I havn't been on this forum long, and except to get flamed and trashed for this post, but I have noticed a trend that kinda disturbs me.

As gamers we all want exceptional rules and models to play our games...but it appears anytime a game comes out with decent rules or a setting that people would enjoy, the community instantly tries a way to not spend any money supporting the new rule set.

Example 1 - Flames of War. It appears the community likes this game and wants the rules to be tweaked/added/edited to make it better. Which is fine, but everyone refuses to buy the Flames of War models and instead get cheaper alternatives....while expecting FoW to keep making rules for them.

Example 2 - Star Wars Legion. As soon as it came out it had the support of the community.....but they are already figuring out how not to buy the models.

Example 3 - Shadespire. People seemed pleased with this, but on day one I saw people saying they would just print the cards and play with old models.

It just seems as a community we want quality games, but a lot of us do not want to spend any money for these games.

Honestly; its an expensive hobby compared to other forms of gaming and there are a lot of people where it really borders on the on the upper edge of their leisure budget. A lot of people really enjoy the games and models, but adding a single new unit is all they can afford for a month or two, which doesn't allow for much in the way of experimental spending.

You've picked three bad examples there - they're all games that people already have models for, or there are alternatives available. Take Shadespire - I already have Orcs so why should I pay £17.50 when I'm just going to use the cards?

In general it's a case of the vocal minority - most gamers I know accept the cost of the hobby and are happy with it (and I know I spent more on paintballing).

You've picked really poor examples.

Flames of War (Battlefront) has...god awful pricing and produces some pretty crap miniatures. Their compeititon produces better or equal kits for far less money. Couple that with the fact that when Battlefront launched FoW it was actually reasonably priced (and it's just skyrocketed since) why would anyone bother buying the miniatures from them? It's a competitive market. If you make 15mm WW2...expect a ton of competition. Quality-wise and price-wise I'd take PSC over Battlefront all day, every day.

Star Wars Legion is, simply put, also expensive and is heavily criticised because of the somewhat cheesy nature in which FFG pursues token-based collectable miniatures games. Some of the Imperial Assault minis (as an example) are eye-wateringly expensive for what you get compared to most miniature companies. It's a fair criticism.

Shadespire? Well that's just being cheap. That game isn't very expensive to start with. However, the people raise a simple point. You could easily create a simple hex board or map yourself...use minis you do own...and use a simple D6 conversion table for your dice. If there is cheap way to play it? People will do so.

The overwhelming thing to remember is that games like 40K and Star Wars based franchises have a huge market in 14-22 year olds. Poor high school kids or cheap college kids, etc. While wargaming is not, compared to other things, an expensive hobby...it can be when you're on a shoe string budget but want (colloquially) "All the things".

While I don't at the moment, in the past I've had a substantial budget with which to game - and I've actually gotten crap from some people because I've invested heavily in many expensive hobby areas in the wargaming spectrum. I know when I have the cash I'll treat myself to a "deluxe" item or twelve. I have zero issue with investing money in a hobby I really enjoy - some people it's a take-it-or-leave-it approach and they can't be assed to spend some coin on it. Others can't afford it straight up but feel they must acquire stuff however possible.

People seem to be developing a really weird relationship with corporations these days.

Capitalism, a refresher: Company offers Thing at Price, Customer decides whether Thing is worth Price for them. The end. Companies are not entitled to your money, nor your support, your relationship begins and ends at the till where you exchange money for goods and/or services. Buying a rulebook or a boxed game or a unit of Stormtroopers does not obligate you to making future purchases from the company that made them, and if the company fails to attract custom on such a scale and for such a sustained period that the product line or even the company themselves fail, the company are the ones responsible for that failure.

Besides which, even people not buying the SuperDuper Official Branded Keychain & Mug set to match their army in order to "support the game" are still, in fact, supporting the game. One of the biggest factors in the success or otherwise of social games is network effect - ie the more people play it, the more popular it will get - so merely by interacting with the product on forums, on social media, by playing games at the local club, a person is "supporting the game" even if not a single solitary penny of their own money ever ends up in the hands of the company making said product.

In short, clamber down off that high horse, you're teetering.

 Yodhrin wrote:
People seem to be developing a really weird relationship with corporations these days.

It's not that weird. You see that kind of behavior in most abusive relationships.

Getting out of the GW mindset for a moment, it's very common for gamers to buy rules from one company and miniatures from another in many games - particularly with historical games. There are probably 20 different games I could use 15mm French Napoleonic troops in.

If I bought the rulebook, I supported the company making those rules. There's no continuing obligation to buy the models that company makes. They're unconnected purchases.

There can be a variety of reasons for being "cheap". I agree with a couple of the other posters here - your examples aren't very good.

1. FOW: Battlefront should be well aware they are entering a miniature market where choice is almost overwhelming. It should come as no surprise people will look for cheaper alternatives where the value of the official product is questionable. That's not so much being cheap as it is sensible.

2. Legion: FFG, for better or worse, have a bit of a reputation for 2 things: Dropping games on a whim and pursuing a business model that all but requires customers to buy everything released for a particular game in order to keep up. I can understand people being wary of a new game from them but still wanting to at least try it out.

3. Shadespire. I think this is more a case of people wanting to try it out a little bit without fully committing. They already have appropriate models so don't want to pay for them again.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to call gamers cheap without acknowledging the other side of the coin: games companies need to show that their products are value for money if they expect people to buy them. It's a 2-way street.

This is not just for games, in all products there will be some penny pinching. This is why no-name brand products (not just the actual No-Name brand) exist.

The thing is there's the effort-to-value ratio. Take something like Cards against Humanity; it's basically freely available for anyone with a printer to make. But that's actually MORE of a hassle than just forking over the 20 bucks for the box set. Similarly, a lot of people play MTG with print-out cards, because the actual copies of those cards are comically overpriced (and in some cases flat out unobtainable because there is simply no stock of it in some stores).

Miniature games suffer a lot because the ridiculously high price of miniatures makes it so that it's almost always preferable to hunt for deals rather than just pay extra for the convenience. If, say, marine-sized models are a buck or two a pop, people would not be hunting on the internet for the best deals since why bother going through international borders, possible shady dealers and legal consequences to try and save on a 10-20 dollar box of plastics? (And I'm specifically using marines here as an example since you don't need a whole lot of them to play. Imagine guard players with conscripts, you can bet your guilliman that they will be pinching every penny on those guys).

About the only one I'd dispute the comments from others on is Shadepsire.

It's £17.50 for a warband. That's chickenfeed when it comes to wargames. I mean, you get everything for it right there. No other purchase necessary once you've got that and the base game.

I would say many gamers are "cheap" beacuse they do not have a ton of disposable income to spend. Therefore, the only rational way to continue in the hobby you enjoy is to get creative and stretch the income you do have.

Simple really.

Yeah FoW....... you would understand if you built there resin.

good god its a miracle if some part doesnt chip off and you didnt have to use a belt sander to remove the giant pour sprue.

 Easy E wrote:
I would say many gamers are "cheap" beacuse they do not have a ton of disposable income to spend. Therefore, the only rational way to continue in the hobby you enjoy is to get creative and stretch the income you do have.

Simple really.

Also in no way confined to miniature gamers. Every hobby community will include a mix of people who don't care what anything costs, and those who try to get the most out of their dollar.

For that matter, you could leave the 'hobby' out of that statement. There's really nothing particularly revolutionary here... some people simply have less disposable income than others, or prefer to use their money more efficiently than others.

I don't think that gamers are cheap as a collective. Those on a tight budget look for and share ways of making their budget go further. Those with a larger budget don't go around bragging about it. Therefore you are only seeing one part of a bigger picture, which doesn't reflect the whole thing.

