compared it favourably to sets from Malifaux.
Again, please note this is model per model basis (i.e. a hobby basis) and not on the cost of the game - cause if the cost of the game is all that is important I could play monopoly for cheaper than both
It probably is looking like I'm a GW fanboy just because I'm defending them, but I'm not. All I'm saying is that GW are not the most expensive from a hobby point of view - so if GW are pricing people out of "the hobby" then we should also complain about the other companies who - from the hobby point of view, are more expensive too.
I'm not putting stipulations and exclusions on it - I'm not saying Farari are the cheapest car company if you ignore all the others - a more accurate analogy would be saying that - if you're looking fora supercar then Lotus are the cheapest - which is true. If you're looking for a Sci-fi/Fantasy model GW are (and please note the one of comment here) one of the cheapest to get the models from. thats not saying "GW are the cheapest model company if you ignore historicals" at all.
Ah yes, here is the Malifaux example:
Stranger83 wrote: Also to add, looking at Malifaux - another one often listed as something to transfer to because of the cost.
I can't find a starter box, so I cannot compare them, but the Hags puppet box set - which seems to contain 5 miniatures - is £23.40, much higher than the 10 space marines. Or the cheapest I could find, Marrionetts (4 pack) - Clamshell - £9.90 , again more expensive than the space marines.
Whilst I grant that there are some out there cheaper than GW (AoW units are cheaper, I'm fairly sure everything I've seen from Mantic is too) this idea that they are massively inflated to everyone else just doesn't pan out if you look at the prices you pay.
Now I admit that it might be that the online shop can reduce GW by 20-25% and the others only by 10-15%, but that is unimportant to me, the customer - what I care about is what I pay.
Again, I often do not buy the GW stuff - either because I don't like the model or I don't like the medium (I still won't buy Finecast unless the model is truely amazing - which I haven't seen yet). But the price of GW has never stopped me buying it - often the stuff I choose to get in replacement of the GW model itself is actually more expensive than the GW model would have been.
any yes, whilst SoB are all metal and so more expensive - they are the exception rather than the rule. Infact I cannot think of a single other line that GW do that doesn't come mostly in plastics - though it has been a long day so I'll stand to be corrected on that.
Funnily enough, if you compare GW Finecast/Metals to Warmahordes single infantry unit, most of the time Warmahordes AND Malifaux will come off as cheaper. But you don't want to compare metal/resin to metal/resin. Even though it's common practice to factor in the cost of material, because surprise surprise, metal costs more.
Then we point out that in the plastics, Perry, Fireforge, Wargames Factory etc. are much more cheaper. But you don't want to compare them because they are historicals, never mind that they are of the same scale and are miniatures which has the same use.
See what I mean? You need to jump into many hoops first before GW will come off as cheap with regards to the rest of the hobby (in which, I pointed out, is cheaper compared to GW, which was the whole point). You need to compare GW plastics to metal/resin and disregard those that produce plastics. It's like saying you are the most handsome guy in the world if you don't take into equation all the other guys more handsome than you. It's absurd.
heartserenade wrote: Funnily enough, if you compare GW Finecast/Metals to Warmahordes single infantry unit, most of the time Warmahordes AND Malifaux will come off as cheaper. But you don't want to compare metal/resin to metal/resin. Even though it's common practice to factor in the cost of material
Then we point out that in the plastics, Perry, Fireforge, Wargames Factory etc. are much more cheaper. But you don't want to compare them because they are historicals, never mind that they are of the same scale and are miniatures which has the same use.
See what I mean? You need to jump into many hoops first before GW will come off as cheap with regards to the rest of the hobby (in which, I pointed out, is cheaper compared to GW, which was the whole point). You need to compare GW plastics to metal/resin and disregard those that produce plastics. It's like saying you are the most handsome guy in the world if you don't take into equation all the other guys more handsome than you. It's absurd.
I'll happily admit that I think the medium of a model is important - but this thread is about the price and only the price (Has GW finally hit that magic number that will price people out of the hobby?) not (Has GW finally hit that magic number that will price people out of the hobby because the models are plastic?)
I've admited that historicals are cheapear, so not sure why you keep bring them up - but if I wanted a "sci-fi hovering tank" because thats what I fancied building/painting (i.e. hobbying with and not gaming with) then I'm not going to find that in a historical range, for that I have to go to Sci-fi and GW are the cheapest. Going back you your car analogy, if you want a supercar it doesn't matter that there are other cars around cheaper all that you should compare it to is other supercars. Or to go with your handsome guy analogy it's like saying "I am the most handsome redhead on the planet - does that make me the most handsome person, no it doesn;t - but if you wanted a redhead then I'd be your redhead of choice.
Riquende wrote: But playing the game is part of the hobby, and you need a lot more 40K models to play the game than you do for Infinity, Malifaux, etc.
Even ignoring this, Malifaux, Warmahordes and Infinity is cheaper on a model to model basis if you take note of the materials.
Of course plastic would be cheaper, the same way a dish with crab in it will be cheaper than a dish with lobster. Because lobsters costs more.
Riquende wrote: But playing the game is part of the hobby, and you need a lot more 40K models to play the game than you do for Infinity, Malifaux, etc.
not for everyone, my friends have no interest in playing, just painting
I know quite a few like that
Riquende wrote: But playing the game is part of the hobby, and you need a lot more 40K models to play the game than you do for Infinity, Malifaux, etc.
Indeed it is, I've said so many time - but it isn't the be all and end all of the hobby, all I'm saying is that for the same cost you would get more physical stuff from GW than you would from other companies - which is a direct reply to this comment that says you don't:
That's just not correct, GW kits are far more expensive than almost anyone else's kits. I grant you that they do come with more bits, but there are plenty of other places to get bits or other supplies for conversion.
I can buy twice as many figs and vehicles (and bits to convert them if I want) from companies other than GW. Since switching over mostly to non indie games and miniatures, I've spend less and been able to buy far more minis and vehicles.
GW hits you with a double whammy. Not only does their stuff cost more, but you need more of it.
Or put another way...
You spend more, get less, and then you have to spend more again!
Riquende wrote: But playing the game is part of the hobby, and you need a lot more 40K models to play the game than you do for Infinity, Malifaux, etc.
Even ignoring this, Malifaux, Warmahordes and Infinity is cheaper on a model to model basis if you take note of the materials.
Of course plastic would be cheaper, the same way a dish with crab in it will be cheaper than a dish with lobster. Because lobsters costs more.
I fully agree - but again the thread is (Has GW finally hit that magic number that will price people out of the hobby?) not (Has GW finally hit that magic number that will price people out of the hobby because the models are plastic?)
I haven't been priced out yet, but I haven't bought a model from aGW store or their website in over a year. My wife works for a comic/gamig store product distributor, so I get them at a giant discount through her, but they don't carry finecast at all. Any finecast models I need I get thru a local comic store to support them, and I know GamesWorkshop seems some $ from that, but at least I'm supporting my FLGS. Beyond that, if I start a new army, it starts as a used army from Ebay. Got about 2.5k of New Dark Eldar fro $250. I also do some comissions to help pay for the hobby. I still think I spend less money on GW stuff than I ever did playing Magic The Gathering...
Stranger83 wrote: but if I wanted a "sci-fi hovering tank" because thats what I fancied building/painting (i.e. hobbying with and not gaming with) then I'm not going to find that in a historical range, for that I have to go to Sci-fi and GW are the cheapest.
Stranger83 wrote: but if I wanted a "sci-fi hovering tank" because thats what I fancied building/painting (i.e. hobbying with and not gaming with) then I'm not going to find that in a historical range, for that I have to go to Sci-fi and GW are the cheapest.
Again, pointing out ones who are cheaper than GW doesn't mean suddenly make them the most expensive - it just means they are not the cheapest (which I see I put in the quote but as you'll see in the majority of my posts is not what I've said - I've said they are one of the cheapest).
Yes, there will be some that are cheaper you've shown 2 companies there and so my final choice would be from the GW, either of those 2 or one of the more expensive companies, but if GW had "priced me out of the hobby" then surely the companies that charge more for their models priced me out first? Yet I don't see anyone jumping up and down at the cost of them.
Then show me a company that sells a 28mm "sci-fi hovering tank" that is more expensive than GW. Forgeworld does not count, since it's GW's sister company. To be at least "one of the cheapest", you need to give 3 or more examples, since if that fails it'll put GW in the "one of the more expensive" category.
Stranger83 wrote: but if I wanted a "sci-fi hovering tank" because thats what I fancied building/painting (i.e. hobbying with and not gaming with) then I'm not going to find that in a historical range, for that I have to go to Sci-fi and GW are the cheapest.
Again, pointing out ones who are cheaper than GW doesn't mean suddenly make them the most expensive - it just means they are not the cheapest (which I see I put in the quote but as you'll see in the majority of my posts is not what I've said - I've said they are one of the cheapest).
Yes, there will be some that are cheaper you've shown 2 companies there and so my final choice would be from the GW, either of those 2 or one of the more expensive companies, but if GW had "priced me out of the hobby" then surely the companies that charge more for their models priced me out first? Yet I don't see anyone jumping up and down at the cost of them.
EDIT - apologies - 3 companies
I think we can safely affirm that under all those conditions, then yes: GW is the cheapest producer of plastic sci-fi / fantasy GW miniatures. So you are entirely correct that that is indeed the cheapest way to indulge in your very particular hobby that consists entirely of collecting, building, painting and converting plastic sci-fi / fantasy GW miniatures.
Since to the generality of us, our hobby actually consists of collecting, building, painting and playing with wargame miniatures, then GW still is the most expensive option available to a less knowledgeable person.
And again, my personal opinion is that that will drive away newer players but probably won't make any difference to established wargamers unless it is coupled with other factors other than price.
I think we can safely affirm that under all those conditions, then yes: GW is the cheapest producer of plastic sci-fi / fantasy GW miniatures. So you are entirely correct that that is indeed the cheapest way to indulge in your very particular hobby that consists entirely of collecting, building, painting and converting plastic sci-fi / fantasy GW miniatures.
Since to the generality of us, our hobby actually consists of collecting, building, painting and playing with wargame miniatures, then GW still is the most expensive option available to a less knowledgeable person.
And again, my personal opinion is that that will drive away newer players but probably won't make any difference to established wargamers unless it is coupled with other factors other than price.
you make it sound like it is unusual to be a collector first and a gamer second - I'll point you to the recent Kingdom Death Kickstarter that raised over $1M before it even released the gameplay videos. Now don;t get me wrong, I've very interested in the game for that too but the miniatures are the first and formost thing that I buy, the games being secondary.
As a point of interest I do game fairly regualrly - around once a week - and play a host of games with GW being one of the less common ones (due to the length of the games) but I'm still a collector first and I think you'd bee surprised how many others are (in particular, from my own experiances, amounts older "gamers")
Automatically Appended Next Post:
heartserenade wrote: Then show me a company that sells a 28mm "sci-fi hovering tank" that is more expensive than GW. Forgeworld does not count, since it's GW's sister company. To be at least "one of the cheapest", you need to give 3 or more examples, since if that fails it'll put GW in the "one of the more expensive" category.
I'll wait.
OK, maybe "sci-fi hovering tank" wasn't the best example - as I've said I've had a long day. I was trying to say something that you can't get from a historical figure company. Maybe a better option would have been "non human humanoid models" as then I can include the Malfaiux, infinity and Warhamhordes that I've already mentioned.
Though I would say that if tanks were in these games then - based on their price structure - I would expect them to cost more than the GW ones
Okay then, show me a more expensive non-human humanoid models that are in plastic that are more expensive than GW. For fairness sake, I'll name three games that produces/produced cheaper plastic figures: DnD minis, Reaper, Wargames Factory and Mantic.
Stranger83 wrote: [q
I had this discussion earlier and using Warmahordes, Infanity and Malfaux (all the "cheaper" companies) as examples were more expensive on a box set by box set basis (though GW need more box sets to make an army so are more expensive) Can you give me examples of companies which release similar scale models (i.e 28mm) that are cheaper than GW?
Mantic
Perry
Wargames Factory
Defiance Games
EM4
4 A miniatures
Mega Miniatures
Reaper
Ral Partha
Dreamforge (out soon)
Warlord Games
Victrix
And that's just off the top of my head.
GW is near the top of the list for price per miniature.
you make it sound like it is unusual to be a collector first and a gamer second - I'll point you to the recent Kingdom Death Kickstarter that raised over $1M before it even released the gameplay videos. Now don;t get me wrong, I've very interested in the game for that too but the miniatures are the first and formost thing that I buy, the games being secondary
I don't make it sound anything, it is unusual to only be a collector and if nothing else we have the example of Wyrd and Malifaux to prove it (and probably many others, but that is the first that comes to my mind), despite what GW might say, they wouldn't sell 10% of what they do if they didn't have a game attached to their miniatures (and neither would any other mini manufacturer).
And I'm perfectly aware of the KD kickstarter, but since we have no possible way of knowing how many people bought into it only for the miniatures, compared to how many people bought it for the conjunction of game + miniatures, that example doesn't prove anything.
heartserenade wrote: Okay then, show me a more expensive non-human humanoid models that are in plastic that are more expensive than GW. For fairness sake, I'll name three games that produces/produced cheaper plastic figures: DnD minis, Wargames Factory and Mantic.
Again, I'll wait.
Again, the question of this thread is purely price - the medium of the model is not in question in the tread. Yes, GW are the most expensive plastics, yes they are probably the most expensive resin (since I've not seen a finecast model that is worth me looking into putting up with Finecast I've not checked) but this thread is asking about price and nothing else. I'm not sure why you seem to be strugleing to understand that.
Now if you want to start another thread about if GW charge too much for their plastics in comparison with other companies that make plastics then I will gladly join you in accepting that they do - but that is not what is being debated in this thread.
Again, the question of this thread is purely price - the medium of the model is not in question in the tread. Yes, GW are the most expensive plastics, yes they are probably the most expensive resin (since I've not seen a finecast model that is worth me looking into putting up with Finecast I've not checked) but this thread is asking about price and nothing else. I'm not sure why you seem to be strugleing to understand that.
But you said GW is one of the cheapest when I have shown you evidence that, clearly, they're not. They have one of the most expensive plastics and they have the most expensive resin/metal AND they require the most number of miniatures in order to play, but they're one of the cheapest... somehow? I'm not sure why you're struggling to understand that.
But don't let evidence and reason and your own words get in the way of your argument.
Again, the question of this thread is purely price - the medium of the model is not in question in the tread. Yes, GW are the most expensive plastics, yes they are probably the most expensive resin (since I've not seen a finecast model that is worth me looking into putting up with Finecast I've not checked) but this thread is asking about price and nothing else. I'm not sure why you seem to be strugleing to understand that.
But you said GW is one of the cheapest when I have shown you evidence that, clearly, they're not. They have one of the most expensive plastics and they have the most expensive resin/metal, but they're one of the cheapest... somehow? I'm not sure why you're struggling to understand that.
But don't let evidence and reason and your own words get in the way of your argument.
they are not is you compare the medium of the model, but the fact is I can buy 10 "non human humanoids" from GW for cheaper then I can buy 10 "non human hunaoids" from the others.
Let me put it this way - you're band new to the hobby - you have no idea about how different mediums for the model affects they detail of them, all you know is that your mate has said you should try wargaming and showed you some cool fantasy models that you liked. - Now you go to a shop and see you can buy 10 models for £15 from company 1 or 10 models for £20 from company 2. Based on that which company are you going to say is too expensive and thus "priced you out of the hobby (again, see how I am making the comment based upon what this thread is actually discussing)
the fact is - and it's the only fact I've made on multiple occasions, i've never claimed anything else despite what you are saying I said, is that you get more actual models from GW for your money than you get from any other - that is a fact and any claim that you don't. Even if said other models come in a better medium you still don;t get more of them. Thus - in terms of getting more hobby stuff GW is the cheaper of the ones that are more expensive
Stranger83 wrote: the fact is - and it's the only fact I've made on multiple occasions, i've never claimed anything else despite what you are saying I said, is that you get more actual models from GW for your money than you get from any other - - that is a fact and any claim that you don't.
Except you know, Mantic. And DnD minis. And Wargames Factory. And Reaper.
You have a funny way of stating fact when I've just disproven it to not be true.
You have claimed the GW is one of the cheapest: clearly, it's not. Evidence is there. Now, if that can't convince you, then clearly you are beyond help.
Stranger 83,
You simply don't know what you are talking about. Those of us who have been doing this for a while and are very familiar with models outside of GW can see clearly that you are wrong.
OK, maybe "sci-fi hovering tank" wasn't the best example - as I've said I've had a long day. I was trying to say something that you can't get from a historical figure company. Maybe a better option would have been "non human humanoid models" as then I can include the Malfaiux, infinity and Warhamhordes that I've already mentioned.
Though I would say that if tanks were in these games then - based on their price structure - I would expect them to cost more than the GW ones
Really, you're going to argue based on tanks that aren't made by a company based on what you percieve the cost structure to be. Give it up.
Yes, the field of 28mm vehicles is rather small, but GW is still near the most expensive.
Here's a few more companies who make sci-fi vehicles in 28mm to compare prices to. I don't claim that they are better or worse (that's not the issue discussed) merely that they are cheaper:
Technog/Robogear
Old Crow Models
Scotia Grendel (Kryomek, Void and Generic Sci-fi lines)
Ramshackle games
Armorcast
Khurasan Miniatures
Pig Iron Productions
Stranger83 wrote: the fact is - and it's the only fact I've made on multiple occasions, i've never claimed anything else despite what you are saying I said, is that you get more actual models from GW for your money than you get from any other - - that is a fact and any claim that you don't.
Except you know, Mantic. And DnD minis. And Wargames Factory. And Reaper.
You have a funny way of stating fact when I've just disproven it to not be true.
You have claimed the GW is one of the cheapest: clearly, it's not. Evidence is there. Now, if that can't convince you, then clearly you are beyond help.
Now we are going round in circles - Again, stating companies who are cheaper than GW doesn't make them the most expensive - if GW are "pricing people out of the hobby" why are we not up in arms about the more expensive ones?
OK, it clear that you can't see that were arguing different points, and I might not have made mine very well (it has been a long day) I've been arguing what I see as on thread on thread, i.e. that I don't think GW are pricing out of the hobby as other are more expensive and people still buy them.
Since it's clear that I'm not going to be able to make you see what I'm trying to say (and it may well be my fault) I'll sign off here as otherwise we'll just go round in circles (as we have started to do anyway) and I don't think we're taking the discussion further. I still stand by my point that you get more physical GW stuff for the cash than the other companies that I mentioned (because you do, despite the fact that they are often used as a "cheaper company") but my attempts to say that seems to keep getting the thread off track and into the quality and medium of the models which is not what this thread is about (as I understand it).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eilif wrote: Stranger 83,
You simply don't know what you are talking about. Those of us who have been doing this for a while and are very familiar with models outside of GW can see clearly that you are wrong.
OK, maybe "sci-fi hovering tank" wasn't the best example - as I've said I've had a long day. I was trying to say something that you can't get from a historical figure company. Maybe a better option would have been "non human humanoid models" as then I can include the Malfaiux, infinity and Warhamhordes that I've already mentioned.
Though I would say that if tanks were in these games then - based on their price structure - I would expect them to cost more than the GW ones
Really, you're going to argue based on tanks that aren't made by a company based on what you percieve the cost structure to be. Give it up.
Yes, the field of 28mm vehicles is rather small, but GW is still near the most expensive.
Here's a few more companies who make sci-fi vehicles in 28mm to compare prices to. I don't claim that they are better or worse (that's not the issue discussed) merely that they are cheaper:
Technog/Robogear
Old Crow Models
Scotia Grendel (Kryomek, Void and Generic Sci-fi lines)
Ramshackle games
Armorcast
Khurasan Miniatures
Pig Iron Productions
I'll just quickly add this
True, but Warmahordes/infinity/malifaux charge more for almost every box in their range than a similar GW model (and I don;t want to go into the quality of the model as thats not the point of the thread) so it is logical to presume they would also charge more for tanks if they made them.
By the way, i've been doing this for 20 years, and often buy from outside GW, but that doesn;t change that I get moe models for £10 from GW than I do from warmahordes.
Now we are going round in circles - Again, stating companies who are cheaper than GW doesn't make them the most expensive - if GW are "pricing people out of the hobby" why are we not up in arms about the more expensive ones?
Then add all the companies Eilif just wrote. Sure, that doesn't make GW the most expensive.... but it certainly makes GWnot one of the cheapest. It doesn't even come close.
We are not up in arms about the "more expensive" (notice the quotation marks: they're only more expensive by your definitions) ones because we, like normal people, take quality into consideration (as opposed to just quantity) and the number of models needed in order to play the game. Plus we know that they are, in fact, really cheaper than GW.
Still can't believe that the company that needs more miniatures to play, and with one of the most expensive plastics and metal/resin, is one of the cheapest.
Riquende wrote: But playing the game is part of the hobby, and you need a lot more 40K models to play the game than you do for Infinity, Malifaux, etc.
not for everyone, my friends have no interest in playing, just painting
I know quite a few like that
Playing the game is part of the hobby, regardless of whether sections of the community don't take part in it. Painting is part of the hobby, even if you've never picked up a brush. Concerns bound to those parts of the hobby may not affect someone personally but cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to all.
True, but Warmahordes/infinity/malifaux charge more for almost every box in their range than a similar GW model (and I don;t want to go into the quality of the model as thats not the point of the thread) so it is logical to presume they would also charge more for tanks if they made them.
Let's do some basic logic. If we name all the games mentioned so far and divide them into "cheaper than GW" and "more expensive than GW (according to you)", then we get this:
Cheaper than GW: Technog/Robogear
Old Crow Models
Scotia Grendel (Kryomek, Void and Generic Sci-fi lines)
Ramshackle games
Armorcast
Khurasan Miniatures
Pig Iron Productions
Mantic Games
Reaper Minis
DnD Minis
Not Cheaper than GW (according to Stranger83): Infinity
Malifaux
Warmahordes
On that (flawed) list alone, that makes GW as "one of the cheapest" where at the least it would be in the top 4 of the most expensive minis on that list alone?
Huh.
Is there some logic to that? Is the Top 4 richest country in the world "one of the poorest"?
Now we are going round in circles - Again, stating companies who are cheaper than GW doesn't make them the most expensive - if GW are "pricing people out of the hobby" why are we not up in arms about the more expensive ones?
Which more expensive ones? The ones that require far fewer figures to play or ones that are collectors' pieces?
Warmachine and hordes when compared so specifically to GW do come off as comparable, but I think this is a case of the conversation being stretched a little far. When comparing prices for me here GW will compare as more expencive with exceptions. ( this is with an understanding of how both games work and with my relative prices, it will change in difernt places due to imports and other differences)
Some of the 10 model boxes for warmachine/hordes are more expencive than the 10 model ones for GW, but in this case it's also taking some of WM/H most expencive sets next to some of GW cheapest.
Not many custermers will look at a single product on the shelf from both and compare directly, and would be very rare to not have at least some help deciding.
This is where GW is starting to price out custermers, for WM/H you can get stuck into the game at 15 points for less than 100, GW can't do that.
The begining investment for there products rises faster then WM/H, and for price only compares if you do it model to model (if you buy character models WM/H is far cheeper, books Aswell getting to prices in the very extreme range)
It's funny how as soon as price comes up, the white knights look to muddy the water to try to make discussion meaningless.
GW is not one of the cheapest. Some of their individual products are well priced, others are horribly priced. When you start building armies for their games at retail prices with their products, the total cost can be pretty hideous and is out of line with much of the rest of the industry.
This brings us back to the OP (remember that?). Has GW's latest pricing (as exemplified by the DA and Hobbit prices) put participation in the GW hobby specifically out of reach for many people? I think it has. I think GW knows this. They know that the majority of their customers never actually play the games and most quite long before they get a full sized army built. GW front loads the start up cost with expensive starter sets, paints, codex, rulebook, etc., because they know that they likely only have a small window of time to get the most money out of people.
We're the rare ones: those who build full armies and stick with GW in any long term fashion.
The question is, at what price point do the people who GW thinks will start up, make a big purchase, maybe buy another unit or two and then quit, when do **they** stop signing up. GW will continue to massively jack up prices each year until they reach the optimum point of getting the most money out of new people before they quit. I think it's another 25-50% to go. I think we'll see GWUK prices reach parity with Forge World prices before GW is done with their annual price hike plan. And US, Canadian and Australian prices will be even higher than ForgeWorld-- in some instances they already are.
@Stranger83: On a per infantry basis, PP is more expensive when you compare their metal models to GW's plastics. PP's recent repacks however have resulted in (often) signifcant price reductions.
10x Bane Thralls (metal) @ $80 ($8 ea) from 6x Bane Thralls (metal) @ $50 (8.3 ea) - 3% discount, no change in material.
10x Knights Exemplar Errant (plastic) @ $50 ($5 ea) from 6x Knights Exemplar Errant (metal) @ $50 ($8.3 ea) - 40% discount, metal to plastic
10x Winterguard w/ 3 weapon attachment (plastic) @ $50 ($3.8 ea) from 6x Winterguard (metal) @ $28 ($4.7 ea) - 20% discount, metal to plastic (-edit- the old Weapon Attachments were 9 ea, so fully prorrated, the actual discount is 32%)
There's been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing with various miniatures manufacturers here. Another way to look at it would be:
What else could I buy for the same money as say a box of tax marines?
From wayland, a box of tacs costs £18.40.
For the same price, I could spend that money on:
About 3x macdonalds.
About 5 pints in my local.
18 games of pool.
2 packs of cigarettes
About 45-55 miles of petrol in in my car.
Two albums.
A blu ray new release.
Half my monthly phone bill, or a third of my monthly tv bill.
To be honest, when I put it like that, it doesn't seem so bad to me. I can see how the price of getting started might be prohibitive, but I'll get many hours of painting out of that twenty quid, and certainly a decent sense of satisfaction putting them on the table. The only other thing in there that would give me the same sense of satisfaction would be if I had a winning streak on the pool table.
heartserenade wrote: Okay then, show me a more expensive non-human humanoid models that are in plastic that are more expensive than GW. For fairness sake, I'll name three games that produces/produced cheaper plastic figures: DnD minis, Wargames Factory and Mantic.
Again, I'll wait.
Again, the question of this thread is purely price - the medium of the model is not in question in the tread. Yes, GW are the most expensive plastics, yes they are probably the most expensive resin (since I've not seen a finecast model that is worth me looking into putting up with Finecast I've not checked) but this thread is asking about price and nothing else. I'm not sure why you seem to be strugleing to understand that.
Now if you want to start another thread about if GW charge too much for their plastics in comparison with other companies that make plastics then I will gladly join you in accepting that they do - but that is not what is being debated in this thread.
The number of times you've contradicted yourself on one page alone is hilarious. First GW are the cheapest, then you admit they are not, then they are not the most expensive, then you admit they are.
So what is it? Are they the cheapest? The most expensive? Both somehow?
You are starting to sound like a wargaming politician.
I think Eggs has summed it up fairly well. Yeah, GW's expensive, but I don't think that they're pricing people out yet. Especially not people who are clever about it, or who have already started. Some people may be unable to suddenly afford a starter set, a codex, tons of pains, glue, paintbrushes and basing flock, but most will be able to buy a box every few weeks to slowly expand their army.
The Shadow wrote: I think Eggs has summed it up fairly well. Yeah, GW's expensive, but I don't think that they're pricing people out yet. Especially not people who are clever about it, or who have already started. Some people may be unable to suddenly afford a starter set, a codex, tons of pains, glue, paintbrushes and basing flock, but most will be able to buy a box every few weeks to slowly expand their army.
Or ebay, or realize that online retailers like TheWarstore are 20% cheaper.
And once again we go right back to comparing model to model without bothering to care about the context. Before we even consider costs we need to limit the discussion to complete games of equal quality, not just some conversion bits company that also happens to make a single tank model. So that means that any product line used in the comparison must include:
1) At least two complete armies, and ideally at least 3-5. IOW, Infinity has complete armies and therefore it's relevant to compare its models to GW products of similar size. That Puppets War tank is not part of a complete army, so it isn't relevant.
2) Complete rules for using the models. So, as cost-effective as Old Crow models are, they aren't a fair comparison because they're just a bunch of random tanks without any game to go with them. That's nice if you're playing a near-future game already and need more vehicles, but not very useful if you're a new player looking for a game to start. And no technicalities here, it needs to be a complete game with a non-trivial amount of players, not just a quick pdf that everyone ignores while they're using your proxy models to play 40k.
3) Detail and design quality at GW's level or better. Of course if you have an ugly kit that took 15 minutes to design it's going to be cheap. Or, to be less extreme, if you build the general shape of your model but don't spend all the time adding on the fine detail that makes it look like the real thing instead of just a block of plastic. To be a fair comparison with GW the models in question have to be at least as good, otherwise you're just demonstrating that you get what you pay for and it's possible to save money if you're willing to buy cheap garbage.
4) Reasonable production and sales volume. Obviously a random person making one kit per week in their spare time and selling it through paypal can have lower production costs than a company that has to mass produce stuff, pay for a proper website with credit card processing, distribute everything to a network of stores, etc. So, this comparison can only include models that are sold as part of a primary business, not a hobby, and should ideally be something you can buy at your FLGS.
Yup, people seem to be arguing this model or that model is more expensive or not. It has clearly been shown there are other companies that put out models at a similar price. You can argue they have X is cheaper, but Y is more. And as I stated before, the KD kickstarter showed there are a lot of people who do not have a problem dropping large amounts of money on a game. The OP dropped $649 US on it and the average pledge was $389. People have been saying that for GW to ask for that type of money is crazy, but it has been shown they are willing to spend it elsewhere. There is still plenty of appetite in the market for these prices, on an figure by figure basis and total sum.
We can gnash our teeth at GW for asking for stuff at these prices, but it is clear there are examples elsewhere of similar pricing.
heartserenade wrote: Okay then, show me a more expensive non-human humanoid models that are in plastic that are more expensive than GW. For fairness sake, I'll name three games that produces/produced cheaper plastic figures: DnD minis, Wargames Factory and Mantic.
Again, I'll wait.
Again, the question of this thread is purely price - the medium of the model is not in question in the tread. Yes, GW are the most expensive plastics, yes they are probably the most expensive resin (since I've not seen a finecast model that is worth me looking into putting up with Finecast I've not checked) but this thread is asking about price and nothing else. I'm not sure why you seem to be strugleing to understand that.
Now if you want to start another thread about if GW charge too much for their plastics in comparison with other companies that make plastics then I will gladly join you in accepting that they do - but that is not what is being debated in this thread.
The number of times you've contradicted yourself on one page alone is hilarious. First GW are the cheapest, then you admit they are not, then they are not the most expensive, then you admit they are.
So what is it? Are they the cheapest? The most expensive? Both somehow?
You are starting to sound like a wargaming politician.
OK, I've had a chance to relax and unwind a little so hopefully I can make a little more sense.
First, I've already admitted that I'd never meant to say the cheapest – and in hindsight “one of the cheapest” was still a bad choice of words, perhaps a better choice might have been “cheaper than the other “big 3” (which I believe that PP, Malifaux and Corvus Belli are in the non historic miniature world – and sometimes you just don't want to play/paint “real life” armies)
With regards to metal/resin over plastic – yes I would gladly pay more for metal and believe that is it worth more as it has more detail than plastic – which is what I want. That said however the fact that metal is better than plastic doesn't change the fact that I can get 10 marines for cheaper then I can get 10 winter guard, thus 10 marines are cheaper than 10 winter guard and for the guy who said I chose the most expensive warmahordes option I actually chose one of the cheapest “cost per miniatures” boxes I could find on dark Sphere (feel free to check if you don't believe me)
With regard to my comment of GW being the most expensive – yes they charge the most for their plastics out of everyone who does plastic – so comparing plastics to plastics GW are the most expensive – but since GW have the majoriy of their range in plastic and others have the majority of their range in metal/resin (based on what I could find for sale at Darksphere) then GW ends up costing less for their stuff – is it as good? no but it does cost less (I know this because I've just checked and it still costs less) The fact it is plastic doesn't suddenly make it cost more.
Now in fact I often avoid GW stuff, Like I mentioned I recently spent £40 on a raging heros Manticore when I could have got a GW one for £23 – why, because the quality was more important to me than the price, but I still think that, if you are new and don't know anything (and by”pricing out of the hobby” thats who I view it as as I think if you already have GW stuff then buying the odd small item wouldn't be a problem) then looking at the price of the “big 4” (again, as I understand it but I'm prepared to be wrong) then I get 10 of the GW models for cheaper than the other companies “10 man boxes”, so not knowing anything else I would presume that GW are the cheap ones, because the models themselves are cheaper, thus is any of them were going to “price me out of the hobby” it would be looking at the other companies and not GW (granted if you have someone on hand to talk you through it they may be able to explain it to you, but in that case they will probably make you buy the game they play anyway)
I don't deny that if your gaming then GW are more expensive – I also don't deny that GW has inferior mediums (Finecast is very bad and plastic can't hold the detail of metal/resin) but you do get 10 physical models for cheaper than any of the other “big 3 “companies – which is what I was trying to say just not very well.
Now if the other big 3 are releaseing plastics then fantastic, and at that point I have no doubt that GW will once again go up to being the most expensive on a model to model basis as well as a general game basis – but until such time they are not and that is all I was trying to say – just not very well unfortunately.
I hope that makes more sense than I was saying before.
The problem isn't GW charging what they do for "models", as the KDKS has shown people will pay high for models.
The problem here is GW charging what they do for what they have. That plastic terrible 1998 space marine is not worth $3.75 to me personally.
Now if CSM had a warriors box of the same quality as the DV chosen, I'd gladly pay $3.75ea.
The only reason I still buy GW models and play GW games is because of my 30% discount. 10 years ago I didn't have that discount, but then 10 years ago the game wasn't what it costs now.
The Shadow wrote: I think Eggs has summed it up fairly well. Yeah, GW's expensive, but I don't think that they're pricing people out yet. Especially not people who are clever about it, or who have already started. Some people may be unable to suddenly afford a starter set, a codex, tons of pains, glue, paintbrushes and basing flock, but most will be able to buy a box every few weeks to slowly expand their army.
Or ebay, or realize that online retailers like TheWarstore are 20% cheaper.
I don't understand how this is supposed to work for new players and/or parents of new players:
1. Play a demo game at local store.
2. DO NOT BUY FROM THE STORE THAT DEMO'ed THE GAME.
3. Go to internet for BEST DEAL
4. ???
5. SAVINGS!!!!
or.
1. Play GW liscened video game / board game.
2. Want to play 40k / fantasy.
3. Go to internet for BEST DEAL.
4. ???
5. SAVINGS!!!!
Maybe I'm old and/or stupid... Is this how it acutally works these days? Is there no reciprocation for a service rendered? Does anyone actually try-before-they-buy? There's often a step 6, which is a pet peeve of mine: oft used by internet veterans... which is to return to the store in example 1 and belittle everyone else buying from the store for not getting BEST DEAL... SAVINGS!!!!
Aerethan wrote: The problem isn't GW charging what they do for "models", as the KDKS has shown people will pay high for models.
The problem here is GW charging what they do for what they have. That plastic terrible 1998 space marine is not worth $3.75 to me personally.
And this sums up the problem and why people are complaining. It isn't the price per say, it is that they feel that the models GW puts out aren't worth it. I'll also mention that on other forums people are questioning the mental capacity of everyone who committed to the KD:KS, so they didn't see those figures as being worth it either.
It isn't that GW's prices are unreasonable for a figure, a lot of people feel they are unreasonable for "that" figure. Of the new DA figures, the only kit I think is close to acceptable are the terminators and that is because they are a dual kit with tons of bits. The rest are meh.
The Shadow wrote: I think Eggs has summed it up fairly well. Yeah, GW's expensive, but I don't think that they're pricing people out yet. Especially not people who are clever about it, or who have already started. Some people may be unable to suddenly afford a starter set, a codex, tons of pains, glue, paintbrushes and basing flock, but most will be able to buy a box every few weeks to slowly expand their army.
Or ebay, or realize that online retailers like TheWarstore are 20% cheaper.
I don't understand how this is supposed to work for new players and/or parents of new players:
1. Play a demo game at local store.
2. DO NOT BUY FROM THE STORE THAT DEMO'ed THE GAME.
3. Go to internet for BEST DEAL
4. ???
5. SAVINGS!!!!
or.
1. Play GW liscened video game / board game.
2. Want to play 40k / fantasy.
3. Go to internet for BEST DEAL.
4. ???
5. SAVINGS!!!!
Maybe I'm old and/or stupid... Is this how it acutally works these days? Is there no reciprocation for a service rendered? Does anyone actually try-before-they-buy? There's often a step 6, which is a pet peeve of mine: oft used by internet veterans... which is to return to the store in example 1 and belittle everyone else buying from the store for not getting BEST DEAL... SAVINGS!!!!
Sadly, it's true. There's a reason why in the business world, Best Buy is known as Amazon's showroom.
But to be fair, I buy from my FLGS even though they are 2.5x the price of what I'd pay for in TheWarstore and despite the fact I know that the owner is ripping people off, because I'm supporting my local community. My FLGS doesn't charge table fees, membership fees, etc. while providing a gathering space for ANY game you want (even Monopoly Deal, Uno, Hold'em...), a well-versed and talented friendly community, a buying/selling shop, working/painting stations for free. It's the least I could do.
the fact is - and it's the only fact I've made on multiple occasions, i've never claimed anything else despite what you are saying I said, is that you get more actual models from GW for your money than you get from any other - that is a fact and any claim that you don't.
Except for Mantic, which you've disregarded, because it doesn't fit your theory.
And there is also Reaper with their new line of plastic bones guys. Admittedly the range is currently rather small, but is set to expand quite a bit in the new year.
I always find people arguing over GW prices a touch obscene. I have, after essential spending, £20 a week from which i have to accumulate savings, cover unexpected costs and fuel my hobby. Since 6th Ed, on this budget and buying direct from GW, i have accumulated a 1500Pt BA force and managed to keep my MtG addiction comfortably fed.
The issue simply isn't that GW is expensive, the issue is that people believe they should be able to sustain multiple hobbies (classing different systems as separate hobbies as truthfully they are).
If buying direct is too expensive, buy online or whatever. If buying online is too expensive, complain about online retailers being too expensive.
jamin p wrote: I always find people arguing over GW prices a touch obscene. I have, after essential spending, £20 a week from which i have to accumulate savings, cover unexpected costs and fuel my hobby. Since 6th Ed, on this budget and buying direct from GW, i have accumulated a 1500Pt BA force and managed to keep my MtG addiction comfortably fed.
The issue simply isn't that GW is expensive, the issue is that people believe they should be able to sustain multiple hobbies (classing different systems as separate hobbies as truthfully they are).
If buying direct is too expensive, buy online or whatever. If buying online is too expensive, complain about online retailers being too expensive.
Wargaming is the only hobby I have that has recurring costs. My drum set doesn't cost me more every month. I bought it, it's done. My computer serves more functions than just gaming, therefore can't be written off as a pure hobby expense.
Now when those recurring costs start rising willy nilly, it starts to affect my drive for that hobby. My financial acquisitions for 2012 from GW are the lowest I've had in my 12 years of wargaming. 2013 MIGHT see a slight rise in my expenses if the HE and DE releases have anything good in them.
the fact is - and it's the only fact I've made on multiple occasions, i've never claimed anything else despite what you are saying I said, is that you get more actual models from GW for your money than you get from any other - that is a fact and any claim that you don't.
Except for Mantic, which you've disregarded, because it doesn't fit your theory.
And there is also Reaper with their new line of plastic bones guys. Admittedly the range is currently rather small, but is set to expand quite a bit in the new year.
Except for Mantic, which I disregarded because they are not one of the "big 3" - but I wasn't articulating that very well when I posted the above (it had been a long day) but I've issued a nother ost trying to clarify that already
Alo, yes Reaper bone - but as it's not avaliable right now then you can hardly use it as a comparison.
You can't deny Reaper a spot at the 28mm model big boy table. Even ignoring the plastics they are releasing, their metal models are far less than GW's metal or resin models despite the price of raw white metal.