 JamesY wrote:
I don't think that gamers are cheap as a collective. Those on a tight budget look for and share ways of making their budget go further. Those with a larger budget don't go around bragging about it. Therefore you are only seeing one part of a bigger picture, which doesn't reflect the whole thing.

Yeah. For every guy posting long rants about how he's going to use a photocopier and old Imperial Assault minis to play Legion, there are people like me who just think, "Eh... it's only about $200 for two full armies? Sold." I just don't feel the need to tell everyone who will listen, so if you read the forums, all you're seeing are people complaining about the cost and looking to play for free.

Another thing to consider is time I've already invested time and effort in painting models I want to get as much use out of them as possible so why not use Zombicide models in half a dozen different rulesets?

 Asmodai wrote:
Getting out of the GW mindset for a moment, it's very common for gamers to buy rules from one company and miniatures from another in many games - particularly with historical games. There are probably 20 different games I could use 15mm French Napoleonic troops in.

If I bought the rulebook, I supported the company making those rules. There's no continuing obligation to buy the models that company makes. They're unconnected purchases.

I am more responding to the second half of your post (which I put in bold).

I know you are mainly speaking in terms of historical games which is a very competitive market, but the mindset that just buying the rule book is "enough" to support a company is not always accurate. I see that as similar argument made by people who say they support their LGS by buying an occasional pot of paint or candy bar. Sure, they're buying something, but they aren't really ensuring the health and longevity of the business.

Yes, the rule book purchase is a shot in the arm for the company and helps get their rule set exposed to other eyes, but generally speaking, the profit margins on rule books aren't as great as other items (like miniatures). Many companies have a business model of selling rules as a loss leader, or even giving them away for free, as a way to encourage miniature sales. Granted, this is only relevant to companies who offer both rules and miniatures, as many companies offer rule sets without an associated miniature line so those sorts of companies aren't part of this business model. But when a company does offer miniatures they are hoping you will buy them. The success of their company is built into that.

Now, am I saying that people should buy models purely out of a desire to support a company? No, I am not. If a company's minis are not worth what they are charging then the company needs to re-evaluate their pricing and quality or close shop.

What I am saying is if a player likes a company/rule set/setting and likes the models for that game, but opts to use "good enough" stand-in models which cost less, then buying the cheaper option while still buying just the rule book isn't doing the company/rule set/setting any favors. While a rule book and a box of miniatures are "unconnected purchases" in terms of product type, they are very much connected in terms of the company's business model.


More generally and returning to the OP, if I am understanding the OP's post, then this frugal behavior on the customer's part is problematic because if the customer likes the rule system/setting of a game, but doesn't support the company through repeated purchases, the company will fold. Which I generally agree with.

Books take months of development and play testing before they are released. The lead time and resources needed to produce those products is not insubstantial, while something like a model often requires less work on a company's part to release to the public. So, opting to just buy the rules and forgoing anything else means a company will get your money once every few years (duration of a game edition) and nothing more. It is hard to maintain a business when your customers are only buying from you once every Leap Year or so.

Since people didn't like the games OP referenced I'll add another.

I noticed similar penny-pinching behavior in the Modiphius Fallout news thread. The thread in question is the official Dakka news thread for the game with participation from Modiphius reps, and it did not take long before people were posting links to manufactures who make "count as" Fallout miniatures. Basically, shining a big spotlight on Modiphius' competitors in Modiphius' own thread (competitors who didn't shell out for the expensive licensing fee, so they already have a leg up over Modiphius in terms of production costs).

This was done all so people could save money and buy models immediately and on the cheap. Mind you, this was before Modiphius had shown any model pricing, or even provided the complete list of renders for the game's initial release and yet Modiphius already had people pushing competitors' products, and potentially losing sales for Modiphius.

That sort of frugality is ugly, short-sighted and, in my opinion, detrimental to the health of game companies. And before anyone tries to twist my argument around, I am not stating that what occurred in Modiphius' thread is going to tank the Fallout table top game or Modiphius as a company. Rather, the desire for players to immediately source alternative miniature options for use in a game system they supposedly want instead of supporting the company making the actual game is behavior that runs counter to ensuring game companies, and the properties we like, stay around for the long term.

Flames of War is crapping in their own bed. There's a huge availability of cheap WW2 miniatures out there, at good quality and for a low cost. They can compete or fail. An off-brand 15mm german tank is still a 15mm german tank. Good minis sell themselves.

FFG: Same story. They're flavor-of-the-moment and don't support their product, because it's easy to lose an expensive license like Star Wars.

Shadespire: I don't see it, the price point is so small there's little reason to not buy it if you want it.

 John Prins wrote:
Flames of War is crapping in their own bed. There's a huge availability of cheap WW2 miniatures out there, at good quality and for a low cost. They can compete or fail. An off-brand 15mm german tank is still a 15mm german tank. Good minis sell themselves.

FFG: Same story. They're flavor-of-the-moment and don't support their product, because it's easy to lose an expensive license like Star Wars.

Shadespire: I don't see it, the price point is so small there's little reason to not buy it if you want it.

Out of curiosity, how is FFG not supporting their product? X-Wing has been going strong for some time now. Same with Armada. Imperial Assault, while primarily a many versus one board game, has numerous expansions with more coming out. Runewars is brand new, but has had pretty consistent releases. Most of the LCGs see regular monthly or so releases. Almost everything else is a board game where there isn't necessarily much of an expectation of constant, indefinite expansions.

I'm actually avoiding Shadespire because of the cost. I'd want to focus on one faction, but still have all of the possible card options. Right now, that means $240... $60 for the core, $60 for the 2x announced expansion packs and $120 for the 4x unannounced expansion packs that we already know about. If the game is successful, you're looking at more money over time. If the game isn't succesful... well, I would have wasted $240 on an unsuccessful game.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Sure, they're buying something, but they aren't really ensuring the health and longevity of the business.

It's not the consumer's responsibility to ensure the health and longevity of a business.

If you're running a business and your product isn't selling, it's up to you to fix that.

That works both ways though. If the consumer would like that business to remain healthy then they should patronise it. For example, the much loved independent hight street bike shop which went bust because all their customers did was look and buy online, that's quite typical these days.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm "cheap" in the sense that I will never pay full price for GW products if I can find a way to get them for less, or just buy the exact bits that I want to use and nothing more. I'm also willing to spend a good amount of time converting models that are cheap to represent models that would be more expensive out of the box. I just don't see any reason not to; I get more for my gaming dollar that way.

However, with something around the price point of Shadespire, I have no problem supporting the product by buying the retail boxes.

Because its my money and I don't care what model snobs think. There's that.

 insaniak wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Sure, they're buying something, but they aren't really ensuring the health and longevity of the business.

It's not the consumer's responsibility to ensure the health and longevity of a business.

If you're running a business and your product isn't selling, it's up to you to fix that.

Exactly. This is true of everything, not just gaming. Customers have no obligation to throw away money to make up for a business having a poor strategy for making money. It's a business, not a charity.

 whatwhat wrote:
That works both ways though. If the consumer would like that business to remain healthy then they should patronise it. For example, the much loved independent hight street bike shop which went bust because all their customers did was look and buy online, that's quite typical these days.

In which case the business didn't offer enough to persuade people to buy from them. This debate keeps happening, but the answer is, as always, simple & obvious - if you can't persuade people to spend money at your business, either you're not good at business, or the market can't presently support the business you want to run as you envisioned it running. Customers are not responsible for an owner's inability to entice their custom.