Just because GW decided to open a crap ton of stores and have massive overhead doesn't mean I should have to pay for it. I can't think of another gaming company that has stores for only their own product.
agustin wrote: It's also good to remember that some Warhammer factions started off as being historical based. Empire is 16th century Germans. Brettonia is 100 Years War. Araby is 15th century Ottomans. Kislev is Grand Duchy of Lithuania mashed in with some Mideival Russians and Ukranians. Then they simply added in Tolkein lik fantasy races, Moorcock's chaos idea and a few others. Are Skaven their only real original idea?
I'm not sure whether it's true or not, but have read a few times in the past that the Skaven were inspired by the anthropomorphic rodents in the Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser stories by Fritz Lieber. (Which I recommend, for those who've not read them.)
the fact is - and it's the only fact I've made on multiple occasions, i've never claimed anything else despite what you are saying I said, is that you get more actual models from GW for your money than you get from any other - that is a fact and any claim that you don't.
Except for Mantic, which you've disregarded, because it doesn't fit your theory.
And there is also Reaper with their new line of plastic bones guys. Admittedly the range is currently rather small, but is set to expand quite a bit in the new year.
Err we going to keep ignoring Dream Forge Games? Because I defy you to find me a GW kit that for the same price provides 20 infantrymen, all the possible options they can take, a ton of cool bits, and the option to purchase an accessory sprue with even MORE awesomeness to the point of bits that allow you to model a guy leaping over a wall without spending a couple hours with a craft knife and greenstuff.
agustin wrote: It's also good to remember that some Warhammer factions started off as being historical based. Empire is 16th century Germans. Brettonia is 100 Years War. Araby is 15th century Ottomans. Kislev is Grand Duchy of Lithuania mashed in with some Mideival Russians and Ukranians. Then they simply added in Tolkein lik fantasy races, Moorcock's chaos idea and a few others. Are Skaven their only real original idea?
I'm not sure whether it's true or not, but have read a few times in the past that the Skaven were inspired by the anthropomorphic rodents in the Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser stories by Fritz Lieber. (Which I recommend, for those who've not read them.)
First Skaven and first Redwall book came out at almost exactly the same time, so I'd guess not, but you never know.
Yeah, Redwall was one of my first guesses as well. Bloodbowl Skaven came out while Redwall was being written, and the WHFB addition of Skaven was right around the same time it was published.
'Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH' came out over ten years before hand, and its film (The Secret of NIMH) about 3 years before the Bloodbowl team.
the fact is - and it's the only fact I've made on multiple occasions, i've never claimed anything else despite what you are saying I said, is that you get more actual models from GW for your money than you get from any other - that is a fact and any claim that you don't.
Except for Mantic, which you've disregarded, because it doesn't fit your theory.
And there is also Reaper with their new line of plastic bones guys. Admittedly the range is currently rather small, but is set to expand quite a bit in the new year.
Err we going to keep ignoring Dream Forge Games?
Fair enough, I just haven't brought them up because I didn't think they were at market yet, and figured that would be enought for 83 to disregard them.
Breotan wrote: According to BoLS, here are the prices for the new DA stuff coming in January:
Codex: Dark Angels (English) 104pp Colour Hardback $49.50
Ravenwing Dark Talon 1 Mini $75.00
Land Speeder Vengeance 1 Mini $65.00
Deathwing Command Squad 5 Minis $60.00
Ravenwing Command Squad 3 Minis $50.00
Dark Angels Battleforce 8 Minis $110.00
That's right. $75.00 for that flier and $50.00 for three bikes. Oh, and don't forget that awesome DA Battleforce with eight whole models.
I heavily rely on Dark Angels figures for my DYI chapter but I'm wondering if GW has finally hit that magical point where I simply can't justify the cost of their product. I have more disposable income than a lot of people out there so I expect that many of you have already hit this wall. If so, when did it happen for you? If you haven't hit it yet, how is your hobby future looking?
Myself? I find that I am migrating over to Malifaux these days, that and spending obscene amounts of money on kickstarters (damn you McVey, Poots, and the rest). Some small purchases and some specific Forge World purchases are still in the cards, but I'll certainly not be starting up any new armies with GW. I used to buy every codex when it came out. Now I only buy the onces I actually use. Once the annual price increase hits this coming summer, my GW portion of the hobby will likely be reduced to painting. Shame, really.
Yeah, I hit that point myself. I would have paid $50 happily for the Chaos codex, but there's nothing in there that's must have. And I'd have to buy $100 worth of parts, just to scratch build a unit of Posessed to improve upon the GW designs.
GW just doesn't make enough to keep me in, and the prices on the new DA stuff are just as bad.
GW raises prices far higher than inflation would allow, and they're doing it to "juice" the company's share price in order to sell off the company.
So, for the people who seem to have some standard for what price increases are acceptable, beyond "can I afford this?" (for example, "more than inflation"), I have some questions:
1) What percentage of total sales is a justified amount of profit for a company? At what point do you feel that they are obligated to accept that they have enough profit and lower prices to help the customer?
2) What is an acceptable reason, if any, for raising prices beyond the general trend of inflation? For example, is it justified to raise prices to hire a better codex author, or is a company obligated to limit their price increases to the level of inflation and just take a loss in profits to pay for those things?
3) How do you determine, in an objective sense, what price is justified for a model? For example, how can you say not just that a model is too expensive in your opinion and not appealing, but that its price represents some kind of unfairness by the company selling it?
4) How much is a company allowed to raise prices for a higher-quality product? For example, how much is GW allowed to increase the price when moving from a paperback codex to a hardcover one of higher quality?
5) At what point do you feel obligated (possibly based on the previous four factors) to refuse to buy a product that you want and can afford, simply because it passes your threshold for "overpriced"?
Peregrine wrote: So, for the people who seem to have some standard for what price increases are acceptable, beyond "can I afford this?" (for example, "more than inflation"), I have some questions:
1) What percentage of total sales is a justified amount of profit for a company? At what point do you feel that they are obligated to accept that they have enough profit and lower prices to help the customer?
2) What is an acceptable reason, if any, for raising prices beyond the general trend of inflation? For example, is it justified to raise prices to hire a better codex author, or is a company obligated to limit their price increases to the level of inflation and just take a loss in profits to pay for those things?
3) How do you determine, in an objective sense, what price is justified for a model? For example, how can you say not just that a model is too expensive in your opinion and not appealing, but that its price represents some kind of unfairness by the company selling it?
4) How much is a company allowed to raise prices for a higher-quality product? For example, how much is GW allowed to increase the price when moving from a paperback codex to a hardcover one of higher quality?
5) At what point do you feel obligated (possibly based on the previous four factors) to refuse to buy a product that you want and can afford, simply because it passes your threshold for "overpriced"?
I'd say it comes down to cost per figure. At three bucks a figure, it hurts. At four, it hurts a lot. At five or six, it's ludicrous, like the cost of a character figure back in 97-98. At six or seven, like the new Chaos Posessed, it's just poor value.
It used to be you could justify the cost with a 20% discount, like okay, with the discount, this is about what it used to cost back in the day.
But it's gone so far beyond that (characters that cost $17-25+) it's absurd.
Everything I collect has to be custom-converted, to the point where I have to buy boxes and bits, the price is ludicrous, the Chaos Posessed rules aren't very good in the new (fifty dollar) rulebook, and I just end up not buying anything.
For me it was around about the time they brought out finecast, hiked up prices and gave the finger to everyone in the southern hemisphere. There was a lot of bitterness at that time, and a lot of people responding to the bitterness by saying things like "If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it". And they where damn right I don't have to buy it. So I stopped buying it. I don't buy anything from GW any more. I haven't bought so much as a pot of paint from them in 2-3 years.
Its a bit sad actually, because I still like the models. I would have been totally down with collecting a Grey Knights army. I would have bought Dark Vengeance in a heartbeat too, and I probably would have continued to expand on the Chaos and DA armies in the box. But every time I have been tempted to buy something, all I have to do is look at the price and my blood boils a little with anger.
It isn't even that I can't afford their stuff. I buy stuff from Soda pop which is just as expensive, and it doesn't bother me at all. But when I give money to Soda pop I'm never reminded of Tom Kirby's fat face going "Hmm why should plastic minis cost less than metal?" as he guzzles champaign at another shareholders meeting.
I have heard people say that they feel exploited by Games Workshop, and after some reflection I think it is true. Games Workshop do exploit people, they exploit their stupidity. They have marketing meetings where they go "People will be stupid enough to pay that yeah?" and they are always right. People know this, which is why they are so upset about the prices, they literally feel insulted. The prices have gone gone so far beyond a joke now, that It couldn't be any more obvious if GW published an open challenge in White Dwarf saying "We're so confident that you suckers are dumb enough to pay anything, we modelled our business on it ".
How would people respond? "Screw you GW! I'm not stupid! I'm just gonna buy one or ten more of these overpriced vehicles to finish my army, and maybe some more paint and glue that I could get anywhere else for half price, and a few bits for my Games Day entry... but then I'm though with you!! Until Christmas when the new codex comes out. but that's it... I'll teach you to call me a sucker!".
Peregrine wrote: So, for the people who seem to have some standard for what price increases are acceptable, beyond "can I afford this?" (for example, "more than inflation"), I have some questions:
1) What percentage of total sales is a justified amount of profit for a company? At what point do you feel that they are obligated to accept that they have enough profit and lower prices to help the customer?
2) What is an acceptable reason, if any, for raising prices beyond the general trend of inflation? For example, is it justified to raise prices to hire a better codex author, or is a company obligated to limit their price increases to the level of inflation and just take a loss in profits to pay for those things?
3) How do you determine, in an objective sense, what price is justified for a model? For example, how can you say not just that a model is too expensive in your opinion and not appealing, but that its price represents some kind of unfairness by the company selling it?
4) How much is a company allowed to raise prices for a higher-quality product? For example, how much is GW allowed to increase the price when moving from a paperback codex to a hardcover one of higher quality?
5) At what point do you feel obligated (possibly based on the previous four factors) to refuse to buy a product that you want and can afford, simply because it passes your threshold for "overpriced"?
1) Not relevant to me. I have no idea what their costs are, how much they had to pay sculpters to make the masters, how much it cost them to make the moulds, how much they plan to sell to recoup those costs, how much they pay for shipping, how much they pay for store rent, how much they have to pay their various workers. Don't know, don't care. I do, however, care about regional pricing and find it unacceptable to pay twice as much in Oz for the same product... so I do import a lot of my things because of that.
2) Lots of reasons, and again they are better known to the company than me so it hardly is for me to comment on. As for what actually affects me, better service, better models which I perceive to have more value, better literature which I perceive to have more value (rules and the like).
3) There is no objective sense. If I want a model and I have the money, if the money is not excessive relative to my other hobbies and the joy and entertainment I expect to get out of it. All very subjective points. There's no "this is the point where the price is no longer justified". If I feel competitors put out a better product for a better price and clearly have similar overheads (hard to determine) then it may not be justified, but I cannot comment accurately on their overheads and profits and how they choose to market themselves. To me, if a company wants to spend half their money on advertising which in turn drives up prices, that's justified for them. It may, however, mean I no longer wish to purchase their products at those prices.
4) The way you worded it, it's a loaded question, they are "allowed" to do whatever they want, it's their product. As long as they aren't breaking any trade practices acts or consumer protection laws, they are "allowed" to do whatever they want. If you mean specifically "What will I accept?" as opposed to what are they "allowed" to do....
Depends on the product. For codices, really, honestly, I could not give a flying fruit bat about hard cover and being colour. They are allowed to do those things and raise the price appropriately, but I'm not remotely happy about it and I no longer buy army books and codices "for the hell of it" like I used to (previously I'd often buy the books even for armies I don't own just to read, often second hand, but if they're much more expensive thanks to colour/hardback, bugger it, I'm not paying that much just to read a book). As for the miniatures themselves, again, a hard call. For rank and file models, I'm not willing to pay a lot for better quality models. I would obviously like better quality models, but for the same price. However, for characters/monsters/centerpiece models, I am most definitely willing to pay more for better quality, since I spend more of my time on the model (if I'm spending 30 hours on a model I want it to be a nice model). How much more? Depends on the model, depends how many of those models I intend to buy, it depends on the improvement in quality. I don't care too much about the more expensive LOTR eagles because the simple fact is I never would have bought the old eagles because they didn't look good enough, these new ones, I might (well, I WILL buy them as long as I can find time to paint them).
5) There is no point. There is no magic threshold. If I have the money and I perceive value, I'm not adverse to buying it. If I don't perceive the value or don't have the money, I won't buy it. It's a sliding scale dependant on the models, the quality of the game rules, what my friends are playing, how cool (or not) the models are, what I ate for breakfast that day, how much money I have in my account, when I got my most recent pay cheque and how large it was, what I intend to eat for lunch, whether the salesperson happens to be an attractive woman or a fat dude... it's a very liquid factor. I'm quite cautious with my money in day to day living (and am also single), which leaves me more money to spend on my hobbies like my car, my PC and my miniatures. As such, I don't place hard limits on my spending. If I see an awesome car I want, I might spend $20,000 on it, that doesn't mean my budget for a car is $20,000 or that I intend to spend $20,000, I might limit myself to $2,000 if I don't see any cars I perceive as having value to me in the gap between $2,000 and $20,000. I'm very fluid in my spending depending on lots of factors, the same applies to my miniatures.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: 4) The way you worded it, it's a loaded question, they are "allowed" to do whatever they want, it's their product. As long as they aren't breaking any trade practices acts or consumer protection laws, they are "allowed" to do whatever they want. If you mean specifically "What will I accept?" as opposed to what are they "allowed" to do....
You're probably not the kind of person I'm asking then. What I'm talking about is the people who go beyond "I don't feel like spending that much, so I won't", and act like GW is somehow immoral/greedy/whatever for charging those prices and has an obligation to lower them to a more desirable level. I just never see any kind of explanation for that position, beyond "I don't like paying that much" which is a ridiculous way of looking at it.
1) What percentage of total sales is a justified amount of profit for a company?
You mean justifiable, right? If so, any percentage they can get legally (and for some, ethically).
At what point do you feel that they are obligated to accept that they have enough profit and lower prices to help the customer?
When there's an ethical issue. Not really present in wargaming. The genetic patent company charging thousands for a genetic test that could help prevent cancer fatalities when the actual cost is around $100? That's unethical. I don't see an analogous situation in wargaming.
2) What is an acceptable reason, if any, for raising prices beyond the general trend of inflation?
When you want more revenue for each items in real terms. If you only ever increase prices with inflation, you aren't actually changing your prices in real terms.
3) How do you determine, in an objective sense, what price is justified for a model?
Same way you do in any market: comparables and alternatives. Whether you're buying a house, investing in a stock, choosing a video game console, a smart phone or a new computer. Compare it to other similar products and look at what else you could buy with the money instead.
4) How much is a company allowed to raise prices for a higher-quality product?
As much as they want to the point where enough people buy it to make it profitable for the company.
5) At what point do you feel obligated (possibly based on the previous four factors) to refuse to buy a product that you want and can afford, simply because it passes your threshold for "overpriced"?
When the comparables and alternatives dictate it to be so. I don't buy a house that's out of line with the rest of the market. I don't buy a stock that is out of line with the rest of the market. There's no obligation involved.
Now notice the topic title for this thread. It has nothing to do with morality, ethics, obligation, being allowed or acceptable, etc. It's about the real effects of GW's decision. Each price hike means they sell a little less product, but at a bit higher of a price. When you sell things you try to make price multiplied by volume sold to equal the highest possible number. Price x Number sold = revenue. If you put up Price and Number Sold doesn't drop that much, revenue goes up. But once it gets too high, Number Sold drops and revenue doesn't go up. GW may have passed by that point already, where each price increase is not giving the highest revenue possible. I'm not so sure. I think they still have a bit of room. Especially in the UK and the EU and to a lesser degree the US. There's not really much room left in Canadian and Australian prices though.
I think we can have GW prices at parity with Forge World prices and their marketing system will keep things going for them. The customer and player base will be greatly reduced, but their revenue in terms of price multipled by the number of items sold will be okay for GW to keep paying bonuses and dividends to Kirby and friends until they retire as rich, rich men. if it causes a problem after that? Someone else's problem.
chris_valera wrote: At five or six, it's ludicrous, like the cost of a character figure back in 97-98. At six or seven, like the new Chaos Posessed, it's just poor value.
See, this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Why does it matter what something used to cost 10-15 years ago? Why don't you evaluate a purchase based on what exists now?
GW raises prices far higher than inflation would allow, and they're doing it to "juice" the company's share price in order to sell off the company.
Sorry, but I'm not having it.
Then you are the kind of person I'm asking those questions. Why does GW's motivation for raising prices matter so much? Why do you care about more than just the current price on the box?
Smacks wrote: The prices have gone gone so far beyond a joke now, that It couldn't be any more obvious if GW published an open challenge in White Dwarf saying "We're so confident that you suckers are dumb enough to pay anything, we modelled our business on it ".
How do you determine what is a "fair" price for a model, what is "overpriced", and what is "a joke"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
agustin wrote: Now notice the topic title for this thread. It has nothing to do with morality, ethics, obligation, being allowed or acceptable, etc. It's about the real effects of GW's decision.
Yeah, but I'm asking these questions because once again the thread has been hijacked by complaining that GW's price increases are somehow unethical, abusive, whatever you want to call it. And there doesn't seem to be any kind of reason behind it, just mindless outrage about how things cost money and corporations make profit.
Aerethan wrote: You can't deny Reaper a spot at the 28mm model big boy table. Even ignoring the plastics they are releasing, their metal models are far less than GW's metal or resin models despite the price of raw white metal.
Just because GW decided to open a crap ton of stores and have massive overhead doesn't mean I should have to pay for it. I can't think of another gaming company that has stores for only their own product.
/sigh here we go again, Yes GW metal/resin is one of the most expensive around, but the question isn't “Are GW overcharging for their miniatures?” The question is “Are GW pricing people out of the hobby” - To me that means that we should only look at price as that is all that in included in the question and – because Reaper currently use a better medium they are more expensive – are they worth the extra cost, yes I believe that they are – but the fact that they are worth the extra cost does not suddenly make them cheaper. Now once they start to release models in plastic then they will be cheaper, but since the majority are still metal at the moment then they currently are not.
Err we going to keep ignoring Dream Forge Games? Because I defy you to find me a GW kit that for the same price provides 20 infantrymen, all the possible options they can take, a ton of cool bits, and the option to purchase an accessory sprue with even MORE awesomeness to the point of bits that allow you to model a guy leaping over a wall without spending a couple hours with a craft knife and greenstuff.
No, we shouldn't ignore them, and I've already answered this in the larger post I made earlier that "One of the cheapest" wasn't what I meant to say and "cheaper than the other big 3" is what I should have said instead - I ad a very long day yesterday and my brain wasn't firing on full cylinders.
Let me put it this way, if you are starting the hobby brand new (and lets presume that you don't have a friend playing as then you would just play the game he plays). You go into a game shop and ask what game you should by. The store owner firstly asks you if you want an historical or sci-fi/fantasy game (they tend to attract different players, just like the 100m sprint and a marathon are both running sports but attract different people) and you say Sci-fi. Next he leads you over to the Sci-fi range and shows you the "starter packs" of the "big 4 games" based on that you see that with GW you get a lot more stuff for your money than any of the others. Now you're a clever person and you think "ah but what about on going costs" so you look at the cost of a box of ten men and again, you see that GW boxes are cheaper. Now based on that - i.e. knowing the price and nothing more (again, the question is are GW pricing out of the hobby, not are GW overcharging for what you get) which company would you say has "Priced you out?" I find it odd that people are saying the cheapest is all is all.
Now yes, the store manager should probably point out that you need twice as many stuff to play the game, but from the hobby perspective (i.e. painting/converting as well as gaming) you get more stuff for the cost of GW to the other "big 3" I'm certainly not saying that the GW Hobby is cheaper than anyone else, just that you get more stuff from GW than the other "big 3" companies trageting the same market. (Again, as far as I am aware PP, Malifaux and Corvus are the other "big3" but I am prepared to be corrected.) Again, there is more to a hobby than cost - you may prefer to work with metal/resin or prefer the design of the non GW stuff so you will pay more for it, but this thread is just about cost and nothing more.
Yes, there are plenty of other companies that are selling stuff cheaper than GW - and that is great, a lot of it I also think is better quality (and a lot I think is cheap because it is gak), I never meant to say that GW are the cheapest (despite saying that exact thing once in error and many times saying "one of the cheapest") just that if you are going to jumo up and down because GW are keeping people out of the hobby purely on cost alone then surely we should jump up and down on the other major 3 all of whom charge more (which - although a better quality product, is still more money)
Now that isn't to say that there are not cheaper out there, just that GW -- though being the most expensive game - are not the most expensive hobby.
When you want more revenue for each items in real terms. If you only ever increase prices with inflation, you aren't actually changing your prices in real terms.
For Calgar's sake, stop this nonsense about "general trend of inflation". It has absolutely no bearing whatsoever for an individual company. Or even consumer, some would argue.
40k is my cheapest hobby. I can play and paint for less then a grand a year. pretty darn cheap. try restoring cars or kiteboarding. GW will never price me out.
These look pretty cool actually, from what I can see. Couldn't speak for the price though - is $30.00 good? I assume it's cheaper than two cadian squads, I may consider getting some to model a blob squad and keep the Cadians to represent veterans.
GW is near the top of the list for price per miniature.
Of the list of names that you provided, out of the ones who made fantasy models...GW were top of the list.
Now, I don't like GW's prices. But I think they're sustained by the poor quality of the competition, in my humble opinion.
Peregrine wrote: So, for the people who seem to have some standard for what price increases are acceptable, beyond "can I afford this?" (for example, "more than inflation"), I have some questions:
1) What percentage of total sales is a justified amount of profit for a company? At what point do you feel that they are obligated to accept that they have enough profit and lower prices to help the customer?
5) At what point do you feel obligated (possibly based on the previous four factors) to refuse to buy a product that you want and can afford, simply because it passes your threshold for "overpriced"?
Whenever I regard it to be too expensive. If I knew exactly how much people are willing to pay for any given product then I would be a very rich man.
Smacks wrote: The prices have gone gone so far beyond a joke now, that It couldn't be any more obvious if GW published an open challenge in White Dwarf saying "We're so confident that you suckers are dumb enough to pay anything, we modelled our business on it ".
How do you determine what is a "fair" price for a model, what is "overpriced", and what is "a joke"?
Philosophers have struggled with concepts like fairness value and humour for centuries, and you expect me to explain them for you in such a why, that you won't be able to ask further pedantic questions?
A fair price is simply how much I am happy to pay, or reasonably expect to pay. This is mostly personal based on experience and judgement, but does factor it other peoples expectations and the market as a point of reference. "Overpriced" and "joke" seem self explanatory.
skkipper wrote: 40k is my cheapest hobby. I can play and paint for less then a grand a year. pretty darn cheap. try restoring cars or kiteboarding. GW will never price me out.
It is not about cheapness it is about value. I could play and paint with green army men for less than $50 a year. Kite-boarders don't have that kind of alternative... I'm sure if they did they would take it.
When you want more revenue for each items in real terms. If you only ever increase prices with inflation, you aren't actually changing your prices in real terms.
For Calgar's sake, stop this nonsense about "general trend of inflation". It has absolutely no bearing whatsoever for an individual company. Or even consumer, some would argue.
It's just an artificially determined average.
This indeed.
Inflation isn't some magic “catch all” where everything increases by that amount, it’s an average of the increased price of whatever is included in that index (incidently there are actually 2, and soon to be 3 different indexes in the UK). Some things go up by more that inflation, somethings go up by less than inflation, somethings even go down in price.
Now what I’m about to say here could be wrong – it’s been a long time since I learnt anything to do with science and it was always a subject that I struggled with, anyway. If, as I believe to be correct, Plastic is a by product of oil then it is logical that it should be tied into the cost of oil more than the cost of inflation. Since, based upon the cost of Petrol – gas to our American members - (also a derivative of oil), it looks like the cost of oil is increasing over the cost of inflation, as such GW costs are rising over the cost of inflation and so they are passing that cost onto us to maintain the same profit per model, they are not just pushing up prices to increase the profit per model. Now as I said, I’m certainly no science major and it’s possible what I said above isn’t true, or at least isn’t true any more, but it does show why something go up over inflation. In fact by its very nature 50% of the stuff we buy should increase by over the cost of inflation every year.
Incidentally, why do Americans call it gas? Particularly when it is very clearly a liquid?
Smacks wrote: I have heard people say that they feel exploited by Games Workshop, and after some reflection I think it is true. Games Workshop do exploit people, they exploit their stupidity. They have marketing meetings where they go "People will be stupid enough to pay that yeah?" and they are always right. People know this, which is why they are so upset about the prices, they literally feel insulted. The prices have gone gone so far beyond a joke now, that It couldn't be any more obvious if GW published an open challenge in White Dwarf saying "We're so confident that you suckers are dumb enough to pay anything, we modelled our business on it ".
How would people respond? "Screw you GW! I'm not stupid! I'm just gonna buy one or ten more of these overpriced vehicles to finish my army, and maybe some more paint and glue that I could get anywhere else for half price, and a few bits for my Games Day entry... but then I'm though with you!! Until Christmas when the new codex comes out. but that's it... I'll teach you to call me a sucker!".
That's about the size of it. GW charge exactly what they can get away with, and the players let them get away with a lot. Like someone else said earlier, it'll be interesting to bookmark this thread and when the next GW price hike and the complaining rolls around in a few months, compare it to see who actually quit, and how many frogs decided to stay in the boiling water.
Smacks wrote: Philosophers have struggled with concepts like fairness value and humour for centuries, and you expect me to explain them for you in such a why, that you won't be able to ask further pedantic questions?
No, I want you to explain why you go beyond a simple "I don't want to pay for that" and post a long rant about how unfair GW's prices are and how greedy their CEO is. What I want to know is what your standard for "too much" is. Do you actually have any kind of objective standard, or do you just like to rant to express your frustration with not being able to afford something?
A fair price is simply how much I am happy to pay, or reasonably expect to pay.
Why do your preferences set a universal standard of fairness? Why is it unfair that GW has decided to sell at a higher price than you like, rather than just a value-neutral situation where you and GW decline to conduct further business with each other?
I could play and paint with green army men for less than $50 a year. Kite-boarders don't have that kind of alternative... I'm sure if they did they would take it.
If you're willing to play with green army men and don't care about the aesthetic value of the models. Not everyone shares your preference.
And the point about kiteboarding is that there are endless arguments over how "expensive" GW is, but the cost of the hobby compared to other hobbies is small regardless of whether a tactical squad costs $50 or $75. For example, if you're paying $5000+ a year to support your airplane hobby the price of GW kits is a non-issue since GW could double their prices and still not make a meaningful impact on your total hobby budget.
Smacks wrote: Philosophers have struggled with concepts like fairness value and humour for centuries, and you expect me to explain them for you in such a why, that you won't be able to ask further pedantic questions?
No, I want you to explain why you go beyond a simple "I don't want to pay for that" and post a long rant about how unfair GW's prices are and how greedy their CEO is. What I want to know is what your standard for "too much" is. Do you actually have any kind of objective standard, or do you just like to rant to express your frustration with not being able to afford something?
I didn't post a long rant about GW prices being "unfair" I never used to word "unfair". I wrote about why I personally don't buy from them any more. And why I think so many other people feel betrayed by GW (which they clearly do, regardless of whether they have a right to).
And for your information I can afford Games Workshop, but I do not feel their product is worth what they ask for it.
A fair price is simply how much I am happy to pay, or reasonably expect to pay.
Why do your preferences set a universal standard of fairness? Why is it unfair that GW has decided to sell at a higher price than you like, rather than just a value-neutral situation where you and GW decline to conduct further business with each other?
I like how you crop off where I say "this is mostly personal" and try to make out that I'm conceited enough to think my preference set a universal standard. Also you are getting into equivocation with the word "unfair" (your own word). I did not say that it was unfair that GW charge a higher price that I am "willing to pay". They are free to do what they like. But I am clearly not the only person who believe their prices are at odds with their customers expectations. You must also remember that many of their customers continue to buy from them even though they are annoyed about the prices. This implies that the customers would leave if they could get the same product somewhere else (many people did do this with paint). The reason you can't get the same product some place else is because GW has a monopoly on their IP, so customers are limited to Hobson's choice. If you want to talk about fairness I think there are probably a lot of aspects of copywrite law that are unfair and hurt competition, but that is likely beyond the scope of this topic.
I could play and paint with green army men for less than $50 a year. Kite-boarders don't have that kind of alternative... I'm sure if they did they would take it.
If you're willing to play with green army men and don't care about the aesthetic value of the models. Not everyone shares your preference.
And the point about kiteboarding is that there are endless arguments over how "expensive" GW is, but the cost of the hobby compared to other hobbies is small regardless of whether a tactical squad costs $50 or $75. For example, if you're paying $5000+ a year to support your airplane hobby the price of GW kits is a non-issue since GW could double their prices and still not make a meaningful impact on your total hobby budget.
There is however the matter of principle. If you are happy to pay double the price for GW then better you than me. I'll even be happy to sell you GW for that price if you like, since it won't make any difference to your hobby budget. I'll even donate 100% profits to Dakka cause I'm nice
Smacks wrote: And why I think so many other people feel betrayed by GW (which they clearly do, regardless of whether they have a right to).
And that's what I don't understand at all. "Betrayal" involves owing some kind of loyalty/promises/whatever in the first place. GW is just a business, they don't owe you affordable prices and raising them isn't a betrayal.
I like how you crop off where I say it is "this is mostly personal" and try to make out that I'm conceited enough to think my preference set a universal standard.
But you're talking about it like it IS a universal standard, you gave a nice long rant about GW's greedy CEO instead of just quietly deciding that you aren't going to buy any GW products right now.
If you want to talk about fairness I think there are probably a lot of aspects of copywrite law that are unfair and hurt competition, but that is likely beyond the scope of this topic.
How exactly is copyright law unfair in this case? Copyright law doesn't do anything at all to prevent people from creating wargames and competing with GW, as demonstrated by Warmachine/Infinity/etc. It just, for very good reasons, prevents you from copying GW's creations and exploiting all of their work to sell your own ripoff product.
There is however the matter of principle. If you are happy to pay double the price for GW then better you than me.
And again, I don't understand how it's a matter of principle. How do you establish a certain price limit as a principle? And, more importantly, WHY? Do you also feel the need to treat prices in other areas of your life as a matter of principle?
Now we are going round in circles - Again, stating companies who are cheaper than GW doesn't make them the most expensive - if GW are "pricing people out of the hobby" why are we not up in arms about the more expensive ones?
Privateer Press models, in the LGS, are as expensive or more expensive than GW ones.
But, you need far fewer models.
This is why people aren't up in arms. As far as I can tell, only GW tries to make mass combat fantasy/sci-fi games in a 28mm scale.
Because some people have a sense of social morality and think it is wrong for you to buy something for 10p and sell it for £100. Many corporations do just this, and many people get rich from it, but that doesn't make it right. Though right and wrong are clearly arbitrary human concepts anyway. Why you feel you have to argue with everyone about their own personal interpretation is beyond me.
I said I don't like games workshops prices. A lot of other people don't like games workshops prices either. maybe if games workshop had prices that people liked, they would have more customers, and everyone would be happier. Maybe their management really is too blinded by greed to realise that.
Or maybe they are just doing the best for their company. I don't honestly know and neither do you, we can only speculate.
What i do know is that I am not interested in doing business with them any more. I see a lot of people in this topic who feel the same way. And a lot of people who are on more price hike away from quitting. If you're not one of those people then good for you, I hope you prop up the company and pay Kirby's mortgage for many years to come.
Aipoch wrote: It's just poor business practice on their part. Anyone who's taken even an introductory economics course can confirm that there's at least two ways to go about things: Charge a lot for your product and have fewer people buy it, or charge less for your product and have more people buy it. If GW is convinced that, by some miracle of the cosmos, their company is the only company whose product has a set number of people who will buy it regardless of the cost, then by all means they're doing a great job.
Sadly it seems that a lot of people (myself included) are willing to put up with it, afterall, I've been a hobbyist, starting with WFB for almost 30 years now, the other games that are available are of interest, but I don't get that warm fuzzy feeling when they bring out new product.....
Peregrine wrote: So, for the people who seem to have some standard for what price increases are acceptable, beyond "can I afford this?" (for example, "more than inflation"), I have some questions:
1) What percentage of total sales is a justified amount of profit for a company? At what point do you feel that they are obligated to accept that they have enough profit and lower prices to help the customer?
2) What is an acceptable reason, if any, for raising prices beyond the general trend of inflation? For example, is it justified to raise prices to hire a better codex author, or is a company obligated to limit their price increases to the level of inflation and just take a loss in profits to pay for those things?
3) How do you determine, in an objective sense, what price is justified for a model? For example, how can you say not just that a model is too expensive in your opinion and not appealing, but that its price represents some kind of unfairness by the company selling it?
4) How much is a company allowed to raise prices for a higher-quality product? For example, how much is GW allowed to increase the price when moving from a paperback codex to a hardcover one of higher quality?
5) At what point do you feel obligated (possibly based on the previous four factors) to refuse to buy a product that you want and can afford, simply because it passes your threshold for "overpriced"?
Some interesting questions here, don't forget though that GW's current model practice is multipart plastic which once you get past the development and mould costs have a nominal price to produce.
For the other stuff they are using a resin medium in silicon moulds. Once again, on the scale they are looking at the actual costs are minimal and the production process is very low cost. Design a model in zbrush (or equivalent), print it using a 3d printer, make either a wax or silicon mould (wax gives better definition I am told) and start pouring.
On that topic I have just engaged the excellent [/url]http://mastercrafted.co.uk[url]/ to make me some custom shoulder pads for my Nurgle CSM's (yes its a blatant plug) and they have managed to produce a custom design in 2 days for £20.00 and will produce the shoulder pads for £7.00 for ten pieces? They are effectively a cottage industry and are able to offer a comparable product, custom designed in days. They will also be available to buy through the website if anyone is looking for some Swarm shoulder pads?
Imperial Monkey wrote: Out of interest, since part of the issue for many is the bad designs, would folks say that the last really good (all round releases, ie. all models bar one/maybe two) release would be IG or DE? Personally I thought Gaurd were excellent and then it went downhill a bit (I can't remember which was more recent though, guard or DE - which was also excellent).
Necrons for me (except for Flayed Ones).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
agustin wrote: Are Skaven their only real original idea?
In so far as bipedal rat men are an original concept, yes.
Shotgun wrote: For me it was when it became apparent that the codicies were going hard back. I hd been wavering upto that point, but when it became apparent that I would need to shell out 40 -50 bucks -just to find out- what new models I would be needing to buy...that is when GW died for me. Ain't no way I was going to stay same or married when I figured it was going to cost me 50-200 bucks just to bring an army up to snuff, even taking into consideration the vast mounds of metal I had already aquired.
My hobby is fine though. Switched to WWII historicals mostly. Nice thing about that is that a 15mm PzIVH will always be a 15mm PzIVH no matter the rules system. There are no PzIVH with alternate plasma gatling guns being created for any historical system out there.
I even had a buddy offer to give me a pdf of the 40K rulebook he had aquired. I couldn't even get motivated for that.
I will say that, next to gold, my 40K "investment" has increased nicely. There are several models I have sold second and third hand that cost much much less at the time of original purchase.
They need to have a softback option for all the new codicies coming out. The hardcore players that want more fluff can shell out an extra 20 and those who want to play can just have rules and small background
Mr Morden wrote: Agreed - its seems to work with Warmachine / Hordes doing both?
Yes, with the only difference being the cover. Hard and soft cover contain the exact same information.
I think model for model cost comparison is pointless. What matters is the standard size army which is played by your gaming group. This points value will determine how many models you need and thus how much it will cost. GW from my experience takes anywhere from 2 to 5 times as many models for a standard game than other gaming companies. This means GW can be half the cost as other gaming companies, yet still cost the same or more to field an actual army.
- When I started playing in 2nd edition my army was about 30 models
- When 3rd edition came out, I had to buy about 50 models to make the army competitive and make it so I could field full troop choices. 25 of the previous models were not useful due to rule changes.
- Along comes 4th edition and I have to buy about 20 more models with another 5 dropping to the bench due to rule changes.
- 5th edition and the soon there after 5th edition CSM codex caused me to quit the game until the next edition.
- 6th edition comes out and I was considering restarting, but the rules are still bad. Even if I did come back, I would need to swap about 10 models.
In the end, I purchased 100 models (more actually) so I could field 50 competitive models. On the flip side, my PP army is still competitive with all it's models, with about 50 or less total models.
GW raises prices far higher than inflation would allow, and they're doing it to "juice" the company's share price in order to sell off the company.
Sorry, but I'm not having it.
Then you are the kind of person I'm asking those questions. Why does GW's motivation for raising prices matter so much? Why do you care about more than just the current price on the box?
Because people dislike feeling like they are being ripped off. If an item for sale costs significantly more than it did some time before, with no good reason, people will feel like they are being gouged. Like when boxes dropped in price by a couple of $ but halved in content, or when they went to a cheaper material and put up prices.
There's maybe nothing rational about it, but consistent increases well above inflation with no justification just gets customers offside, because they'll start to feel like their being ripped off.
Or plastic scenery price increases of 30-100% a month before scenery became must have. The only justification for that is "because customers need it", and that breeds resentment.
GW raises prices far higher than inflation would allow, and they're doing it to "juice" the company's share price in order to sell off the company.
Sorry, but I'm not having it.
Then you are the kind of person I'm asking those questions. Why does GW's motivation for raising prices matter so much? Why do you care about more than just the current price on the box?
Because people dislike feeling like they are being ripped off. If an item for sale costs significantly more than it did some time before, with no good reason, people will feel like they are being gouged. Like when boxes dropped in price by a couple of $ but halved in content, or when they went to a cheaper material and put up prices.
There's maybe nothing rational about it, but consistent increases well above inflation with no justification just gets customers offside, because they'll start to feel like their being ripped off.
Or plastic scenery price increases of 30-100% a month before scenery became must have. The only justification for that is "because customers need it", and that breeds resentment.
This is why I stopped buying GW. I knew they were ripping me off and decided to put my money elsewhere. Sold off a load of spare armies I had and pared it back to the bare minimum I wanted to keep.
Now we are going round in circles - Again, stating companies who are cheaper than GW doesn't make them the most expensive - if GW are "pricing people out of the hobby" why are we not up in arms about the more expensive ones?
Privateer Press models, in the LGS, are as expensive or more expensive than GW ones.
But, you need far fewer models.
This is why people aren't up in arms. As far as I can tell, only GW tries to make mass combat fantasy/sci-fi games in a 28mm scale.
True, and from a game perspective they are cheaper, but if you just want a cheap wargame to play may I suggest Risk. There is more to the hobby than simply playing a game, and you get more “hobby stuff” for the money from GW than the other “big 3”.
I’ve said multiple times that for a game GW is more expensive, I’ve never once claimed that they are – and if the hobby is purely about games for you then yes, GW are more expensive, if the hobby is the full miniature experience however then GW gets you more “bang for your buck”
Mr Morden wrote: Agreed - its seems to work with Warmachine / Hordes doing both?
Yes, with the only difference being the cover. Hard and soft cover contain the exact same information.
I think model for model cost comparison is pointless. What matters is the standard size army which is played by your gaming group. This points value will determine how many models you need and thus how much it will cost. GW from my experience takes anywhere from 2 to 5 times as many models for a standard game than other gaming companies. This means GW can be half the cost as other gaming companies, yet still cost the same or more to field an actual army.
- When I started playing in 2nd edition my army was about 30 models
- When 3rd edition came out, I had to buy about 50 models to make the army competitive and make it so I could field full troop choices. 25 of the previous models were not useful due to rule changes.
- Along comes 4th edition and I have to buy about 20 more models with another 5 dropping to the bench due to rule changes.
- 5th edition and the soon there after 5th edition CSM codex caused me to quit the game until the next edition.
- 6th edition comes out and I was considering restarting, but the rules are still bad. Even if I did come back, I would need to swap about 10 models.