Bike shops are a great example, there's one just along the road from me that ran into similar trouble a couple of years back - couldn't compete with online prices for expensive bikes, couldn't compete with Halfords at the budget end of the market. Shop's still there, thriving, because the owner didn't just whinge that customers were doing the entirely rational thing and seeking out the best deal, she refocused the store on repairs, parts & accessories sales, shifted the actual bike sales to a webstore of her own with an offsite warehouse and only a few display models in the physical store, and used the space that freed up in the shop to open a small health cafe-bar thing, then further promoted that by offering lessons on various riding & bike maintenance(free basic ones, reasonably priced advanced classes) and by setting up organised rides through the city starting and ending at her shop. Now half the "serious" cyclists(ie, folk who don't just buy a bike and then let it rust in a shed) pass through her shop on a regular basis and the online sales model lets her sell bikes at a price people are willing to pay.

It's mad that it's the borderline-commie that keeps having to point this out(similar discussions pop up on some videogame forums I frequent with similar arguments) - opening a business doesn't entitle someone to anything except the opportunity to get successful enough to begin skimming value off the top of other people's labour, but getting to that stage is their responsibility not their customers'.

Gamers aren't cheap. There was a poll a while back that asked gamers how much they spent on 40k and only 40k and it was something like 800 euro per year (I can't remember exactly but I remember it being way higher than I was expecting).

I wish I could find the poll now, it was posted on dakka probably near the start of 7th edition.

People like to complain about prices but then still spend a lot of money. That's not just gamers, it's "people" in general. Obviously price isn't the only factor otherwise they'd stop buying altogether, but it a factor so it's something that gets complained about.

Firstly, the "consumer responsibility to support vs the corporate responsibility to entice" debate has been done to death, and I'm not really seeing how it fits the thread subject?

Secondly, I reject the premise of the thread, I've seen gamers pay ludicrous amounts for the things they're passionate about, if people are quibbling over price on something, then they're not cheap, they're just not that excited about it.

I've thought about this a lot too.

For me, its because I started this game when I was 13 using paper route money. My family wasn't well off so I didn't get an allowance. My personal spending money came from saving birthday and christmas and doing chores for extended family, and then my paperroute when that came along. Sometimes I was the only one with cash in the family and my mother would have to borrow some from my cash storage (she always paid me back, thanks mom) to pay for my little sister or my lunches. I was always hoarding my little bit of money until I found something I was ready to splurge on.

So anyway, every penny pretty much counted. All my terrain was scratch built. Every model was considered and poured over before purchase. My paint brushes were hand me downs from my Uncle's model painting days, and I started Warhammer with his testor enamel paints, before slowly switching to GW.

Its thirty years later, but I still have to climb out of that mindset when it comes to Warhammer (long since got out of it for anything else). And the fact that my internal lens places everything into 1993 dollars when I look at GW models certainly doesn't help.

But I'm getting better.

 Kriswall wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
I don't think that gamers are cheap as a collective. Those on a tight budget look for and share ways of making their budget go further. Those with a larger budget don't go around bragging about it. Therefore you are only seeing one part of a bigger picture, which doesn't reflect the whole thing.

Yeah. For every guy posting long rants about how he's going to use a photocopier and old Imperial Assault minis to play Legion, there are people like me who just think, "Eh... it's only about $200 for two full armies? Sold." I just don't feel the need to tell everyone who will listen, so if you read the forums, all you're seeing are people complaining about the cost and looking to play for free.

Surely you can see the flipside to this though right?

If a player already has 30 odd stormtroopers and an AT-ST, why should they be "forced" to buy these models again for another game when they're already roughly in the same scale and could be adapted with very little effort?

Your "eh, it's $200, no biggie" is another's "you mean to tell me I have to spend $200 again?"

There's a reason Battlefront can't pull this kind of shenanigans and its coming back to bite them, it's just a really crappy business practice. For Legion it isn't even about using illegal knockoffs, or even another company's miniatures, these are official figures made by the same company in roughly the same scale that are not going to be useful because you'll need the cards (and in some cases fancy bases) to play in an official capacity.

That's why Legion is a terrible example for the OP, FFG only has itself to blame for it and it's a pretty crappy move. There's a reason there are people annoyed about it. It could be solved very easily too, all they needed to do was release upgrade cards so people could adapt their old collections and the griping would've disappeared overnight. You can't even use the argument that FFG isn't getting the money, they already GOT the money the first time they sold the models. If anything it's easy additional money if they had just released separate cards/rules so people could use their old collections.

Yes, I realize for companies like Battlefront, not buying their models is going to keep them from succeeding as much as if I had went to them for everything, but where's the cutoff in this kind of mindset? Should I buy purely from Battlefront to ensure they get every penny? After all, my FLGS is taking a significant cut of that profit if I buy it there. What about buying used models? Should I not pick up used models because it hurts the company?

Basically what I"m trying to say is that at a certain point you have to realize that it's up to the company itself if they want your money. If they sell good rules for a good price but their models are crappy and expensive, then they shouldn't be surprised when people only want the rules and buy the models elsewhere. Welcome to Capitalism. Even players who are skimping on expenses still help the company due to the weird situation tabletop games are in. You need a critical mass of players to get a game successful and established. It doesn't matter if half those players never paid a dime to the company, if just by existing in the community they attract twice their number in fresh blood who do buy from the company. This is obviously an incredibly simplified explanation for it but it's basically how 40k has stuck around at all and rebounded in 8th. Many old players had mothballed armies or picked up used lots on ebay. They comparatively didn't really spend all that much when 8th dropped. However, their very presence helped establish communities across the world and that gave new players players places to play and inspired them to buy in. Not a lot of hobbies are really like this so its kind of an odd mentality but I've seen this happen first hand with my local group. The "old" community bought relatively little when 8th dropped aside from books, but when people saw us playing in the store it encouraged many new players to buy in and give it a shot. So ultimately even though we didn't spend that much ourselves, we still made GW money by existing and playing the game.

On a purely quantitative level, it's not the gamer, it is the game company. Any decent undergrad macro econ course will teach you about substitute goods and how, everything else being equal, they improve the overall health of the industry.

From a forensics point of view, the true problem is that the vast majority of companies are started by passionate people rather than business people who spent a great deal of time dispassionately studying the industry to see if they want to invest in it. The result is that most companies are badly run and even those who are eventually helmed by professionals are still hamstrung to some extent by the legacy of their founding fathers' decisions. This is the same reason why a large majority of mom and pop restaurants will fold within five years of launch, while restaurants started by corporate professionals have roughly inverse failure rates.

ie. If you continuously offer compelling, competitively-priced product, you will succeed, otherwise people will chose a substitute. Unfortunately, few people have the combination of education, experience and capitalization required to pull this off.

That is my POV as a "cheap" gamer who has spent over $50K USD on miniature war gaming.

Problem being flat out swallowing whatever gak Hobby companies throw out at whatever cost asked leads to all sorts of problems, just look at the state of the video game industry, and crap like day 1 DLC and content blantantly being carved into premium slices is already happening in the hobby

Also Hobby companies are not my friends, they neither care about my praise or naysaying, we both owe each other nothing, a handful of purchases creates no obligations on either party

I don't know if video gaming is a very good comparison. Videos games don't allow you to transfer content between titles and aren't something the average consumer can modify and adapt to fit their needs where boardgames and miniatures are very open ended. I'm free to make house rules, my own rules or use models with any rules set I want so long as the other players are interested, where video games can only be played exclusively in the manner that the company provides them.

I think gamers tend to complain too much about costs in some regard because they moan about the cost of a game (say $100) which will provide options for repeat enjoyment but will spend the same amount of money or more going out for drinks or food without so much as a grumble and that's a one time experience. I think most people just want to complain about something.

My beef with DLC on Day One is when it's actually encoded on the disc, just locked away.

Getting new expansions and stuff? Irritating, just less so than the above.