In the end, I purchased 100 models (more actually) so I could field 50 competitive models. On the flip side, my PP army is still competitive with all it's models, with about 50 or less total models.
Again, this is why your definition of “the hobby” matters – and when I questioned it I was told that it refered to the whole miniature experience, including the collecting, painting and converting of minis. Yes, on a game only basis GW are more expensive – but on a Hobby basis (as per how it was defined in this thread) the GW are the cheapear because, on a model by model basis they are cheaper. From the way “The Hobby” is defined in the thread the Model to Model cost is just as relevant as the “cost of a full army”.
Now not everyone will care about the mini experience, and that is fine – there is nothing wrong with being a gamer – but this thread is about “The Hobby” of which the game is only a small part
Being "completely new to this thread"..
You apparently didn't check the context of my post and as such much of you'e fact checking is either false or misleading. Quality of miniatures was stated by the member I replied to as NOT being a factor, merely price, and he did not specify sci-fi and fantasy until after he was backed into a corner with evidence provided by myself and others about less expensive figure manufacturers. So trying to shoot down parts of my list based on quality (Mantic, EM4, WGF) or historicals (Victrix) is not applicable.
As for the others...
Perry Miniatures: First google result for "Perry Miniatures" is this http://www.perry-miniatures.com/ Have a look at the high quality historical models. Sculpted by GW sculptors and sold for much less than GW figs!
EM4- Even though your quality comment isn't germaine, I should point out that it looks like you deliberately went to the worst models on the site.
4A miniatures- Not a great site, but many of the figs are unpainted, and at around 4 bucks each for metal are drastically cheaper.
Reaper- Can't navigate the website, Really? Are you 3 years old? Go here: http://www.reapermini.com/miniatures, click on any of the tabs and see metal miniatures that average 20-50% cheaper than similarly sized GW minis and Bones ( resiplasic) minis that are drastically cheaper than finecast and a even cheaper than similarly sized GW plastics.
Ral Partha- Look closer at "Iron Wind Metals" the US manufacturere/distributor. Average price for a man-sized metal model is $4.25. That's far cheaper than GW.
You can have you're opinions about quality and applicability, and you should feel free to share them. However that's not "fact checking" when my responses were completely in line with what was being responded to.
BryllCream wrote: Completely new to this thread but I felt like doing some fact checking.
So for you the "full miniature experience" for you is assembling and painting the same plastic guys 30 times in a row? That is what gives you your "more bang for your buck"!
Eilif wrote: Being "completely new to this thread"..
You apparently didn't check the context of my post and as such much of you'e fact checking is either false or misleading. Quality of miniatures was stated by the member I replied to as NOT being a factor, merely price, and he did not specify sci-fi and fantasy until after he was backed into a corner with evidence provided by myself and others about less expensive figure manufacturers. So trying to shoot down parts of my list based on quality (Mantic, EM4, WGF) or historicals (Victrix) is not applicable.
Yes, I didn’t articulate my point very well, but I still maintain that there is a difference between the people who hobby for historical and the people who hobby for Sci-Fi/Fantasy. And GW are in competition with the latter, not the former. Even if you play both 1 set will, usually be your “preferred” type of game, for example I mainly play/paint historicals but do sometime dable in Sci-fi/Fantasy
Here is an interesting experiment, the next time you go to a gaming club/store/event (where there is likely to be people playing both historical and sci-fi) take a look around at the people without looking at the board and see if you can guess who is going to be playing an historical game and who a Scifi/Fantasy. I’d put money on you being right at least 80% of the time.
Of cause, I’ve admitted that my wording about “one of the cheapest” was a poor choice of words, and “cheapest of the big 4 in their segment of the market” was probably how I should have worded it.
So for you the "full miniature experience" for you is assembling and painting the same plastic guys 30 times in a row? That is what gives you your "more bang for your buck"!
I havn't moved the goal post, go back to (I think) page 13 and you'll see that my very first post was "What constitutes the hobby?" And the reply is exactly what I put, that the hoby is everything, not just the game. Everything I've posted since then has been about "the hobby" and not about "the game" - I've made the distinction on multiple occasions.
Would I assemble 30 identical guys all at once in a row – no I wouldn’t,. I wouldn’t even do ten – but I might do 2/3 then do something else and come back to it later. The advantage of GW is I can afford to buy that second box at the same time.
Also, GW stuff in their boxes actually tend to have a reasonable amout of variations (at least their newer stuff that I've bought do)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Infact, I’ll post it here:
Stranger83 wrote: OK, here is another question – what do you consider “the hobby” to be?
If it is purely the gaming aspect then yes GW are the most expensive since you need to buy more stuff than any other game to play, but by that logic pretty much all wargames are more expensive than Monopoly which is also a game that is played between real life people.
To me "the hobby" also includes the collecting, building, converting and painting of the miniatures – indeed as I’ve got older this has become the “main” part of the hobby to me and gaming actually comes second – if you factor all that in you can get a lot more stuff to build/convert/paint with £100 from GW than you can with £100 from anyone else.
So to say “the hobby” is more expensive under GW really depends on what you consider “the hobby” to be about.
Stranger83 wrote: OK, here is another question – what do you consider “the hobby” to be?
In the context of this discussion, "the hobby" is GW centric. GW often uses that phrase as exclusively theirs along with "Build. Paint. Play." and I made this thread within that context. This includes kitbashing and converting GW product.
Since then everything I;ve said is about “the hobby” as it’s defined to me, which is not “the game” – thus I havn’t changed goalposts at all
When you want more revenue for each items in real terms. If you only ever increase prices with inflation, you aren't actually changing your prices in real terms.
For Calgar's sake, stop this nonsense about "general trend of inflation". It has absolutely no bearing whatsoever for an individual company. Or even consumer, some would argue.
It's just an artificially determined average.
You need to read the sentence I wrote again and think about it.
If you only increase prices in line with the average amount of price increase for everything, you are not actually raising your prices in real terms.
It absolutely has an impact on individual companies as companies that don't keep pace with inflation will have their margins shrink as rising costs eat into their bottom lines and you have to outpace inflation if you want a real price increase.
I'm guessing you don't run a business. If you do, I'd highly suggest you pay more attention to changes in your costs when determining your prices. Any accountant will give you the same advice.
When you want more revenue for each items in real terms. If you only ever increase prices with inflation, you aren't actually changing your prices in real terms.
For Calgar's sake, stop this nonsense about "general trend of inflation". It has absolutely no bearing whatsoever for an individual company. Or even consumer, some would argue.
It's just an artificially determined average.
You need to read the sentence I wrote again and think about it.
If you only increase prices in line with the average amount of price increase for everything, you are not actually raising your prices in real terms.
It absolutely has an impact on individual companies as companies that don't keep pace with inflation will have their margins shrink as rising costs eat into their bottom lines and you have to outpace inflation if you want a real price increase.
I'm guessing you don't run a business. If you do, I'd highly suggest you pay more attention to changes in your costs when determining your prices. Any accountant will give you the same advice.
No, it's you who doesn't get it but let me explain. Cost changes which a company experiences do not necessarily (in fact, almost never) follow "general trend of inflation" as cost of wages, materials etc do not each slavishly follow the CPI which, I repeat, is an average.
For example, things like cell phones and computers have generally got cheaper over time, despite inflation. By contrast, some other things (like say, fuel) have got much more expensive than CPI indicates. For example, in my country, producers are planning a 30% price hike on price of milk. In comparison, average inflation is perhaps 4%. So what effect this price hike - well beyond "normal inflation" - has on industries? For a company manufacturing say, cars, very little. They will have to increase prices a bit to cover increased salaries they have to pay to workers so they can afford milk, but that's probably it. By contrast, a company making dairy products like ice cream, immediately faces inflation much greater than calculated consumer price index and they are forced to rise their prices considerably.
So as you see, "general trend of inflation" is completely useless metric in determining how much a price of some individual item should change over the years.
Eilif wrote: Being "completely new to this thread"..
You apparently didn't check the context of my post and as such much of you'e fact checking is either false or misleading. Quality of miniatures was stated by the member I replied to as NOT being a factor, merely price, and he did not specify sci-fi and fantasy until after he was backed into a corner with evidence provided by myself and others about less expensive figure manufacturers. So trying to shoot down parts of my list based on quality (Mantic, EM4, WGF) or historicals (Victrix) is not applicable.
Yes, I didn’t articulate my point very well, but I still maintain that there is a difference between the people who hobby for historical and the people who hobby for Sci-Fi/Fantasy. And GW are in competition with the latter, not the former. Even if you play both 1 set will, usually be your “preferred” type of game, for example I mainly play/paint historicals but do sometime dable in Sci-fi/Fantasy
Here is an interesting experiment, the next time you go to a gaming club/store/event (where there is likely to be people playing both historical and sci-fi) take a look around at the people without looking at the board and see if you can guess who is going to be playing an historical game and who a Scifi/Fantasy. I’d put money on you being right at least 80% of the time.
I'm still not quite sure what you mean by this. Please explain.
The only trend I've seen at conventions is that Historical players seem somewhat older and with a higher propensity toward beards. I'm not sure what that has to do with your point.
I also reject your assertion that GW is in competition with only one segment of the population. I've met a lot of gamers who have been brought into historical gaming by such accessible games as Flames of War, Hail Caesar, and Bolt Action.
There was a time where historical gaming was an intimidating realm of complex rules with low production values and old folks.However, that is changing rapidly as popular level rulesets with high production values, tournament capable rules and affordable plastic miniatures are on the grow. Sure they are not a threat to GW, but they are actively targeting the same gamers, in many cases successfully.
I'm not gonna read everything in this thread but from what I have been skimming it seems like either A) there is a general lack of knowledge on inflation and what it does to prices. B) people just gripping to grip(aka gw haters)
Breotan wrote: According to BoLS, here are the prices for the new DA stuff coming in January:
Codex: Dark Angels (English) 104pp Colour Hardback $49.50
Ravenwing Dark Talon 1 Mini $75.00
Land Speeder Vengeance 1 Mini $65.00
Deathwing Command Squad 5 Minis $60.00
Ravenwing Command Squad 3 Minis $50.00
Dark Angels Battleforce 8 Minis $110.00
That's right. $75.00 for that flier and $50.00 for three bikes. Oh, and don't forget that awesome DA Battleforce with eight whole models.
I heavily rely on Dark Angels figures for my DYI chapter but I'm wondering if GW has finally hit that magical point where I simply can't justify the cost of their product. I have more disposable income than a lot of people out there so I expect that many of you have already hit this wall. If so, when did it happen for you? If you haven't hit it yet, how is your hobby future looking?
Myself? I find that I am migrating over to Malifaux these days, that and spending obscene amounts of money on kickstarters (damn you McVey, Poots, and the rest). Some small purchases and some specific Forge World purchases are still in the cards, but I'll certainly not be starting up any new armies with GW. I used to buy every codex when it came out. Now I only buy the onces I actually use. Once the annual price increase hits this coming summer, my GW portion of the hobby will likely be reduced to painting. Shame, really.
There's no real magic number that will price EVERYONE out of the hobby, but the number of buyers certainly is decreasing.
Eilif wrote: Being "completely new to this thread"..
You apparently didn't check the context of my post and as such much of you'e fact checking is either false or misleading. Quality of miniatures was stated by the member I replied to as NOT being a factor, merely price, and he did not specify sci-fi and fantasy until after he was backed into a corner with evidence provided by myself and others about less expensive figure manufacturers. So trying to shoot down parts of my list based on quality (Mantic, EM4, WGF) or historicals (Victrix) is not applicable.
Yes, I didn’t articulate my point very well, but I still maintain that there is a difference between the people who hobby for historical and the people who hobby for Sci-Fi/Fantasy. And GW are in competition with the latter, not the former. Even if you play both 1 set will, usually be your “preferred” type of game, for example I mainly play/paint historicals but do sometime dable in Sci-fi/Fantasy
Here is an interesting experiment, the next time you go to a gaming club/store/event (where there is likely to be people playing both historical and sci-fi) take a look around at the people without looking at the board and see if you can guess who is going to be playing an historical game and who a Scifi/Fantasy. I’d put money on you being right at least 80% of the time.
I'm still not quite sure what you mean by this. Please explain.
The only trend I've seen at conventions is that Historical players seem somewhat older and with a higher propensity toward beards. I'm not sure what that has to do with your point.
I also reject your assertion that GW is in competition with only one segment of the population. I've met a lot of gamers who have been brought into historical gaming by such accessible games as Flames of War, Hail Caesar, and Bolt Action.
There was a time where historical gaming was an intimidating realm of complex rules with low production values and old folks.However, that is changing rapidly as popular level rulesets with high production values, tournament capable rules and affordable plastic miniatures are on the grow. Sure they are not a threat to GW, but they are actively targeting the same gamers, in many cases successfully.
Actually the point about the experiment was just a general observation that I've made in the past - as I tend to only play my friends these days (again, gaming is no longer my main aim in buying models, it's more the hobby side of it for me) and don't often visit a store these days (as they tend to only stock a small range of companies and I get better choice online) I couldn't say how it has changed, if it has then great.
The point however is that Historical and fantasy/Sci-fi are different games that operate at different price branches - yes both are wargames but genrally you are drawn to one type or the other. To give a non wargame example, My other major hobby is archery, of which I personally prefer to use a composite bow. Now if I used a long bow the actions are still (largely) the same, and so is the end goal (i.e. to shot an arrow at a target) but it is a very different experiance and if you do speak to any archers (and I would recommend it to anyone - it's great fun) then you will find them split on weather a composite or longbow is the better choice. Thats not to say that we don't use the other every now and then but my "go to" bow is the compasite.
Now to continue the analogy, Composite bows are around 400% more than a long bow of a similar quality would be - is it then fair to say "Oh, you make Composite bows that are in the middle of the price range of your competitors who make composite bows, but all these companies makes long bows that I can get 400% cheaper so I'm going to say you are overpriced" Some people may well think that it is a fair analogy, personally I don't. People who play historicals first may dabble in Fantasy/Sci-fi but my experaince (and that is all that I have to go on afterall) is that they tend to see themselves are historical gamers first and formost, and GW therefore is not targetting them so won't price itself accordingly to the competition on that side of wargaming.
Backfire wrote: Cost changes which a company experiences do not necessarily (in fact, almost never) follow "general trend of inflation" as cost of wages, materials etc do not each slavishly follow the CPI which, I repeat, is an average.
And what happens when something differs from an average? It's exceptional.
GW prices increases are exceptional when compared to an average increase of prices across a variety of areas.
That's why the metric is useful. It shows you when you need to look at other factors. For GW, that factor is maximum revenue generation in terms of number of goods sold times their price.
So as you see, "general trend of inflation" is completely useless metric in determining how much a price of some individual item should change over the years.
Who said GW prices should line up with inflation? Not me. I said the opposite. That the price increases MUST outpace inflation or their attempt to maximize revenue in real terms won't work. The post you quoted from was one where I explicitly said they should price their products at whatever they believe should give them maximum revenue.
You are conflating my position with that held by others.
Peregrine wrote: So, for the people who seem to have some standard for what price increases are acceptable, beyond "can I afford this?" (for example, "more than inflation"), I have some questions
1) What percentage of total sales is a justified amount of profit for a company? At what point do you feel that they are obligated to accept that they have enough profit and lower prices to help the customer?
As much as humanly possible, 1000s of percent if you can get away with it, this is a capitalist world in the main, and a non public sector organisation should always do as much as possible to make as much as possible. This is of course completely irrelevant to the discussion as the thread is about how much people are prepared to pay, not how much the company should charge.
2) What is an acceptable reason, if any, for raising prices beyond the general trend of inflation? For example, is it justified to raise prices to hire a better codex author, or is a company obligated to limit their price increases to the level of inflation and just take a loss in profits to pay for those things?
To take your example, they could hire the best rules writer on the planet and provide him with a bevy of nubile, scantily clad slaves to hand engrave rules onto gold leaf, and that still wouldn't make a massive impact on production costs when broken down per unit. A company has a responsibility to keep its costs under control, if they start to dictate the retail price must be higher than what a customer is generally happy to pay, that company has a problem.
To answer your question, anything that improves quality or useability, or long term will facilitate lower costs or better value, and theoretically increase sales, However, companies will often make a loss in some years as a result of investment in equipment, property etc. without mindlessly shovelling those costs onto their customer, in order to be more efficient and therefore more profitable long term (which is a concept that seems to elude GW,) as most organisations are aware that unnecessary or disproportionate price rises can damage their relationship with their customer base.
3) How do you determine, in an objective sense, what price is justified for a model? For example, how can you say not just that a model is too expensive in your opinion and not appealing, but that its price represents some kind of unfairness by the company selling it?
That's simple, my desire to own a model must outweigh the cost. I have just happily shelled out nearly 40GBP on Kromlech's Rotten Butcher as a GUO for my demons, because it is, in my opinion, a better model than the pile of hammered green stuff that GW is offering as the official model for a similar price. Therefore, as I perceive the official model to be of lesser quality, it is also overpriced.
The fact is, it's impossible to be objective in this context, as we are, in a basic sense, dealing with art (miniatures are a form of sculpture after all) and therefore it is inherently subjective. One can, however, argue that any GW kit is inherently overpriced the first time it has been through a price rise that increases it's price above inflation, as with the odd exception, the production costs that allowed the original price to be profitable will likely only have gone up themselves in line with inflation.
[4) How much is a company allowed to raise prices for a higher-quality product? For example, how much is GW allowed to increase the price when moving from a paperback codex to a hardcover one of higher quality?
It's allowed to raise them as much as it likes, I don't have to buy it. The issue we have with the current situation is that there seems to be a hardcore or a percentage of desperately ill informed consumers that eat up whatever GW do. In dog training parlance they are rewarding bad behaviour and therefore not motivating them to change their currently successful ways to something that would be more acceptable to those of us posting in this thread. Until even those people reach their limit, or those of us who have a different perspective find a way of reaching them, we're boned.
Your example is somewhat flawed though, as the assumption that hardback is higher quality in this instance is a little subjective, I've seen multiple comments on the reduced portability of hardback, while they are likely more durable, that isn't necessarily what the consumer wants, so that doesn't make them inherently "better"
5) At what point do you feel obligated (possibly based on the previous four factors) to refuse to buy a product that you want and can afford, simply because it passes your threshold for "overpriced"?
That will never happen, as long as the desire for the product is higher than the cost. However as the prices get higher, the quality must increase proportionately, and that simply isn't happening, in fact, almost the reverse IMO.
The prices ar ethe reason I've been debating on actually getting into 40k. I would like to start a Tau army, but I don't really have the funds to keep up with it.
I've not spent anything with them in 2 years. I've got loads of stuff from years ago when I was a kid, and I've bought some other newer stuff off mates recently - I've bought some second hand codexes too. I got a box of three rhino's for 20 quid (I know this old cliche - but I bloody did!) when I was a boy.
I saved up for them. Now I'm a grown man and I have to save up for one??!? AND IT HURTS. PHYSICALLY HURTS WHEN YOU PAY THOSE PRICES. You've metaphorically been kicked in the gut whilst having your pride questioned. You actually walk out feeling soiled. That's not a 'retail experience' I'm willing to partake of :p.
Infinity is a great game with really nice models. They're not that cheap, but they're cheaper than GW and I don't need loads of them to make a viable army. I'm happy to play that, buying new models for it as and when, and happy to keep playing 40k with what I do have. If I can pick things up cheap I will.
Backfire wrote:
Cost changes which a company experiences do not necessarily (in fact, almost never) follow "general trend of inflation" as cost of wages, materials etc do not each slavishly follow the CPI which, I repeat, is an average.
And what happens when something differs from an average? It's exceptional.
GW prices increases are exceptional when compared to an average increase of prices across a variety of areas.
That's why the metric is useful. It shows you when you need to look at other factors. For GW, that factor is maximum revenue generation in terms of number of goods sold times their price.
No. An average value is just a median. It's an average calculated from set of values, and tells us nothing about prevalence of 'average value' in the set. In fact, often they are rare, or totally non-existing. Good luck, for example, finding a real life "average" family with 2.3 children.