That's not something we suffer from when it comes to TTG.

Yeah, when your DLC content download is 134KB...for a "large" DLC that's pretty insulting.

I don't think gamers are cheap.

I know plenty of gamers (myself included) that will gladly pay for something very expensive. The problem arises when they don't think it's worth it. In your examples:
1) Flames of War: I used to play it. But 4e dropped, and they essentially lost me, with how awkward the release was (yeah, I mean, who needs Late War rules anyways right? Just dock your points by whatever conversion factor and it's the same game!) I'm not paying my money for that.

2) Legion: I love Star Wars, but to me, it's just not worth it. If it didn't have a whole legion [heh] of random stuff to buy for it, I'd pay through the nose - but I'm not paying through the nose for cardboard counters and proprietary dice. That seems silly.

3) Shadespire: It's new. I've been looking at it. My friends have bought it, and I'm holding off buying stuff for it until I get to play it. But if it's good, I'll buy it. If it's not good, I'll still play it when my buddies want to but I'll build my own warband.

I've got the cash, and I spend it (I own 3 Ordinatus engines and 22 Baneblades & variants atm) on things I think are worth it. But not buying things I don't want doesn't make me "cheap." Neither does that mean I shouldn't want something so close to being good (like Legion) and interesting to me (like Legion) to be better.

There's definitely people who are ludicrously cheap (why buy this £100 model when this £30 one looks a bit like it from far away with your eyes half-closed???), and the weird and wonderful lot who will offer any justification for why they're entitled to the product but shouldn't ever have to pay for it. There's plenty of others who are maximising their money, which is a different question. To pick up on the Shadespire example, you have two scenarios:

1) "I want to play so I'll photocopy all the cards and rules and draw my own boards and I'll use these bottle tops instead of miniatures." A year later: "Why did they stop making this game, I was supporting it!"
2) "I want to play so I'll buy the starter, but the Orc models aren't any different to the Orcs I own already, so I'll just use those rather than buying some very similar ones."

You basically can't win with group 1, whereas group 2 can be won over if there's significant incentives to do so (good, like "this thing is too awesome not to own!", or bad, like "the only way to get X is to buy Y.")

 Corrode wrote:
There's definitely people who are ludicrously cheap (why buy this £100 model when this £30 one looks a bit like it from far away with your eyes half-closed???), and the weird and wonderful lot who will offer any justification for why they're entitled to the product but shouldn't ever have to pay for it. There's plenty of others who are maximising their money, which is a different question. To pick up on the Shadespire example, you have two scenarios:

1) "I want to play so I'll photocopy all the cards and rules and draw my own boards and I'll use these bottle tops instead of miniatures." A year later: "Why did they stop making this game, I was supporting it!"
2) "I want to play so I'll buy the starter, but the Orc models aren't any different to the Orcs I own already, so I'll just use those rather than buying some very similar ones."

You basically can't win with group 1, whereas group 2 can be won over if there's significant incentives to do so (good, like "this thing is too awesome not to own!", or bad, like "the only way to get X is to buy Y.")

Yeah number 2 is the category I'm in.

It's a fine line though - on one hand, releasing new and different Orcs which are more awesome will make people like me spend money on them. On the other hand, it will upset people who just wanted more of the same.

In my opinion, making both model lines at the same time would please everyone, but is likely not realistic at all.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
My beef with DLC on Day One is when it's actually encoded on the disc, just locked away.

Getting new expansions and stuff? Irritating, just less so than the above.

That's not something we suffer from when it comes to TTG.

Going to have to disagree about table topping not suffering from that kind of thing Doc

The Gang War book for Necromunda is a play right out of the EA/Ubisoft book

 Corrode wrote:
There's definitely people who are ludicrously cheap (why buy this £100 model when this £30 one looks a bit like it from far away with your eyes half-closed???), and the weird and wonderful lot who will offer any justification for why they're entitled to the product but shouldn't ever have to pay for it. There's plenty of others who are maximising their money, which is a different question. To pick up on the Shadespire example, you have two scenarios:
1) "I want to play so I'll photocopy all the cards and rules and draw my own boards and I'll use these bottle tops instead of miniatures." A year later: "Why did they stop making this game, I was supporting it!"
2) "I want to play so I'll buy the starter, but the Orc models aren't any different to the Orcs I own already, so I'll just use those rather than buying some very similar ones."
You basically can't win with group 1, whereas group 2 can be won over if there's significant incentives to do so (good, like "this thing is too awesome not to own!", or bad, like "the only way to get X is to buy Y.")

I agree as well that this "list" nailed it.
I have a gaming friend who would print out on card all his miniatures if he felt players would accept it.
I bought 3 boxes of Shadow War Armageddon by GW when it first came out.
I like to "reward good behavior" of a supplier when they do things right.
If it is a token attempt, they may get ignored by me at worst, or the "cheaper/better looking alternative" used at best.

Why is there a requirement to buy figures that go with the rules at all?

FoW started making 15mm WWII rules where there was already an established market for 15mm WWII miniatures. I don't buy into the idea of a 'FoW Hobby'. I don't even really know what it is. Is it like the 'GW Hobby'? As defined in court by GW iirc as buying GW minis. That's not my hobby.

I buy their rules and I buy minis based on which represent the best (by whatever criteria I use) of their type on the market.

That's capitalism isn't it? If you want your 15mm sherman tanks to be the ones that sell they need to be 'better' than everyone else's. Companies expecting the customer to by all their game components from themselves is a ludicrous idea when your product is so generic. YMMV for games with Space Marines and such but I don't play these games.

 George Spiggott wrote:
Why is there a requirement to buy figures that go with the rules at all?

FoW started making 15mm WWII rules where there was already an established market for 15mm WWII miniatures. I don't buy into the idea of a 'FoW Hobby'. I don't even really know what it is. Is it like the 'GW Hobby'? As defined in court by GW iirc as buying GW minis. That's not my hobby.

I buy their rules and I buy minis based on which represent the best (by whatever criteria I use) of their type on the market.

That's capitalism isn't it? If you want your 15mm sherman tanks to be the ones that sell they need to be 'better' than everyone else's. Companies expecting the customer to by all their game components from themselves is a ludicrous idea when your product is so generic. YMMV for games with Space Marines and such but I don't play these games.

I completely agree, but I think the issue is that the players turn around and complain if the company/game goes under.

For example, let's use Legion. Let's say a player pirates the rules, then buys a whole ton of Star Wars figs from another manufacturer (no idea if this is possible but it preserves the example).

They play the crap out of legion, it's fun & awesome, and they spend more money on these non-FFG figs and more time on the game, etc.

Then, FFG pulls the game out from under them because it's unprofitable for FFG to support it.

Then, said player whines and complains and calls FFG dumb for pulling the plug.

FWIW, minis games and videogames suffer from similar problems of rising development costs for products whose prices are more or less at the ceiling of what the market is willing to pay. Companies are largely looking for ways to fund quality improvements to gain a competitive advantage without really being able to directly charge for it. Some companies have found good ways to raise these funds... others have found good ways to exploit their customers...

 LunarSol wrote:
FWIW, minis games and videogames suffer from similar problems of rising development costs for products whose prices are more or less at the ceiling of what the market is willing to pay. Companies are largely looking for ways to fund quality improvements to gain a competitive advantage without really being able to directly charge for it. Some companies have found good ways to raise these funds... others have found good ways to exploit their customers...

Whilst its a fair point many companies (admittedly more in video-games) splurge vast moneys on stuff nobody asked for like Hair physics or Fallout licensing and then site rising costs and apathetic consumers when said project falls flat,

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
FWIW, minis games and videogames suffer from similar problems of rising development costs for products whose prices are more or less at the ceiling of what the market is willing to pay. Companies are largely looking for ways to fund quality improvements to gain a competitive advantage without really being able to directly charge for it. Some companies have found good ways to raise these funds... others have found good ways to exploit their customers...