I won't even go to all kinds of adjustions which they do when calculating average inflation. It's not straightforward because consumer products change or are discontinued over time, and have to be replaced with other items, which are often signifantly different (VHS -> DVD etc). Also, selection of sample items from which the prices are calculated is not an exact science.
Lots of people think that CPI as it is reported to public, is a crock and the numbers they produce are artificially low. Google "I can't eat an iPad" for an example. But that's another day, another issue.
So as you see, "general trend of inflation" is completely useless metric in determining how much a price of some individual item should change over the years.
Who said GW prices should line up with inflation? Not me. I said the opposite. That the price increases MUST outpace inflation or their attempt to maximize revenue in real terms won't work. The post you quoted from was one where I explicitly said they should price their products at whatever they believe should give them maximum revenue.
You are conflating my position with that held by others.
...
No I'm not. You keep repeating same mistake, assigning some meaning to "general inflation rate" which is quite irrelevant from perspective of single company which works in niche business. There is no reason why GW production costs would follow average consumer price index, and in all likelihood they don't, probably not even close - though I don't care to guess whether they are signifantly lower, or higher.
I instantly thought I had to share this with this thread:
I just received an e-mail about a product I sell, describing it as "pretty equivalent to GW terrain prices".
I can not afford to sell my products any cheaper, since I am already making minimum profit. (In the grand scheme of things, if you take into account the ammount of time I spend getting my product ready for the customer, I am losing money), but after all, it's a garage project I built for my own amusement.
It seems while the most prominent miniature companies have priced me out of "large battle" game systems and into "skirmish sized" game systems, I have been prized INTO their business xD
Stranger83 wrote: True, and from a game perspective they are cheaper, but if you just want a cheap wargame to play may I suggest Risk. There is more to the hobby than simply playing a game, and you get more “hobby stuff” for the money from GW than the other “big 3”.
You should define more "hobby stuff".
If providing mountains of ill fitting non-gameplay affecting parts is more hobby - I could see an arguement for that - IF YOU USE THE EXTRA PARTS PROVIDED - considering that it takes a gak load of extra work to make any of the pouches, grenades, holstered pistols, knives, tabbards etc. that GW provides as "extras" look like they are PART of the model without it looking like an awkward, haphazzardly surface mounted piece of crap. 95% of all the players that I know have MOUNTAINS of unused pouches, grenades, knives, etc... You can't even GIVE most of these parts away, let alone trade them for valuable parts. For the really specialized parts and parts with strong gameplay value - GW makes you pay for the extra "hobby stuff" (if that is the right interpretation of your term). That's why the SM command squad is extra expensive for 5 guys.
If providing a crap ton of "customizable" statlines is more hobby stuff - I daresay that it isn't, considering that 80-90% of all included options take are weaker by design and either take away from gameplay, or are consigned to a dreary life in the bitz box (single lightning claws anyone?) Other than providing a 10 year old with the chance to build a Terminator equipped with an assault cannon, a power sword, a cyclone missile launcher AND a heavy flamer - I'm not sure how options = more hobby stuff, when sensible modellers will usually use the best option.
Of course, YMMV.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tehjonny wrote: I saved up for them. Now I'm a grown man and I have to save up for one??!? AND IT HURTS. PHYSICALLY HURTS WHEN YOU PAY THOSE PRICES. You've metaphorically been kicked in the gut whilst having your pride questioned. You actually walk out feeling soiled. That's not a 'retail experience' I'm willing to partake of :p.
I kinda wanted to buy a Mauler Fiend to convert. It was $80. It went back on the shelf.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Harriticus wrote: I like all the scientific analysis of if GW's products are overpriced or not going on in this thread.
You really just need to think to yourself, is this fairly priced? That alone answers the question.
Seems fair. It's $91.44 USD in Canada and $132.42 USD in AUS. [ / sarcasm ]
Again, this is why your definition of “the hobby” matters – and when I questioned it I was told that it refered to the whole miniature experience, including the collecting, painting and converting of minis. Yes, on a game only basis GW are more expensive – but on a Hobby basis (as per how it was defined in this thread) the GW are the cheapear because, on a model by model basis they are cheaper. From the way “The Hobby” is defined in the thread the Model to Model cost is just as relevant as the “cost of a full army”.
Now not everyone will care about the mini experience, and that is fine – there is nothing wrong with being a gamer – but this thread is about “The Hobby” of which the game is only a small part
Actually no, the game ISNT only a small part. Its what most people actually DO with the miniatures. If I wanted minis for my D&D game, GW isnt the first place I go to for, reaper, iron winds have a much better selection. Even if its just for painting and sticking on a shelf hosts of other company have better minis to do that with. For space opera games? Other manufactures have jsut as good or better, for small scall RPGing
The "hobby" is a mythical part of gaming that GW lays out, only problem is they only want to include themselves. If their going to claim hobby there is a much much bigger world out there.
keezus wrote: I daresay that it isn't, considering that 80-90% of all included options take are weaker by design and either take away from gameplay, or are consigned to a dreary life in the bitz box (single lightning claws anyone?
Slightly off topic, but a single lightning claw will almost always outperform a power sword+CCW at equal point values.
That said, I agree that the whole "you get more stuff" argument falls apart when you consider that most of it will never actually be used. I happen to actually quite like the pouches that come with the space marine kits, but they're far to big to use without truescaling the marines. And that's another problem with the extra stuff (and generally any overused accessories that GW throws on their models): it's all too big to even look good on the models they come with.
Harriticus wrote: I like all the scientific analysis of if GW's products are overpriced or not going on in this thread.
You really just need to think to yourself, is this fairly priced? That alone answers the question.
$75 for 4 models, most of which are single piece. That is laughable. It almost begs to be recast based on the simplicity of the sculpts and their inflated prices. China would sell them for about $6ea.
Fafnir wrote: That said, I agree that the whole "you get more stuff" argument falls apart when you consider that most of it will never actually be used. I happen to actually quite like the pouches that come with the space marine kits, but they're far to big to use without truescaling the marines. And that's another problem with the extra stuff (and generally any overused accessories that GW throws on their models): it's all too big to even look good on the models they come with.
I cut the pouches down to 2/3 length, reshape the cut, score the division between the pouches so you can bend them to fit the location you are placing them, grind down the back of the pouches about 15% and the spot where I'm going to place them on the model, and then greenstuff the join. I only do this on SGT models, as to do it on rank and file is a PITA.
I'm not sure what the single lightning claw costs pointswise these days, but in the olden days, thing cost damn near what a powerfist cost.
Harriticus wrote: I like all the scientific analysis of if GW's products are overpriced or not going on in this thread.
You really just need to think to yourself, is this fairly priced? That alone answers the question.
$75 for 4 models, most of which are single piece. That is laughable. It almost begs to be recast based on the simplicity of the sculpts and their inflated prices. China would sell them for about $6ea.
Fafnir wrote: It's a shame too, since they're actually pretty good models. Just not $90 pretty good.
And that is the point. It's not that $75US for 4 models in general is bad. It's $75 for THOSE models that is bad. Those models are far to simple for such a price tag. Are the actors getting some giant royalties off them or something? They cost more than 3 trolls, and the trolls were already expensive.
Keep in mind that $75 is what Battle for Macragge went for, and that had a bunch of models and a rulebook.
No I'm not. You keep repeating same mistake, assigning some meaning to "general inflation rate" which is quite irrelevant from perspective of single company which works in niche business.
So many government programs are based on CPI. So many union wage contracts. So many insurance contracts. Inflation adjusted municipal debt instruments and on and on and on. And mysteriously, average incomes across multiple nations all seem to follow CPI in their general change year over year. And when real wages fall, then again, you can use CPI as a measurement to identify it as an exceptional case and look for the factors causing it.
CPI matters to individual companies because it really does represent the change in a basket of goods and the change in purchasing power of currency. The same reason financial planning uses it to determine real returns.
In short, it works. It's relevant because it works. Pure pragmatism. Your academic objections about medians and what really is average falls by the wayside in the face of it actually functioning.
Take it up with an economist, because I don't care about your pet issues with CPI. I'm sorry you can't see why other people might use the most reliable indicator of price change across many industries.
Harriticus wrote: I like all the scientific analysis of if GW's products are overpriced or not going on in this thread.
You really just need to think to yourself, is this fairly priced? That alone answers the question.
$75 for 4 models, most of which are single piece. That is laughable. It almost begs to be recast based on the simplicity of the sculpts and their inflated prices. China would sell them for about $6ea.
I know I'm not supposed to, but I wish the Chinese/Russians would take the FineCast stuff, correct the errors, and start production. I'd have fewer qualms about that than the FW stuff they're doing.
Harriticus wrote: I like all the scientific analysis of if GW's products are overpriced or not going on in this thread.
You really just need to think to yourself, is this fairly priced? That alone answers the question.
$75 for 4 models, most of which are single piece. That is laughable. It almost begs to be recast based on the simplicity of the sculpts and their inflated prices. China would sell them for about $6ea.
I know I'm not supposed to, but I wish the Chinese/Russians would take the FineCast stuff, correct the errors, and start production. I'd have fewer qualms about that than the FW stuff they're doing.
I'm surprised bootleggers haven't done so yet. It'd be easy to forge this stuff and correct all the errors GW makes, then sell them for much less and still walk away with a hefty profit.
tjdrago wrote: The prices ar ethe reason I've been debating on actually getting into 40k. I would like to start a Tau army, but I don't really have the funds to keep up with it.
Your biggest savings will likely be on Battlesuits. For $25+ a pop retail, you can find them for $10 used.
And a list heavy in X-V8's will creep up to 2,000 points quicker than you'd expect.
maybe i am slow painter or my life is full. if i drop 200 dollars on GW stuff I have 6-8 months of assembly and painting.
say like 2 chaos battleforces. that is nearly 80 hours of hobby time before I put it on the table.
I will put out about a grand a year on GW related stuff. in 2012 it was about $500 in forge world and $500 in battle foam.
in 2013, i will probally spend a grand on forge world.
I have such a huge back log of painting. I really shouldn't buy anything.
Harriticus wrote: I like all the scientific analysis of if GW's products are overpriced or not going on in this thread.
You really just need to think to yourself, is this fairly priced? That alone answers the question.
$75 for 4 models, most of which are single piece. That is laughable. It almost begs to be recast based on the simplicity of the sculpts and their inflated prices. China would sell them for about $6ea.
I know I'm not supposed to, but I wish the Chinese/Russians would take the FineCast stuff, correct the errors, and start production. I'd have fewer qualms about that than the FW stuff they're doing.
I'd like it just because I won't touch finecast with a 39 and a half foot pole.
keezus wrote: I daresay that it isn't, considering that 80-90% of all included options take are weaker by design and either take away from gameplay, or are consigned to a dreary life in the bitz box (single lightning claws anyone?
Slightly off topic, but a single lightning claw will almost always outperform a power sword+CCW at equal point values.
That said, I agree that the whole "you get more stuff" argument falls apart when you consider that most of it will never actually be used. I happen to actually quite like the pouches that come with the space marine kits, but they're far to big to use without truescaling the marines. And that's another problem with the extra stuff (and generally any overused accessories that GW throws on their models): it's all too big to even look good on the models they come with.
Or when you simply don't get more stuff but still have atrociously raised prices, like for Sisters.
17.25 for three battle sisters, you need three packs and a superior, or 64 USD for a squad. Even if you want to just get a five person celestian or dominion or retributor squad, you're going to pay out the ass for it. Superior of 12.25 plus four multi-meltas of 14.00 = 68.25 usd for a retributor anti-tank squad.... for five metal models, four of whom are the exact same model, no different posing at all.
Harriticus wrote: I like all the scientific analysis of if GW's products are overpriced or not going on in this thread.
You really just need to think to yourself, is this fairly priced? That alone answers the question.
$75 for 4 models, most of which are single piece. That is laughable. It almost begs to be recast based on the simplicity of the sculpts and their inflated prices. China would sell them for about $6ea.
I know I'm not supposed to, but I wish the Chinese/Russians would take the FineCast stuff, correct the errors, and start production. I'd have fewer qualms about that than the FW stuff they're doing.
I'm surprised bootleggers haven't done so yet. It'd be easy to forge this stuff and correct all the errors GW makes, then sell them for much less and still walk away with a hefty profit.
Maybe it's my small minded American perspective but, I really don't think the nations states of Russia and China necessarily care about boot-legging and Knock offs. Hell, I think the still joust on caribou is Russia. I don't know how long you could get away with Knocks off in the States. I know some people down here have done some Knock off FW and bases but, nothing on a large scale to actually turn a profit. With that said, There is a market for it.
keezus wrote: I daresay that it isn't, considering that 80-90% of all included options take are weaker by design and either take away from gameplay, or are consigned to a dreary life in the bitz box (single lightning claws anyone?
Slightly off topic, but a single lightning claw will almost always outperform a power sword+CCW at equal point values.
That said, I agree that the whole "you get more stuff" argument falls apart when you consider that most of it will never actually be used. I happen to actually quite like the pouches that come with the space marine kits, but they're far to big to use without truescaling the marines. And that's another problem with the extra stuff (and generally any overused accessories that GW throws on their models): it's all too big to even look good on the models they come with.
Or when you simply don't get more stuff but still have atrociously raised prices, like for Sisters.
17.25 for three battle sisters, you need three packs and a superior, or 64 USD for a squad. Even if you want to just get a five person celestian or dominion or retributor squad, you're going to pay out the ass for it. Superior of 12.25 plus four multi-meltas of 14.00 = 68.25 usd for a retributor anti-tank squad.... for five metal models, four of whom are the exact same model, no different posing at all.
Honestly, Sisters players have a lot to complain about, and the pricing is just the tip of the iceberg. They've pretty much all they can to squat the damn army without actually squatting it.
keezus wrote: I daresay that it isn't, considering that 80-90% of all included options take are weaker by design and either take away from gameplay, or are consigned to a dreary life in the bitz box (single lightning claws anyone?
Slightly off topic, but a single lightning claw will almost always outperform a power sword+CCW at equal point values.
That said, I agree that the whole "you get more stuff" argument falls apart when you consider that most of it will never actually be used. I happen to actually quite like the pouches that come with the space marine kits, but they're far to big to use without truescaling the marines. And that's another problem with the extra stuff (and generally any overused accessories that GW throws on their models): it's all too big to even look good on the models they come with.
Or when you simply don't get more stuff but still have atrociously raised prices, like for Sisters.
17.25 for three battle sisters, you need three packs and a superior, or 64 USD for a squad. Even if you want to just get a five person celestian or dominion or retributor squad, you're going to pay out the ass for it. Superior of 12.25 plus four multi-meltas of 14.00 = 68.25 usd for a retributor anti-tank squad.... for five metal models, four of whom are the exact same model, no different posing at all.
Honestly, Sisters players have a lot to complain about, and the pricing is just the tip of the iceberg. They've pretty much all they can to squat the damn army without actually squatting it.
I'm just going to take my SoB army case and cry in the corner for a bit.
To actually make a useful comment, I bought a bunch of SoB stuff off the swap shop this fall. I eventually whittled down what I wanted to paint and play with to a 1500 point force, but I probably have 2k total in accumulated Sisters stuff. When I was about to pull the trigger and make the purchase I did the math. I spent about $300 which is expensive for an army.... but then I did the math. New from GW my total list of Sisters stuff would have cost me over $800 (all prices in USD). The Grimdark Future's Girl Power brigade has always been one of my favorite 40k factions so I didn't balk at the secondary market price tag... too much. However if new from GW was my only option I'd just not buy the army.
Ancient sculpts, all metal models, limited posing and customization options (and you better have a saw ready) for a price tag that may as well involve a back alley beating. When I did the math above... that's when I figured it was time to walk away. I still pick up used stuff here or there, but GW isn't taking my cash on new products any more.
Yes. I'm taking my ball and going home.
Even the rumor of plastic sisters can't tempt me back into the fold.... probably. Knowing GW the price point for plastic sisters will be the same as present prices.
Just another math note to add to Melissa's adding practice. Most sisters players mechanize so you need rhinos, it's also rare to not give a squad of sisters special/heavy weapons. (multi meltas are popular) So assuming 1 Superior, 1 heavy weapon, a special weapon, rhino and six sisters you're at $108.90 and you're STILL under strength a sister. The cheap solution for that is adding a Simulacrum Imperialis which brings you to a lovely $121 and some change.
Prices of Sister's models is something I've already become immune too. It's Ebay and rarely GW direct for the stuff that doesn't show up much in useable condition.
Stranger83 wrote: True, and from a game perspective they are cheaper, but if you just want a cheap wargame to play may I suggest Risk. There is more to the hobby than simply playing a game, and you get more “hobby stuff” for the money from GW than the other “big 3”.
You should define more "hobby stuff".
More hobby stuff simply means more models - as I've said many times I can get 10 models from GW cheaper than 10 models from the other "big 3" even without counting all the "extras" in the box - which I agree are largely pointless. On that point alone GW are the better company, yes you need more to play the game, but that has already been covered to death.
Again, this is why your definition of “the hobby” matters – and when I questioned it I was told that it refered to the whole miniature experience, including the collecting, painting and converting of minis. Yes, on a game only basis GW are more expensive – but on a Hobby basis (as per how it was defined in this thread) the GW are the cheapear because, on a model by model basis they are cheaper. From the way “The Hobby” is defined in the thread the Model to Model cost is just as relevant as the “cost of a full army”.
Now not everyone will care about the mini experience, and that is fine – there is nothing wrong with being a gamer – but this thread is about “The Hobby” of which the game is only a small part
Actually no, the game ISNT only a small part. Its what most people actually DO with the miniatures. If I wanted minis for my D&D game, GW isnt the first place I go to for, reaper, iron winds have a much better selection. Even if its just for painting and sticking on a shelf hosts of other company have better minis to do that with. For space opera games? Other manufactures have jsut as good or better, for small scall RPGing
The "hobby" is a mythical part of gaming that GW lays out, only problem is they only want to include themselves. If their going to claim hobby there is a much much bigger world out there.
Ah, but here is the rub of it are the minis you buy for D&D cheaper - on a mini per mini basis than GW? (And that will all depend on where you buy it from - but GW are not the mst expensive on a model per model basis). Now the game is a part of the hobby, I'm not saying it isn't - but this isn't "Has GW priced you out of wargaming?" It's Has GW Priced people out of the hobby?" And as such, as it was defined to me, I feel that that means we should also look at how much stuff you get to do everything that isn;t gaming with for the money.
As I've already said, if all you want is a cheap wargame why not pick Risk? My guess is because you want something that means you can pick, build, paint and convert, and GW will give you more models to do all that with for your £10 than any other "big 3" company.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fafnir wrote: That said, I agree that the whole "you get more stuff" argument falls apart when you consider that most of it will never actually be used. I happen to actually quite like the pouches that come with the space marine kits, but they're far to big to use without truescaling the marines. And that's another problem with the extra stuff (and generally any overused accessories that GW throws on their models): it's all too big to even look good on the models they come with.
Again, get more stuff doesn't mean more "extras" I mean that £10 will get you more GW men than £10 will get you from PP, Corvus Belli or Wayd.
Melissia wrote: Or when you simply don't get more stuff but still have atrociously raised prices, like for Sisters.
17.25 for three battle sisters, you need three packs and a superior, or 64 USD for a squad. Even if you want to just get a five person celestian or dominion or retributor squad, you're going to pay out the ass for it. Superior of 12.25 plus four multi-meltas of 14.00 = 68.25 usd for a retributor anti-tank squad.... for five metal models, four of whom are the exact same model, no different posing at all.
True, sisters are bad and in need of much love from GW (and I do hate GW release schedule and how they just ignore certain armies but thats off topic so I won't go into any more). - but then again (without actually doing so) I could probably go through the other "big 3" companies and pick out 1 example that shows their prices as being much higher than everything else. If you look at the "standard kits" for 90% of the armies though they are plastic, so it's only fair to basis the prices off that.
No I'm not. You keep repeating same mistake, assigning some meaning to "general inflation rate" which is quite irrelevant from perspective of single company which works in niche business.
So many government programs are based on CPI. So many union wage contracts. So many insurance contracts. Inflation adjusted municipal debt instruments and on and on and on. And mysteriously, average incomes across multiple nations all seem to follow CPI in their general change year over year. And when real wages fall, then again, you can use CPI as a measurement to identify it as an exceptional case and look for the factors causing it.