Whilst its a fair point many companies (admittedly more in video-games) splurge vast moneys on stuff nobody asked for like Hair physics or Fallout licensing and then site rising costs and apathetic consumers when said project falls flat,

I think hair physics is pretty freakin' cool to be frank.

I just don't think you could make or break a game on it alone.

EDIT: Language filter didn't catch it.

oh aye nice things are nice but spending oodles of moneys to develop something the recoups 1/10 its cost and then blaming customers is churlish at best

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
My beef with DLC on Day One is when it's actually encoded on the disc, just locked away.

Getting new expansions and stuff? Irritating, just less so than the above.

That's not something we suffer from when it comes to TTG.

Going to have to disagree about table topping not suffering from that kind of thing Doc

The Gang War book for Necromunda is a play right out of the EA/Ubisoft book

It's not though.

Necromunda Underhive is a complete gaming experience. 6 missions, set gangs. Everything you need to play through it's campaign. You need never buy anything for this ever again. The contents are less aimed at existing Necromunda players, and more at having a new, self contained game out in the market.

Gang War offers a new ways to play it, if you want it.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
oh aye nice things are nice but spending oodles of moneys to develop something the recoups 1/10 its cost and then blaming customers is churlish at best

What fuels innovation though? I'd like to see hair and cloak (especially cloak) physics in-game someday. But there's no incentive to develop it, really, as I don't believe that will ever make or break a game.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
My beef with DLC on Day One is when it's actually encoded on the disc, just locked away.

Getting new expansions and stuff? Irritating, just less so than the above.

That's not something we suffer from when it comes to TTG.

Going to have to disagree about table topping not suffering from that kind of thing Doc

The Gang War book for Necromunda is a play right out of the EA/Ubisoft book

Not quite; it's not like the Gang War book is hidden in the Necromunda Underhive box and the staff instore will show you where it is for £30.

LOL, well it was only a matter of time before the model-snobs showed up I suppose. Using counters? Printing out pictures of models to stick on to card? The horror!

What a load of nonsense. Christ I can remember buying GW boxed games with card cutout "models" in them. Folk need to get over themselves - spending more money than someone else doesn't make you a better person.

And LunarSol - I disagree. The rise in costs to produce games are being driven by two things - developer ego/vanity, and publisher excess in marketing. Developers spend stupid sums of money inventing their own silly proprietary versions of stuff like hair physics, or will develop whole engines from scratch even when one of the off-the-shelf engines already has all the features they need for the type of game they're making - not because they have to, but because they think they can do it better and they know they can pass the cost of their ridiculously expensive vanity projects on to the consumer. Publishers have fully bought-in to the movie industry marketing model where the budget to sell the game to people is often as big or even bigger than the actual development budget - pointless flashy "industry events", hiring flash mobs or legions of cosplayers, running huge ARGs, primetime TV ads, the lot, while also paying armies of lawyers and PR gits to help them control and shape the narrative surrounding the game in the media.

I mean, I dunno about you, but I didn't have a desperate need for my game avatar's beard to grow at a realistic rate relative to the ingame clock, or feel a burning desire to see every individual bead of sweat rolling down my avatar's face modelled individually and behaving accurate to IRL chaos physics. Nor did I buy Halo games I didn't want to play because Microsoft spent a fortune having berks in Spartan armour wander around a few cities to generate headlines.

And further, I'd argue the exact opposite is true for tabletop products - development costs have never been *lower* for companies. The big players all have regular salaried staff who's efficiency and output have been radically boosted by CAD software and in-house production capacity, and small companies & startups have crowdfunding, affordable rapid-prototyping, and commercially-viable third-party plastic production. Not to mention the possibility of outsourcing manufacture of cards, tokens, rulebooks etc to Chinese companies. It's never been easier or more affordable to start designing and manufacturing miniatures, that's exactly why there's been such a glut of new skirmish games and miniature-heavy boardgames over the past few years.

There's a difference between realistic beard growth and IRL stochastic sweat droplet modeling...

... and not having a character's hair clip cleanly through shield or armour that they're wearing because the developers can't be assed.

Like, all I'm asking for is there to be more effort put into modeling realistic hair than this:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
My beef with DLC on Day One is when it's actually encoded on the disc, just locked away.

Getting new expansions and stuff? Irritating, just less so than the above.

That's not something we suffer from when it comes to TTG.

Going to have to disagree about table topping not suffering from that kind of thing Doc

The Gang War book for Necromunda is a play right out of the EA/Ubisoft book

Not quite; it's not like the Gang War book is hidden in the Necromunda Underhive box and the staff instore will show you where it is for £30.

Don't giving them idea's (well least not for free)

Perhaps it's me not getting what DLC is.

Although I do dabble, and have a PS4, I don't really 'game'.

What I'm meaning is less Nuka-World (one I do know of!), and more character skins and items etc, which are clearly already encoded on the disc.

That's not what Gang War is.

100BostonFan wrote:
I havn't been on this forum long, and except to get flamed and trashed for this post, but I have noticed a trend that kinda disturbs me.

As gamers we all want exceptional rules and models to play our games...but it appears anytime a game comes out with decent rules or a setting that people would enjoy, the community instantly tries a way to not spend any money supporting the new rule set.

Example 1 - Flames of War. It appears the community likes this game and wants the rules to be tweaked/added/edited to make it better. Which is fine, but everyone refuses to buy the Flames of War models and instead get cheaper alternatives....while expecting FoW to keep making rules for them.

Example 2 - Star Wars Legion. As soon as it came out it had the support of the community.....but they are already figuring out how not to buy the models.

Example 3 - Shadespire. People seemed pleased with this, but on day one I saw people saying they would just print the cards and play with old models.

It just seems as a community we want quality games, but a lot of us do not want to spend any money for these games.

None of these are the "community". Dakka is not the "community" either. You hear that sort of stuff in Internet echo chambers that are filled only with the oldest, saltiest, and most jaded of players. There is *not* a lot of those people, it just looks that way because those people hang out in the echo chambers all day typing furiously. Everyone else is busy gaming or doing other stuff.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Perhaps it's me not getting what DLC is.

Although I do dabble, and have a PS4, I don't really 'game'.

What I'm meaning is less Nuka-World (one I do know of!), and more character skins and items etc, which are clearly already encoded on the disc.

That's not what Gang War is.

No but its a Day 1 release for rules that could have reasonably put in the box at a minimal cost increase of £5-£10 as there's little difference between £75-£85 especially with a bit of hype to suggest its 'free' content, maybe it's more of a perception thing

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Perhaps it's me not getting what DLC is.

Although I do dabble, and have a PS4, I don't really 'game'.

What I'm meaning is less Nuka-World (one I do know of!), and more character skins and items etc, which are clearly already encoded on the disc.

That's not what Gang War is.

No but its a Day 1 release for rules that could have reasonably put in the box at a minimal cost increase of £5-£10 as there's little difference between £75-£85 especially with a bit of hype to suggest its 'free' content, maybe it's more of a perception thing

Pretty much this- Gang War is rules that were cut out of the rulebook for 'Necromunda' for an additional sale.

It will also be interesting to see when the gangs come out if they'll resell the models from the boxed set plus 'new' sculpts and juves all packaged together.


As for Shadespire, the price for the boxed game is low, but it honestly doesn't have much inside. The warbands are even worse- 4 or 7 models for $30 is really overpriced, even by GW standards. And while the skeletons are obviously new, most of the rest just look like generic khornate, sigmarine and ork sculpts that have already been produced for AoS. There isn't a lot to get excited about there, particularly with FFG style dice and card shenanigans to try to force sales.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I completely agree, but I think the issue is that the players turn around and complain if the company/game goes under..

You're making the classic mistake of assuming that the people doing 'thing A' are the same people doing 'thing B'...







Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mugaaz wrote:
You hear that sort of stuff in Internet echo chambers that are filled only with the oldest, saltiest, and most jaded of players.

It's not just the 'older' players who try to find ways to save money on their hobbies. I built dreadnoughts and a rhino out of cardboard back when I was getting starting, because the actual models were simply out of my reach. 20 years later, I'm much more inclined to just buy the model if I like it.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Whilst its a fair point many companies (admittedly more in video-games) splurge vast moneys on stuff nobody asked for like Hair physics or Fallout licensing and then site rising costs and apathetic consumers when said project falls flat,

Funny bit. A big reason Japan's gaming industry struggled to jump to the HD era was due to difficulties translating anime hair. Bald space marines really helped western companies pull ahead.

That said, as someone who really loves videogames for outlandish character designs, I'm glad the industry has continued to push working hair models and not settled on bland, but efficient character designs that gave us years in which the industry really didn't generate any memorable characters.

I think a lot depends on the medium. Historical gamers, for example, typically use models from a variety of miniatures, sometimes even cheap plastic "toy" figures that are meant for like dioramas and things (e.g. Airfix), across a variety of rules or even completely making up their own rules. It is/was a large appeal of those things. You can get 15mm napoleonic or roman figures from so many makers, you can pick and choose which ones you prefer. When you get into 1/72 scale models, it becomes even cheaper since you can buy plastic kits with like 50 dudes (enough for several bases, as historical games tend to use bases rather than individual models) for like $15; an entire huge army would cost about $50.

The notion that you need to buy models AND rules from one company is something that basically started with GW and others have tried to emulate since, but originally was laughable. So a lot of people want to go back to that; WW2 games for example there's no real reason to buy Warlord or FoW figures, if you can buy similar and cheaper models at a similar scale from a hobby shop or something (e.g. you could buy a Warlord sherman tank, or get a probable cheaper model kit from Tamiya or someone like that which will look more realistic).

It's a big part of the original wargaming subculture.

 insaniak wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Sure, they're buying something, but they aren't really ensuring the health and longevity of the business.

It's not the consumer's responsibility to ensure the health and longevity of a business.

If you're running a business and your product isn't selling, it's up to you to fix that.

Not even remotely what I was arguing. Nice straw-man, though.

You think wargamers are cheap, try interacting with RPG players. We have a group who pirate their pdfs, bringvthier own snacks to avoid buying from the store, and bawk at paying a few bucks a person to play.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Whilst its a fair point many companies (admittedly more in video-games) splurge vast moneys on stuff nobody asked for like Hair physics or Fallout licensing and then site rising costs and apathetic consumers when said project falls flat,

Funny bit. A big reason Japan's gaming industry struggled to jump to the HD era was due to difficulties translating anime hair. Bald space marines really helped western companies pull ahead.

That said, as someone who really loves videogames for outlandish character designs, I'm glad the industry has continued to push working hair models and not settled on bland, but efficient character designs that gave us years in which the industry really didn't generate any memorable characters.

I'd rather they went back to characters memorable for their personalities/actions, and not for stupid hair and big swords.

insaniak wrote:It's not just the 'older' players who try to find ways to save money on their hobbies. I built dreadnoughts and a rhino out of cardboard back when I was getting starting, because the actual models were simply out of my reach. 20 years later, I'm much more inclined to just buy the model if I like it.

This is my take as well. It's generally the whippersnappers trying to find ways around paying money. Older players will generally pay money... or do without if the book or product doesn't have much redeeming quality. Well, sometimes. The amount of money companies make off of cheap nostalgia garbage is fairly horrifying, especially from people who should know better. <cough>robotech<cough>

I've seen gamers drop $500 on new armies on a relative whim, so in a lot of cases it's not a lack of cash (I was the same at one point but it's now a lack of cash). It's more about value; why should I spend $10 on a plastic tank when I can get one that's as good for $5?

Why pay $40 for that box of cards and skellies when I have 100 skellies in a box already?

 whatwhat wrote:
That works both ways though. If the consumer would like that business to remain healthy then they should patronise it. For example, the much loved independent hight street bike shop which went bust because all their customers did was look and buy online, that's quite typical these days.

Another example of that is how retail electronics chains are complaining that sales are down, and speculation has similarly been put forward that people are using their showrooms to see products (example: TVs) in person and then buying off Amazon or other online retailers.

I do agree with supporting companies that make things I like. Whether that's occasionally buying a song I like off iTunes rather than just using Youtube/Spotify to listen to it, or getting a DVD/box set of a movie or show I like, or buying Cards Against Humanity packs rather than cheaper knockoffs or using the dozens of blank cards I've accrued to make my own version of their work for free (instead I use those for personalized cards, which aren't quite as funny as I'd hoped, it's a work in progress).

That said, there's nothing wrong with being a savvy consumer, as we all have limited resources to work with (even if some of those limits are much greater than others). So I wait for Steam sales for most of my game purchases, make larger purchases in general during expected discount periods (I've put off buying a PS4 for a month or two to get in on Black Friday sales, for example). Companies aren't owed our money or patronage in general, so they have to get creative. Want to inspire people to use your models? Come up with ways to incentivize that. Some like tournaments requiring no proxies and limited conversions is a common choice I've seen, but that won't stop casual players (and might disincentivize them from trying the competitive/larger community aspects of the game), so have points systems where UPC codes can be traded for limited edition models, or include something in the box that's a little extra, or any number of creative perks/bonuses that companies have come up with.

It's not about consumers being demanding and cheap and entitled and jaded or whatever, at least not necessarily (some certainly are all of the above), but especially with a market that has existing products that can fulfill the same role, as well or better, at a cheaper cost, and possibly a higher availability, there needs to be more reasons to spend money on X instead of Y.

I don't think it's that we don't want to spend ANY money, but I for one want to get value for my spend. There are also opposing arguments going on in my own head.

I'm sure Shadespire is a great game. I might pick it up; I might not. It's being touted as a competitive fast game, and the price isn't stupid. On the other hand, I'm not exactly short of figures, so I only need the cards & rules. £40 for a ruleset (compared to a codex at £25-£30) suddenly doesn't look quite so attractive. Looking at it the other way, as I've done with Calth, going for the models and looking at the rules as a bonus/freebie, 8 figures pretty much duplicating what I already have for £40 is a no brainer - no thanks!

So - yes - maybe I am being "cheap" - but - it's not a purchase I "need", so, if I could pick it up cheaper - why not?

 daedalus wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
People seem to be developing a really weird relationship with corporations these days.

It's not that weird. You see that kind of behavior in most abusive relationships.

Nod. Remember the Nintendo vs Sega Wars? You may have seen the more modern version of Microsoft vs Sony. Here in Australia we have Ford vs Holden (cars) and anyone, anywhere can take a related example with <local or not-so-local professional sports team>.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Yes, the rule book purchase is a shot in the arm for the company and helps get their rule set exposed to other eyes, but generally speaking, the profit margins on rule books aren't as great as other items (like miniatures). Many companies have a business model of selling rules as a loss leader, or even giving them away for free, as a way to encourage miniature sales. Granted, this is only relevant to companies who offer both rules and miniatures, as many companies offer rule sets without an associated miniature line so those sorts of companies aren't part of this business model. But when a company does offer miniatures they are hoping you will buy them. The success of their company is built into that.
...
What I am saying is if a player likes a company/rule set/setting and likes the models for that game, but opts to use "good enough" stand-in models which cost less, then buying the cheaper option while still buying just the rule book isn't doing the company/rule set/setting any favors. While a rule book and a box of miniatures are "unconnected purchases" in terms of product type, they are very much connected in terms of the company's business model.