CPI matters to individual companies because it really does represent the change in a basket of goods and the change in purchasing power of currency. The same reason financial planning uses it to determine real returns.
In short, it works. It's relevant because it works. Pure pragmatism. Your academic objections about medians and what really is average falls by the wayside in the face of it actually functioning.
Take it up with an economist, because I don't care about your pet issues with CPI. I'm sorry you can't see why other people might use the most reliable indicator of price change across many industries.
There's your problem - "across many industries". It's irrelevant for SINGLE industry.
I can easily cite products which have seen similar or bigger price increases than GW products over same timespan.
Harriticus wrote: I like all the scientific analysis of if GW's products are overpriced or not going on in this thread.
You really just need to think to yourself, is this fairly priced? That alone answers the question.
$75 for 4 models, most of which are single piece. That is laughable. It almost begs to be recast based on the simplicity of the sculpts and their inflated prices. China would sell them for about $6ea.
Umm, excuse me but why is that any more laughable than other GW pricing? Seems pretty much in line with it. Small IC's for Fantasy or 40k armies cost $20 apiece already. Granted they're more expensive than existing LotR figures, though also new sculpts.
As mentioned, if you think GW Hobbit stuff is expensive, check out Lego licensed Hobbit stuff.
GW plc is NOT in competition with any other war game company out there.
GW plc is NOT a war games company.
As far as they are concerned they are not, but in reality they are. My (and many others, I'd image) wargaming budget is split between GW and other companies, and any penny I spend on other companies doesn't go to GW, therefore they are in competition. Whilst GW wants to position themselves as a distinct hobby (purely through denial) that doesn't make it so.
They sell the same stuff as wargames companies, and a lot of their customers are wargamers. Whilst GW's main focus is selling toys to kids, that doesn't mean they aren't a wargames company. If they stopped selling rulesets for their games to focus on the figures I bet they'd lose a lot more customers.
cgage00 wrote: I'm not gonna read everything in this thread but from what I have been skimming it seems like either A) there is a general lack of knowledge on inflation and what it does to prices. B) people just gripping to grip(aka gw haters)
...and this thread has its second nomination for a new meme
GW plc is NOT in competition with any other war game company out there.
GW plc is NOT a war games company.
As far as they are concerned they are not, but in reality they are. My (and many others, I'd image) wargaming budget is split between GW and other companies, and any penny I spend on other companies doesn't go to GW, therefore they are in competition. Whilst GW wants to position themselves as a distinct hobby (purely through denial) that doesn't make it so.
They sell the same stuff as wargames companies, and a lot of their customers are wargamers. Whilst GW's main focus is selling toys to kids, that doesn't mean they aren't a wargames company. If they stopped selling rulesets for their games to focus on the figures I bet they'd lose a lot more customers.
In all honesty I think GW very much knows it's a miniature/wargame company and is competing with other miniature/wargames companies, however when talking to shareholders who have no idea what waraming is saying "we sell toys to kids" is something that they will understand. People are more likely to invest in things they understand than things that they don't.
Backfire wrote: No, it's you who doesn't get it but let me explain. Cost changes which a company experiences do not necessarily (in fact, almost never) follow "general trend of inflation" as cost of wages, materials etc do not each slavishly follow the CPI which, I repeat, is an average.
Indeed they don't, but I can't fathom anything cost increases to a business of GW's type and scale that'd result in the kind of price rises we're seeing.
It's not increased manufacturing costs, because they've been going down steadily (and rapidly with finecast).
It's not increased staffing costs; because they've reduced staffing levels significantly and wage inflation hasn't been significant.
It's not increased business costs; because business tax rates haven't changed much.
It's not increased design costs; because they are tied to staffing costs, computerized design much be cheaper at that scale, and the publication quality has dropped noticably of late.
It's not increased licensing costs; because they own all of their IP, so they don't pay anyone any royalties.
The only reason I can think for price increases has nothing to do with the cost to the company to produce them, but purely due to reduced sales volumes (so the development costs per unit may have increased by a couple of pennies) and a need to keep profit level.
Backfire wrote: No, it's you who doesn't get it but let me explain. Cost changes which a company experiences do not necessarily (in fact, almost never) follow "general trend of inflation" as cost of wages, materials etc do not each slavishly follow the CPI which, I repeat, is an average.
Indeed they don't, but I can't fathom anything cost increases to a business of GW's type and scale that'd result in the kind of price rises we're seeing.
It's not increased manufacturing costs, because they've been going down steadily (and rapidly with finecast).
It's not increased staffing costs; because they've reduced staffing levels significantly and wage inflation hasn't been significant.
It's not increased business costs; because business tax rates haven't changed much.
It's not increased design costs; because they are tied to staffing costs, computerized design much be cheaper at that scale, and the publication quality has dropped noticably of late.
It's not increased licensing costs; because they own all of their IP, so they don't pay anyone any royalties.
The only reason I can think for price increases has nothing to do with the cost to the company to produce them, but purely due to reduced sales volumes (so the development costs per unit may have increased by a couple of pennies) and a need to keep profit level.
Whilst I agree mostly with I believe you are trying to say I will add this this:
It's not increased manufacturing costs, because they've been going down steadily (and rapidly with finecast). Except the cost of Plastic (I presume since it's a derivative of oil - unless that has changed which I've asked above but nobody has said I'm wrong) has gone up above inflation
It's not increased staffing costs; because they've reduced staffing levels significantly and wage inflation hasn't been significant. Yes, I think you are right here
It's not increased business costs; because business tax rates haven't changed much. Maybe not, but (at least in my area) things like rent and building rates for commerical property has skyrocketed (which I don;t understand considering the number of empty properties, but it's still true)
It's not increased design costs; because they are tied to staffing costs, computerized design much be cheaper at that scale, and the publication quality has dropped noticably of late. In your opinion, and the general opinion of the people on this board. Some people much prefer the new designs. Also, we don't know that GW has switched to digital sculpting - anyone who has worked at a large company will know that they adapt to new technology very slowly (how many people still use XP on their work machine?)
It's not increased licensing costs; because they own all of their IP, so they don't pay anyone any royalties. Except for the LotR stuff
Backfire wrote: No, it's you who doesn't get it but let me explain. Cost changes which a company experiences do not necessarily (in fact, almost never) follow "general trend of inflation" as cost of wages, materials etc do not each slavishly follow the CPI which, I repeat, is an average.
Indeed they don't, but I can't fathom anything cost increases to a business of GW's type and scale that'd result in the kind of price rises we're seeing.
It's not increased manufacturing costs, because they've been going down steadily (and rapidly with finecast).
It's not increased staffing costs; because they've reduced staffing levels significantly and wage inflation hasn't been significant.
It's not increased business costs; because business tax rates haven't changed much.
It's not increased design costs; because they are tied to staffing costs, computerized design much be cheaper at that scale, and the publication quality has dropped noticably of late.
It's not increased licensing costs; because they own all of their IP, so they don't pay anyone any royalties.
Actually IIRCGW has stated that Finecast minis are more expensive to produce that metal ones, even though material is cheaper. Agree with most other things, though material and transportation costs have increased quite a bit iover recent few years, much faster than "average inflation", mostly as a result of oil crisis. Though it's obviously impossible to say how big slice those represent of overall GW cost structure. We do know that couple of years ago their personnel gave up their annual pay rise. What do you mean by "publication quality has dropped"? Quite the contrary if anything, except perhaps in artistic department, but I doubt that's a cost saving...
And they do have licensing (LotR), and it's quite possible the fees have increased. Though again, that is just one small slice of the pie.
Backfire wrote: No, it's you who doesn't get it but let me explain. Cost changes which a company experiences do not necessarily (in fact, almost never) follow "general trend of inflation" as cost of wages, materials etc do not each slavishly follow the CPI which, I repeat, is an average.
Indeed they don't, but I can't fathom anything cost increases to a business of GW's type and scale that'd result in the kind of price rises we're seeing.
It's not increased manufacturing costs, because they've been going down steadily (and rapidly with finecast).
It's not increased staffing costs; because they've reduced staffing levels significantly and wage inflation hasn't been significant.
It's not increased business costs; because business tax rates haven't changed much.
It's not increased design costs; because they are tied to staffing costs, computerized design much be cheaper at that scale, and the publication quality has dropped noticably of late.
It's not increased licensing costs; because they own all of their IP, so they don't pay anyone any royalties.
The only reason I can think for price increases has nothing to do with the cost to the company to produce them, but purely due to reduced sales volumes (so the development costs per unit may have increased by a couple of pennies) and a need to keep profit level.
Whilst I agree mostly with I believe you are trying to say I will add this this:
It's not increased manufacturing costs, because they've been going down steadily (and rapidly with finecast). Except the cost of Plastic (I presume since it's a derivative of oil - unless that has changed which I've asked above but nobody has said I'm wrong) has gone up above inflation
It's not increased staffing costs; because they've reduced staffing levels significantly and wage inflation hasn't been significant. Yes, I think you are right here
It's not increased business costs; because business tax rates haven't changed much. Maybe not, but (at least in my area) things like rent and building rates for commerical property has skyrocketed (which I don;t understand considering the number of empty properties, but it's still true)
It's not increased design costs; because they are tied to staffing costs, computerized design much be cheaper at that scale, and the publication quality has dropped noticably of late. In your opinion, and the general opinion of the people on this board. Some people much prefer the new designs. Also, we don't know that GW has switched to digital sculpting - anyone who has worked at a large company will know that they adapt to new technology very slowly (how many people still use XP on their work machine?)
It's not increased licensing costs; because they own all of their IP, so they don't pay anyone any royalties. Except for the LotR stuff
I'll concede that rent and rates have probably gone up a lot, the same with electricity.
For the manufacturing costs; yes the cost of plastic may have risen beyond inflation, but it's gone from negligible to negligible. The cost of plastic moulding technology has been dropping drastically over the last 10 years.
When I said the publication quality has dropped, I mean the editing of the books, they new ones are riddled with typos and poor wording which I don't remember from before. The sculpts and art are still great, but the proofreading seems nonexistant.
Licensing, yes I didn't include The Hobbit, because I'd assumed that Hobbit licensing couldn't affect the price of WH/40K.
I can't believe resin is more expensive that metal, it's more stable and a cheaper material but with a higher labour cost, but I was under the impression the basis for the move was that resin was cheaper?
Backfire wrote: No, it's you who doesn't get it but let me explain. Cost changes which a company experiences do not necessarily (in fact, almost never) follow "general trend of inflation" as cost of wages, materials etc do not each slavishly follow the CPI which, I repeat, is an average.
Indeed they don't, but I can't fathom anything cost increases to a business of GW's type and scale that'd result in the kind of price rises we're seeing.
It's not increased manufacturing costs, because they've been going down steadily (and rapidly with finecast).
It's not increased staffing costs; because they've reduced staffing levels significantly and wage inflation hasn't been significant.
It's not increased business costs; because business tax rates haven't changed much.
It's not increased design costs; because they are tied to staffing costs, computerized design much be cheaper at that scale, and the publication quality has dropped noticably of late.
It's not increased licensing costs; because they own all of their IP, so they don't pay anyone any royalties.
The only reason I can think for price increases has nothing to do with the cost to the company to produce them, but purely due to reduced sales volumes (so the development costs per unit may have increased by a couple of pennies) and a need to keep profit level.
Whilst I agree mostly with I believe you are trying to say I will add this this:
It's not increased manufacturing costs, because they've been going down steadily (and rapidly with finecast). Except the cost of Plastic (I presume since it's a derivative of oil - unless that has changed which I've asked above but nobody has said I'm wrong) has gone up above inflation
It's not increased staffing costs; because they've reduced staffing levels significantly and wage inflation hasn't been significant. Yes, I think you are right here
It's not increased business costs; because business tax rates haven't changed much. Maybe not, but (at least in my area) things like rent and building rates for commerical property has skyrocketed (which I don;t understand considering the number of empty properties, but it's still true)
It's not increased design costs; because they are tied to staffing costs, computerized design much be cheaper at that scale, and the publication quality has dropped noticably of late. In your opinion, and the general opinion of the people on this board. Some people much prefer the new designs. Also, we don't know that GW has switched to digital sculpting - anyone who has worked at a large company will know that they adapt to new technology very slowly (how many people still use XP on their work machine?)
It's not increased licensing costs; because they own all of their IP, so they don't pay anyone any royalties. Except for the LotR stuff
I'll concede that rent and rates have probably gone up a lot, the same with electricity.
For the manufacturing costs; yes the cost of plastic may have risen beyond inflation, but it's gone from negligible to negligible. The cost of plastic moulding technology has been dropping drastically over the last 10 years.
When I said the publication quality has dropped, I mean the editing of the books, they new ones are riddled with typos and poor wording which I don't remember from before.
I agree with all of that, I do think that GW are putting up prices more than their increase in costs+existing profit margin, I just wanted to point out that it probably isn't quite as simple as it appeared in your initial post.
The price of oil has a negligible effect on the cost of producing plastic miniatures.
And GW does use digital sculpting. They've shown some of their models in previews before. The one that most immediately comes to mind is the Blood Angels Dreadnought model.
And the cost of all GW products consistently goes up at an obscene rate, not just the LOTR stuff.
But even LOTR isn't overly expensive for a non-Hobbit army. It costs something like $300 for a full army in which you'll never need anything for it ever again except paint- rulebook, army book, models etc. It's still a lot, but not compared to starting 40k.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: But even LOTR isn't overly expensive for a non-Hobbit army. It costs something like $300 for a full army in which you'll never need anything for it ever again except paint- rulebook, army book, models etc. It's still a lot, but not compared to starting 40k.
How much for the books though? Thats another hefty investment with the current pricing.
Fafnir wrote: The price of oil has a negligible effect on the cost of producing plastic miniatures.
Does it? Oil shocks of the '70s and '80s directly contributed to collapse of then very popular model kit hobby. Companies like Airfix went under when they had to hike their prices to respond enormous rise in cost of plastics and oil.
Fafnir wrote: The price of oil has a negligible effect on the cost of producing plastic miniatures.
Out of interest do you have any numbers on this? I would have thought (and my understanding of the science of this is limited at best) that the cost of oil would be directly related to the cost of the plastic? So if the cost of oil goes up over inflation then the cost of plastic would too. I'd be interested to know more of how it works.
Fafnir wrote: And GW does use digital sculpting. They've shown some of their models in previews before. The one that most immediately comes to mind is the Blood Angels Dreadnought model.
Ah, ok, this I didn't know. It makes an interesting argument for those who say digital is a better quality to traditional if they then think GW sculpts have gone down in quality now that they have switched to digital - but thats off topic so I won't take it further.
The cost of the raw plastic is nothing compared to the retail of the mini though, so a doubling in plastic cost won't have much effect on the manufacturing cost (the per unit cost of plastic is something in the regions of cents/figure, and the bulk of the manufacture cost is in the tooling).
Because if it was, we'd see the same sort of price hikes across all companies selling injection moulded plastic figures, and offhand I can't think of any other company who has had a price rise lately, let alone one as steep as GW plastics.
Fafnir wrote: The price of oil has a negligible effect on the cost of producing plastic miniatures.
Out of interest do you have any numbers on this? I would have thought (and my understanding of the science of this is limited at best) that the cost of oil would be directly related to the cost of the plastic? So if the cost of oil goes up over inflation then the cost of plastic would too. I'd be interested to know more of how it works.
As noted above, the cost of the plastic used to actually produce a miniature is almost nothing compared to what GW takes in for the sale of it.
Fafnir wrote: And GW does use digital sculpting. They've shown some of their models in previews before. The one that most immediately comes to mind is the Blood Angels Dreadnought model.
Ah, ok, this I didn't know. It makes an interesting argument for those who say digital is a better quality to traditional if they then think GW sculpts have gone down in quality now that they have switched to digital - but thats off topic so I won't take it further.
It's more a matter of the skills of the artist and how they apply them to a specific medium, really. Although physical sculpture and digital sculpture have very similar fundamentals (at the end of the day, you're working with the same concepts and theories), they both have very different 'feels' and constraints. While digital modelling has essentially no limitations as to what you can do, it lacks the tactile feedback of an actual physical medium, and although it has no limitations while modelling it, you have to make sure whatever you model translates over to a physical medium with physical limitations when it's finished. In addition, while digital modelling tends to be faster and more mutable (ctrl+z is the greatest thing in the universe), it requires a completely different set of technical skills, and an understanding that relies purely on visual understanding.
Ultimately, digital sculpting allows you to go further and do more than you can within physical bounds, but the artist will always do better with the medium they have a better understanding of and are more comfortable with.
Fafnir wrote: The price of oil has a negligible effect on the cost of producing plastic miniatures.
Does it? Oil shocks of the '70s and '80s directly contributed to collapse of then very popular model kit hobby. Companies like Airfix went under when they had to hike their prices to respond enormous rise in cost of plastics and oil.
Having worked in amongst that industry, I can say assuredly that it was very much more than price rises that were responsible - the rise in popularity of other forms of entertainment (video games mostly) and also a complete lack of development and forward movement on the part of the plastic kit producers (who had become extremely fat and lazy on the spoils of their former success) was mostly to blame.
In fact, it's interesting that you bring that up as there are some disturbing parallels between how both industries have developed - it points to their vulnerabilities if they stagnate and fail to remain competitive in terms of coaxing money from teenagers and their parents.
Herzlos wrote: The cost of the raw plastic is nothing compared to the retail of the mini though, so a doubling in plastic cost won't have much effect on the manufacturing cost (the per unit cost of plastic is something in the regions of cents/figure, and the bulk of the manufacture cost is in the tooling).
Because if it was, we'd see the same sort of price hikes across all companies selling injection moulded plastic figures, and offhand I can't think of any other company who has had a price rise lately, let alone one as steep as GW plastics.
Fair enough, as I said I really don't know enough about the process to say one way or the other. I just presumed that there was a more direct link because (generally) when something switches to plastic from metal/resin in drops nearly half in price (maybe not so much with GW - but certainly other companies) - so I figured that was due to the cost of the thing it was made of being so much cheaper, but (and apologies if I've misunderstood) your saying the cost of the raw materials isn't that big of an impact and the real cost is design/production fees and profit.
I've actually invested in a casting kit for personal use last week, honestly its a bit of a learning curve but it saves you a lot of money on small bits that shouldn't cost insane prices such as plasma guns.
Fafnir wrote: The price of oil has a negligible effect on the cost of producing plastic miniatures.
Does it? Oil shocks of the '70s and '80s directly contributed to collapse of then very popular model kit hobby. Companies like Airfix went under when they had to hike their prices to respond enormous rise in cost of plastics and oil.
I would also dispute this claim. Other related hobbies, such as wooden model kits, also declined during the 70s and 80s. The latter, not being made of plastic, did not have such a price rise. I see the decline as a lack of interest in the product, rather than cost. Further, action figures boomed in the late 70s and 80s and they were made of plastic.
Herzlos wrote: The cost of the raw plastic is nothing compared to the retail of the mini though, so a doubling in plastic cost won't have much effect on the manufacturing cost (the per unit cost of plastic is something in the regions of cents/figure, and the bulk of the manufacture cost is in the tooling).
Because if it was, we'd see the same sort of price hikes across all companies selling injection moulded plastic figures, and offhand I can't think of any other company who has had a price rise lately, let alone one as steep as GW plastics.
Fair enough, as I said I really don't know enough about the process to say one way or the other. I just presumed that there was a more direct link because (generally) when something switches to plastic from metal/resin in drops nearly half in price (maybe not so much with GW - but certainly other companies) - so I figured that was due to the cost of the thing it was made of being so much cheaper, but (and apologies if I've misunderstood) your saying the cost of the raw materials isn't that big of an impact and the real cost is design/production fees and profit.
Well, kind of. Plastic is, simply, the cheapest material to actually produce in. Resin is fairly cheap. Metal miniatures are actually fairly heavily affected by the cost of their materials.
On the other hand, plastic miniatures require extremely expensive metal molds to be cast in. This gives plastic miniatures a high cost to start up production of. In order to make a return on plastic models, you need to sell a fairly high volume. That said, once you've covered the cost of the mold and machines required to produce it, you spend almost nothing on production. It's for this reason that you never see special characters cast in plastic, since it's difficult to sell them in a volume that would justify plastic production.