I bought GW's much-more expensive models for many of my Kings of War armies because a lot of Mantic's models are gak.

More generally and returning to the OP, if I am understanding the OP's post, then this frugal behavior on the customer's part is problematic because if the customer likes the rule system/setting of a game, but doesn't support the company through repeated purchases, the company will fold. Which I generally agree with.
...
Since people didn't like the games OP referenced I'll add another.

Games companies aren't charities, and so I quite happily buy what I want from who I want for the whichever games I want to use them in without feeling a shred of obligation to any games company, or guilt or remorse for not buying "official" models of any kind. Which would be odd emotions to feel when buying models to paint and play toy soldiers with.

I don't see it as problematic. It's capitalism. If a product is good enough appealing to a wide enough audience at an appealing price, it'll sell.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 stanman wrote:

I think gamers tend to complain too much about costs in some regard because they moan about the cost of a game (say $100) which will provide options for repeat enjoyment but will spend the same amount of money or more going out for drinks or food without so much as a grumble and that's a one time experience. I think most people just want to complain about something.

Who are you to quantify how others should value a night out with friends or loved ones when compared to some toy soldiers or a game? Different people value different things differently, and your rather silly generalisations are not useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I completely agree, but I think the issue is that the players turn around and complain if the company/game goes under.
For example, let's use Legion. Let's say a player pirates the rules, then buys a whole ton of Star Wars figs from another manufacturer (no idea if this is possible but it preserves the example).
They play the crap out of legion, it's fun & awesome, and they spend more money on these non-FFG figs and more time on the game, etc.
Then, FFG pulls the game out from under them because it's unprofitable for FFG to support it.
Then, said player whines and complains and calls FFG dumb for pulling the plug.

The Legion player in your example, in one aspect is the same as me. Because I'm not buying any Legion stuff from FFG either - so FFG makes no money from either of us.

On the other hand, that example Legion player no doubt plays with others, and some of them must have the official figures and rules and counters and crap, so he's part of a community - so he's supporting the game simply by playing it, so FFG tangentially makes a bit of money off his activity due to his contribution to the Legion community.
As opposed to someone like me, not buying or playing Legion, and instead playing 40k or videogames instead of Legion - and adding nothing at all to the Legion community.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
FWIW, minis games and videogames suffer from similar problems of rising development costs for products whose prices are more or less at the ceiling of what the market is willing to pay. Companies are largely looking for ways to fund quality improvements to gain a competitive advantage without really being able to directly charge for it. Some companies have found good ways to raise these funds... others have found good ways to exploit their customers...

Whilst its a fair point many companies (admittedly more in video-games) splurge vast moneys on stuff nobody asked for like Hair physics or Fallout licensing and then site rising costs and apathetic consumers when said project falls flat,

Someone listens to the Jimquisition, I see. But to be fair, I started playing MA: Andromeda today, and there are noticeable places where I wonder how they fethed up the hair so badly when it's vibrating and clipping through itself and Cora's head while she stands there, not moving around and just talking at me. That game could have used some better quality hair physics. Folded arms of NPCs in conversation clipping through themselves? In a AAA title in 2017 that was in development for 5 or so years? How the feth?

I think I must have "graphics blindness" or something because I never noticed anything like that in ME:A, and I didn't even think it looked bad when the games press was printing acres of hysterical articles about the lead character having a slight smirk and the eye shaders not being shiny enough or whatever.

Regardless, my reason for initially bringing up this strand of discussion was to emphasise that one big reason costs are rising for game development is needless duplication of effort driven by vanity & ego rather than necessity or consumer demand; not "hair physics are silly" but "developing your own hair physics engine-addon at a cost of hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars when multiple perfectly-functional and often better in the end alternatives could be licensed for a fraction of the cost unnecessarily inflates the cost of development". And the same applies for a lot of stuff that games devs make from scratch when there was no need to.

Of course I listen to Jim, us sturdy grumpy blowhards got to stick together

Yodhrin covers the rising cost point more succinctly than my original jab at floppy vs Lego hair et al

 Azazelx wrote:
In a AAA title in 2017 that was in development for 5 or so years? How the feth?

Not to get too far astray, but from everything I've read, they threw out a lot of the early work, and what we received in the form of ME:A represented maybe 1.5 years of effort, start to finish.

Obviously that doesn't excuse the flaws present in the product. Though I do think The Internet lost its mind while looking for things to hate about the game at launch, a month later when I finally had the time to dig in, most of the issues people were declaring affronts to gaming and possibly crimes against humanity were mostly taken care of.

That said, I actually just accept that people's arms/armor are probably going to clip a little. Yes, even in AAA titles. If getting attire/hair/etc physics and clipping perfect is going to add to an already inflated budget and likely months or more to release dates (or cause other aspects to be reduced or chopped to make up the difference), I'll take 95% over some substantially lower number.

But I do respect that it's entirely subjective, and that for some a loss of immersion in what should be a very immersive hobby is a dealbreaker. Much as I love what Bioware does, I would never proclaim them perfect or without room for improvement.

In the end, the issue is the word 'appear'. The gamer who buys rules... and then uses different minis because they're cheaper, or better, or because he already owns appropriate minis only 'appears' to be cheap. The reality is, the minis sold by the game designer do not fit the need of the consumer. Either he has plenty to use already, or he thinks the other minis he buys are superior value for the money.

This is not being cheap. This is being an educated consumer.

I'm not cheap, but I'm sure as hell frugal. I like buying most of my models either secondhand or as bitz on Ebay nowadays. Like for instance, I am probably going to get some of the Stormcast from the Blightwar starter instead of the standard kits. But why spend 60 US on a trio of Vanguard Palladors (the ones on griffons) when you can get a sprue of the same three on Ebay for 25 bucks shipped? I also made great use of the Toledo Games Store at Gencon to buy loads of single figures for 1/3 the price of what they would be in a boxed set, like Savage Orruks for 2 dollars each.

Or when I was on the hedge about whether I wanted to get into Star Wars Armada, but only finally did so when I saw a 50% off sale online and was able to get 200 dollars of stuff for 110?

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I'm not cheap, but I'm sure as hell frugal. I like buying most of my models either secondhand or as bitz on Ebay nowadays. Like for instance, I am probably going to get some of the Stormcast from the Blightwar starter instead of the standard kits. But why spend 60 US on a trio of Vanguard Palladors (the ones on griffons) when you can get a sprue of the same three on Ebay for 25 bucks shipped? I also made great use of the Toledo Games Store at Gencon to buy loads of single figures for 1/3 the price of what they would be in a boxed set, like Savage Orruks for 2 dollars each.

Or when I was on the hedge about whether I wanted to get into Star Wars Armada, but only finally did so when I saw a 50% off sale online and was able to get 200 dollars of stuff for 110?

A couple of notes...

I was also on the hedge about Star Wars Armada. Fortunately, Barnes & Noble sells a lot of these sort of FFG core games/expansions in the store near me. I waited for a 40% off coupon, stacked with my 10% off membership and no sales tax in my home state to get the $99.95 core box for $53.97 (the discounts are applied sequentially, so the 10% off is really only and extra 6% off the full price). I get a 40% off coupon about once every 3 months and a 15%-25% off coupon the other months. Whenever I see the 40% off coupon, I use it. I can't remember the last time I bought something at full price there.