Resin miniatures, despite the cheap casting material, are actually very expensive to actually cast, since they have to be cast by hand, and need much more diligent quality control to ensure that there's no bubbles or blemishes *cough*finecast*cough*. Furthermore, resin molds tend to wear out over use, and must be replaced. This requires not only the replacement cost of the mold, but re-emphasizes the importance of quality control to know when to replace a mold. So despite the cheap components, and relatively cheap molds, it's a much more involving process, which tends to make it much more expensive than plastic.
I'm not entirely sure about metal, but I think it is an automated process. Similar to resin, the molds themselves are relatively cheap. That said, the material costs are far more than what you'd see for plastic or resin.
GW's finecast is a mix between plastic and resin, and it uses the same molds and a similar process as their metal models. The primary reason for this switch from metal to finecast was to save money spent on the cost of raw materials for metals, without having to incur the costs required for actual resin casting. I don't know much of anything outside of that, but that doesn't really matter anyway, since finecast is garbage to begin with.
Fafnir wrote:Resin miniatures, despite the cheap casting material, are actually very expensive to actually cast, since they have to be cast by hand, and need much more diligent quality control to ensure that there's no bubbles or blemishes *cough*finecast*cough*. Furthermore, resin molds tend to wear out over use, and must be replaced. This requires not only the replacement cost of the mold, but re-emphasizes the importance of quality control to know when to replace a mold. So despite the cheap components, and relatively cheap molds, it's a much more involving process, which tends to make it much more expensive than plastic.
Thinking about this, and what other cost-cutting measures remain to GW after already slashing store staff and development costs to a minimum, brings up some worrying possibilities for anyone currently employed in that capacity in Lenton.
It seems an awful thing to say, especially one of the things I have really admired about GW is that they have managed to keep much of their production in the developed world, specifically here in the UK. But the profit margins need to be maintained and, especially with the low QC standards of Finecast making me think that they are already stretched pretty thin and working their tits off - excuse the parlance - but where else is there for them to go to reduce costs?
Stranger83 wrote: Again, get more stuff doesn't mean more "extras" I mean that £10 will get you more GW men than £10 will get you from PP, Corvus Belli or Wayd.
I don't see how this stance is defensable.
Let's break this down into its most basic form, with heavily rounded numbers for simplicity. We'll assume: Hobby is 1/3 Build, 1/3 Paint and 1/3 Play.
Let's assume for sake of arguement that GW models cost $4ea.
PP / Corvus Belli / Wyrd models cost $8 ea.
You need 50 models to play a GW game: $200
You need 25 models to play a PP game: $200
You need 10 models to play Infinity / Malifaux: $80
At $80 investment, you get full benefit from 1/3 build, 1/3 paint, 1/3 play for Infinity, Malifaux. Until you get to $200, you only benefit from the 1/3 build and 1/3 paint for 40k and Warmahordes, getting only 66% HOBBY VALUE. Worse if you don't paint!
Considering that in my experience the Hobby breakdown seems closer to 35% Build, 15% Paint and 50% Play... until you reach that threshold where you can play standard sized pick-up games, the system is providing poor hobby value regardless of how many men they put in the box.
From a pure modelling standpoint, GW provides dubious value as well,as there's many non-wargaming kits out there as well and the customer is no longer limited in purchasing scope.
Stranger83 wrote: Again, get more stuff doesn't mean more "extras" I mean that £10 will get you more GW men than £10 will get you from PP, Corvus Belli or Wayd.
I don't see how this stance is defensable.
Let's break this down into its most basic form, with heavily rounded numbers for simplicity. We'll assume: Hobby is 1/3 Build, 1/3 Paint and 1/3 Play.
Let's assume for sake of arguement that GW models cost $4ea.
PP / Corvus Belli / Wyrd models cost $8 ea.
You need 50 models to play a GW game: $200
You need 25 models to play a PP game: $200
You need 10 models to play Infinity / Malifaux: $80
At $80 investment, you get full benefit from 1/3 build, 1/3 paint, 1/3 play for Infinity, Malifaux. Until you get to $200, you only benefit from the 1/3 build and 1/3 paint for 40k and Warmahordes, getting only 66% HOBBY VALUE. Worse if you don't paint!
Considering that in my experience the Hobby breakdown seems closer to 35% Build, 15% Paint and 50% Play... until you reach that threshold where you can play standard sized pick-up games, the system is providing poor hobby value regardless of how many men they put in the box.
From a pure modelling standpoint, GW provides dubious value as well,as there's many non-wargaming kits out there as well and the customer is no longer limited in purchasing scope.
Well, I’ve never argued that GW aren’t the most expensive game so I’ll give we agree on that point.
The quality and value of GW models could also be brought into question, I know that Finecast is very poor (people tell me that now it is actually ok but my own experience from when it was “new” are so bad I’ve not felt the need to buy it again) and you might not like the way the sculpture designes are going – but all of that has nothing to do with cost, and again, the thread is are GW pricing out of the hobby – not are GW overpriced. The two are different issues.
I’m also not sure what you are basing your maths on – you show that you can get 10 infinaty models for $80 and are comparing that to 50 GW models, which doesn’t seem fair to me.
Lets break it down another way with each of the 3 areas being separate then adding them all together (and I’ve not done this before so I’ll post the results exactly as I make them and stand by whatever they are)
GAMING
Not really sure what I need for this as not played Infinaty or PP (I’d like to actually, it’s just getting some opponants) but lets work on the numbers you’ve given, which I presume are based on army size? (I’ll be using UK prices as thats what I have easy access to)
50 GW models – lets assume £20 for a pack of 10 (box sets of 10 are usually cheaper but characters are more so it’s a reasonable average) + 2 tanks at £40 each (I've purposely gone for the most expensive tanks so that people cannot complain I'm choosing GW cheap stuff) – cost of an army £180
25 PP press models – I struggle here not knowing what is needed, but I’m often told you can pick up an army for $200 which equates to – Cost of an army £125
10 Infanity – as a general rule from what I’ve seen they are £5, and since that fits quite well with your $80 for 10 lets call it that – cost of an army £50
Now, to be fair I’ll class painting and modelling as 1 and the same, as 99% of people I’ve spoken to count it the same – indeed you yourself make it 50% play and 50% modeling (To give it a name I’ve called it Cost of hobby , I’m not trying to say the game isn’t part of the hobby, just giving it a name). Remember we are looking at how much we get to "hobby" with here so we need the same number of models.
So I get 50 models to assemble and paint from GW for – cost of hobby £180
To get 50 models from PP press is £120x2 – Cost of hobby £240
To get 50 models for infinity is £80x5 – Cost of hobby £400
So adding the gaming costs to the hobby costs the dividing by 2 we get
Cost of GW £180+£180 = £360/2 = £180
Cost of PP = £240 +£120 = £360/2 = £180
Cost of Infinity = £80+£400 = £480/2 = £240
So actually, PP from a hobby persepective is the same as GW, Infinity are more expensive however.
Also your comment “my experience the Hobby breakdown seems closer to 35% Build, 15% Paint and 50% Play” highlights it exactaly, it depends on what your own experience is, I know some people who only paint and assemble so to them GW is cheaper, then I know others who are happy to play with half assembled and undercoated models – to them the others are cheaper.. Thats why I queried what the bounds of “the hobby” were before I started posting.
EDIT there is also the case of the 2 tanks that I havn't included an equavalent for from PP and infinity (because as far as I'm aware they don't make them) so I actually GW are 2 tanks up over PP in the hobby side. But for the sake of comparing same with same I'e kept them out, I added them into the "game" cost as you really do need the tanks to play a game. In fairness you could say that GW costs are £180+£100 since the tanks are not in "Hobby cost" but I didn;t do it like that at first, so I'll leave it as I posted.
The cost with the CSM was as much as I'll ever pay for models. The new Dark Angels are taking the piss. Five of the new Dark Angels terminators are £35. Five. Five plastic men. Five.
Combine this with blatant price-hiking such as each future codex being hardback & therefore more ££ and I think I'm going to be shopping on ebay from now on.
No I'm not. You keep repeating same mistake, assigning some meaning to "general inflation rate" which is quite irrelevant from perspective of single company which works in niche business.
So many government programs are based on CPI. So many union wage contracts. So many insurance contracts. Inflation adjusted municipal debt instruments and on and on and on. And mysteriously, average incomes across multiple nations all seem to follow CPI in their general change year over year. And when real wages fall, then again, you can use CPI as a measurement to identify it as an exceptional case and look for the factors causing it.
CPI matters to individual companies because it really does represent the change in a basket of goods and the change in purchasing power of currency. The same reason financial planning uses it to determine real returns.
In short, it works. It's relevant because it works. Pure pragmatism. Your academic objections about medians and what really is average falls by the wayside in the face of it actually functioning.
Take it up with an economist, because I don't care about your pet issues with CPI. I'm sorry you can't see why other people might use the most reliable indicator of price change across many industries.
There's your problem - "across many industries". It's irrelevant for SINGLE industry.
I can easily cite products which have seen similar or bigger price increases than GW products over same timespan.
Harriticus wrote: I like all the scientific analysis of if GW's products are overpriced or not going on in this thread.
You really just need to think to yourself, is this fairly priced? That alone answers the question.
$75 for 4 models, most of which are single piece. That is laughable. It almost begs to be recast based on the simplicity of the sculpts and their inflated prices. China would sell them for about $6ea.
Umm, excuse me but why is that any more laughable than other GW pricing? Seems pretty much in line with it. Small IC's for Fantasy or 40k armies cost $20 apiece already. Granted they're more expensive than existing LotR figures, though also new sculpts.
As mentioned, if you think GW Hobbit stuff is expensive, check out Lego licensed Hobbit stuff.
I like the part where you ignored my next post about how $75 for 4 models isn't the ludicrous part. It's $75 for THOSE 4 models. They are 25mm single piece monopose and rather static models. They are the kind of sculpts I'd expect to find in a toy aisle at Wal Mart for $15/set.
And most LEGO sets are equally priced across the board based off of a few factors, one of which is the number of mini figs included. But do we really want to start comparing GW with LEGO? You know all those lego pieces from 30 years ago? 100% still useful. Never a single issue with scale, never a single issue with compatibility. My kingdom for GW to be as wonderful as LEGO.
Also, LEGO kit price rises in the last 10 years are significantly less than GW's, on top of the quality of product rising. We can go there if you want, but it won't go well for GW.
You know, all the issues related to cost increases being tied to increases in expenses (whether labor, materials, transportation or otherwise) is pretty easy to address. If you look through the financial filings - you can find the expenses. This covers all the manufacturing, all the payroll, all the shipping and fulfillment costs - everything.
Back in 2009 the group expenses were £84,325,000 in the 2012 report, group expenses were listed at £81,975,000. Expenses have gone down - not up. Still, prices go up.
Still, the prices for models and other GW products are going up faster than inflation - many of them are going up much, much faster than inflation.
Aerethan wrote: And most LEGO sets are equally priced across the board based off of a few factors, one of which is the number of mini figs included. But do we really want to start comparing GW with LEGO? You know all those lego pieces from 30 years ago? 100% still useful. Never a single issue with scale, never a single issue with compatibility. My kingdom for GW to be as wonderful as LEGO..
Comparing LEGO to GW is like comparing a gold nugget to a turd.
LEGO products have value in both the model they sold as well as the pieces that make it up. Once a person is bored with the model, they can break it down and build something completely different. Some people buy LEGO kits based both on what the model is as well as the parts which are in it.
Sean_OBrien wrote: You know, all the issues related to cost increases being tied to increases in expenses (whether labor, materials, transportation or otherwise) is pretty easy to address. If you look through the financial filings - you can find the expenses. This covers all the manufacturing, all the payroll, all the shipping and fulfillment costs - everything.
Back in 2009 the group expenses were £84,325,000 in the 2012 report, group expenses were listed at £81,975,000. Expenses have gone down - not up. Still, prices go up.
Still, the prices for models and other GW products are going up faster than inflation - many of them are going up much, much faster than inflation.
Mostly true, but you do have to factor in that they have had falling sales - falling sales = less manufacturing = less overall cost of raw materials and other manuafactoring costs (e.g. electricity, or wages if they let some staff go). The fact that their expenses as a whole have gone down doesn't neccesarilly mean that the cost manuafacturing cost per uunit produced has. I'm not saying that this accounts for everything here - I've already stated that I beleive GW put up prices over their cost increases, just pointing out it's not quite as black and white as the figures make it look.
Back in 2009 the group expenses were £84,325,000 in the 2012 report, group expenses were listed at £81,975,000. Expenses have gone down - not up. Still, prices go up.
Still, the prices for models and other GW products are going up faster than inflation - many of them are going up much, much faster than inflation.
This.
If you only increase prices to match your increasing expenses or to match the rate of inflation, you aren't actually increasing your prices to any level that will bring in more revenue per item sold in real terms.
GW is in a position where their customer base isn't really growing (one could make a compelling case it is shrinking) and while they have slashed expenses rather efficiently, their revenue remains a bit stagnant. So they increase prices to get the real revenue up. Higher prices might mean some people quit or buy less. So that means their sales volume drops and even with the price increases they'll have stagnant revenue again soon enough. So they do it again the next year. It's what they've been doing for 7 or 8 years now.
So to answer the question in the thread title: Yes, but not everyone at once. Each price increase will price out more and more people and reduce sales volume. GW is counting on those who remain and new recruits to buy enough at the new higher prices to keep their revenue from shrinking, and maybe get a modest growth in revenue.
There is an argument that as enough people in a local gaming community get priced out, that area will lose its critical mass. You'll no longer be able to find opponents reliably, there won't be buzz and excitement at local clubs/stores about the new releases, and sales will drop dramatically in that area. If this happens to enough areas, then and only then would you see a single price increase finally be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
I think we have a ways to go until we hit that point. I think UK, EU and US prices can reach parity with Forge World's prices before that happens. And I think that's where GW is going with their pricing policy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stranger83 wrote: Mostly true, but you do have to factor in that they have had falling sales - falling sales = less manufacturing = less overall cost of raw materials and other manuafactoring costs (e.g. electricity, or wages if they let some staff go).
Stranger83 wrote: Mostly true, but you do have to factor in that they have had falling sales - falling sales = less manufacturing = less overall cost of raw materials and other manuafactoring costs (e.g. electricity, or wages if they let some staff go).
Why are they having falling sales?
...
Because they are selling less stuff. I'm not sure what your asking here. I know that GW price rises mean that some people stop buying them, and at the same time changing personal circumstances will also have an effect (e.g. if your wage has been frozen and food costs go up you'll have less to spend of plastic men) but I wasn;t arguing this point. All I was saying is that is your prodcing 10% fewer things, and your cost of producing things hasn't equally fallen 10% then they cost of producing each thing has actually gone up.
What I don't understand is why GW doesn't take a hit for a year or two while the world re-gains its footing during these dire straits instead of raising prices and stuff. Mackers did it - they were selling 99 cent meals during 2008 and 2009!
Because they are selling less stuff. I'm not sure what your asking here. I know that GW price rises mean that some people stop buying them, and at the same time changing personal circumstances will also have an effect (e.g. if your wage has been frozen and food costs go up you'll have less to spend of plastic men) but I wasn;t arguing this point. All I was saying is that is your prodcing 10% fewer things, and your cost of producing things hasn't equally fallen 10% then they cost of producing each thing has actually gone up.
Fair enough.
So GW prices are such that they are driving some people away? Even if their individual plastic model cost is lower than some alternatives?
Actually no, the game ISNT only a small part. Its what most people actually DO with the miniatures. If I wanted minis for my D&D game, GW isnt the first place I go to for, reaper, iron winds have a much better selection. Even if its just for painting and sticking on a shelf hosts of other company have better minis to do that with. For space opera games? Other manufactures have jsut as good or better, for small scall RPGing
The "hobby" is a mythical part of gaming that GW lays out, only problem is they only want to include themselves. If their going to claim hobby there is a much much bigger world out there.
Ah, but here is the rub of it are the minis you buy for D&D cheaper - on a mini per mini basis than GW? (And that will all depend on where you buy it from - but GW are not the mst expensive on a model per model basis). Now the game is a part of the hobby, I'm not saying it isn't - but this isn't "Has GW priced you out of wargaming?" It's Has GW Priced people out of the hobby?" And as such, as it was defined to me, I feel that that means we should also look at how much stuff you get to do everything that isn;t gaming with for the money.
.
The minis most people buy for D&D are cheaper Very few people buy their D&D minis from the "big 3". Reaper is by far the largest player in that market, and across the board their prices are cheaper per miniature than compable (for size and material) GW miniatures by 30-50 percent.
Also, as you were informed earlier, the Ral Partha minis that Caramachu mentions are also cheaper.
Stranger83 wrote: [
As I've already said, if all you want is a cheap wargame why not pick Risk? My guess is because you want something that means you can pick, build, paint and convert, and GW will give you more models to do all that with for your £10 than any other "big 3" company.
.
That's a silly question. People who want a wargame (which usually is taken to be a minaitures wargame) don't pick risk because it doesn't have miniatures and terrain.
You can't compare GW only to the big 3 and then bring RISK into the equation. That intellectually dishonest.
The fact is there are many wargames outside the big 3 that you can play for cheap. My club played an entire summer of "Song of Blades and Heroes". Each of our warbands probably cost about as much as a GW codex or less. And I know for a fact that all or nearly all the figures (one player used his old GW stuff) were drastically less expensive than GW.
Stranger 83,
You've backed yourself into a corner where the only way you can win your argument that the best place to spend your £10 is GW is to ONLY compare GW price-per-miniature to two of the most expensive miniature makers out there. And those are games who don't require nearly as many miniatures as GW games.
You've formed an argument based on discounting the dozens of other miniature wargaming options whose price per-figure AND price per army are drastically cheaper than any of the "Big 3". And you've discounted them soley because they don't fit into your point of view.
Because they are selling less stuff. I'm not sure what your asking here. I know that GW price rises mean that some people stop buying them, and at the same time changing personal circumstances will also have an effect (e.g. if your wage has been frozen and food costs go up you'll have less to spend of plastic men) but I wasn;t arguing this point. All I was saying is that is your prodcing 10% fewer things, and your cost of producing things hasn't equally fallen 10% then they cost of producing each thing has actually gone up.
Fair enough.
So GW prices are such that they are driving some people away? Even if their individual plastic model cost is lower than some alternatives?
Yes, and I presume that the people who are diven away from GW for the price are also driven away from the more expensive ones too.
Stranger83 wrote: I’m also not sure what you are basing your maths on – you show that you can get 10 infinaty models for $80 and are comparing that to 50 GW models, which doesn’t seem fair to me.
I think you are overly fixated on model/$ in a vacuum.
In my original example, you've completly ignored my argument that the number of models needed to enable standard play with other players needs to be relevant. If 40k (for example) needs on average, 50 models to hit 1500 points, and Infinity needs 10 models, it means that the Infinity player is getting full use (i.e. play) out of his/her models after $80 investment where as at that point the 40k player might have 2 troops and an HQ at that point, and twice the models of the Infinity player, but if they intend to play standard sized games - the 40k player needs to continue buying models. This is of course by game design.
Using your example of 50 models in each system:
50 models ~ 1500 points in 40k - Standard game size: 1500-1850
- Play style(s) afforded by 1 1500 point army - one (This is by game design, as 40k units rely heavily on their own statistics to carry the day, and unit actions are limited by the targeting rules.)
50 models ~ 75 points in Warmahordes
- Standard game size: 35-50 points
- Play style(s) afforded by 1x 50 point model + 25 points in hot-swappable components - 10+ (This is by game design, as WM/H units rely heavily on unit to unit interactions and swapping out a unit creates different synergies)
50 models ~ ??? points in Infinity
- Play styles afforded by 50 models!!! is enormous as Infinity relies on MODEL TO MODEL interations and having 50 hot-swappable pieces creates hundreds of possible play styles!
Ergo - In your example, the other systems cost more money to get to the 50 point mark, but offer greater "HOBBY' value as they provide greater tactical options in game-play. This is again, by concious design by the various game system designers.
Just ribbing you, someone has to like 