I pretty frequently go to two different FLGS's. For something like Warhammer AoS/40k, Store A offers a flat 20% off, but has a 6% sales tax. A $100 item would end up costing me $84.80, which is an effective 15% discount. Store B offers no discount and is in my home state, so no tax... but does give you a $75 store gift certificate for every $500 spent on Game Workshop product. This means that I'm spending $500 to get $575 worth of product, which is an effective 13% discount. The discount is a little less, but can be applied to anything in the store. It also requires that I spend $500 to 'unlock' the discount. I play more often in Store A and it has the better discount, so I tend to buy more there. Store B is closer and is good for when I need a pot of paint or want a unit NOW for a game tomorrow.

Getting a deal increases your purchase value. I'm not cheap, but I'd also prefer to pay less for literally anything I buy. When I go food shopping, if ground turkey is on sale and beef isn't... well, it looks like Turkey Taco Tuesday this week. The only time I pay full price for gaming stuff is via Amazon, using change from my change jar. I throw all my change into a jar when I get home. When the jar is full, I take it to one of those coin counting machines. If you want cash from the machine, it takes a 9% cut, which seems insane. If you're willing to take an Amazon gift card, there is no cut. You get full value. I do that. The change jar is essentially "written off money", so while I understand that I'm just buying a gift card, it feels like I'm getting a gift card for free by cleaning out my change jar. I usually get between $50-150 when I cash in the jar. I'm always shocked by how much I have in change laying around. I use those cards for random things I normally wouldn't buy with any excess going into 3D printer filament. The last time I did this, I picked up a board game (Rivet Wars: Eastern Front), 2x Lord of the Rings LCG adventure packs, some 3D printer filament and a pair of Bluetooth headphones. It felt like a free box of goodies in that I didn't have to take cash out of an ATM and my bank account balance didn't change.

TLDR; I'm not cheap, but I do like to maximize the value in my purchases. I do this either by getting discounts or by using money that I perceive as 'already spent'.

 Kriswall wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I'm not cheap, but I'm sure as hell frugal. I like buying most of my models either secondhand or as bitz on Ebay nowadays. Like for instance, I am probably going to get some of the Stormcast from the Blightwar starter instead of the standard kits. But why spend 60 US on a trio of Vanguard Palladors (the ones on griffons) when you can get a sprue of the same three on Ebay for 25 bucks shipped? I also made great use of the Toledo Games Store at Gencon to buy loads of single figures for 1/3 the price of what they would be in a boxed set, like Savage Orruks for 2 dollars each.

Or when I was on the hedge about whether I wanted to get into Star Wars Armada, but only finally did so when I saw a 50% off sale online and was able to get 200 dollars of stuff for 110?

A couple of notes...

I was also on the hedge about Star Wars Armada. Fortunately, Barnes & Noble sells a lot of these sort of FFG core games/expansions in the store near me. I waited for a 40% off coupon, stacked with my 10% off membership and no sales tax in my home state to get the $99.95 core box for $53.97 (the discounts are applied sequentially, so the 10% off is really only and extra 6% off the full price). I get a 40% off coupon about once every 3 months and a 15%-25% off coupon the other months. Whenever I see the 40% off coupon, I use it. I can't remember the last time I bought something at full price there.

I pretty frequently go to two different FLGS's. For something like Warhammer AoS/40k, Store A offers a flat 20% off, but has a 6% sales tax. A $100 item would end up costing me $84.80, which is an effective 15% discount. Store B offers no discount and is in my home state, so no tax... but does give you a $75 store gift certificate for every $500 spent on Game Workshop product. This means that I'm spending $500 to get $575 worth of product, which is an effective 13% discount. The discount is a little less, but can be applied to anything in the store. It also requires that I spend $500 to 'unlock' the discount. I play more often in Store A and it has the better discount, so I tend to buy more there. Store B is closer and is good for when I need a pot of paint or want a unit NOW for a game tomorrow.

Getting a deal increases your purchase value. I'm not cheap, but I'd also prefer to pay less for literally anything I buy. When I go food shopping, if ground turkey is on sale and beef isn't... well, it looks like Turkey Taco Tuesday this week. The only time I pay full price for gaming stuff is via Amazon, using change from my change jar. I throw all my change into a jar when I get home. When the jar is full, I take it to one of those coin counting machines. If you want cash from the machine, it takes a 9% cut, which seems insane. If you're willing to take an Amazon gift card, there is no cut. You get full value. I do that. The change jar is essentially "written off money", so while I understand that I'm just buying a gift card, it feels like I'm getting a gift card for free by cleaning out my change jar. I usually get between $50-150 when I cash in the jar. I'm always shocked by how much I have in change laying around. I use those cards for random things I normally wouldn't buy with any excess going into 3D printer filament. The last time I did this, I picked up a board game (Rivet Wars: Eastern Front), 2x Lord of the Rings LCG adventure packs, some 3D printer filament and a pair of Bluetooth headphones. It felt like a free box of goodies in that I didn't have to take cash out of an ATM and my bank account balance didn't change.

TLDR; I'm not cheap, but I do like to maximize the value in my purchases. I do this either by getting discounts or by using money that I perceive as 'already spent'.

I am finally replying. The above is not what I am talking about...and is actually still supporting all the games you plan to play (and I encourage this). I am more talking about those that are surprised when a game they like goes under because the company is not getting any support....and they are talking about using existing models, printing their own cards, downloading the rules, printing their own boards etc. Shadespire is the perfect example...people actually proposing printing your their boards and cards...as well as using their existing models, that are not part of the game...but want to enjoy the game. These are the games I refer too...and maybe it is just their forum that brings them out, and hopefully the majority of us shop smart...but still shop to promote and support the games we want to play now, in the future, and share with others.

You're replying, but didn't actually respond to the criticisms of your OP. Again - why is it the customer's responsibility to give a company money if they don't see the value proposition? And how can you claim someone playing the game - thus providing opponents and word-of-mouth/social media advertising for it - isn't promoting and supporting said game when they self-evidently are even if they don't give the producer a single penny of their own money or buy only a rulebook?

No..as they are giving nothing for a game they want to enjoy...they are providing others the way and means to bypass paying as well....Its ok not to support a game or even play with proxy to see if you will like it...I feel its cheap to want a game to be good, strive, and grow when you are unwilling to support it with your money.

Those that like Shadespire..want to see future expansions, but print out the boards and cards...and then use their existing models are cheap players.

Now the insults can come my way...I can take it.

PS - not going to respond much more as it may be considered breaking the rules somehow...and I don't want to get banned.

100BostonFan wrote:
I am more talking about those that are surprised when a game they like goes under because the company is not getting any support....and they are talking about using existing models, printing their own cards, downloading the rules, printing their own boards etc.

The thing is, your thread title paints the entire community with a very broad brush, when the above here applies to a very, very small group of people. If they exist at all.

I doubt that many people at all would be honestly surprised when a game that people aren't supporting gets discontinued.

 Elbows wrote:

The overwhelming thing to remember is that games like 40K and Star Wars based franchises have a huge market in 14-22 year olds. Poor high school kids or cheap college kids, etc. While wargaming is not, compared to other things, an expensive hobby...it can be when you're on a shoe string budget but want (colloquially) "All the things".
.

/Thread

100BostonFan wrote:
I feel its cheap to want a game to be good, strive, and grow when you are unwilling to support it with your money..

You still have this backwards.


I want the Justice League movie to be good. If it's not good enough for me to be interested in paying money to see it, I won't bother paying money to see it... I'll just wait for it to make it to free-to-air TV, or borrow the DVD from a friend.

Games are no different. If a company offers a product that players like enough to support, then they will support it. It's not up to the players to throw money at the game producer to encourage them to produce a better product.


If you like a game and want to support it, that's great. If someone else enjoys playing a game, but doesn't want to or can't afford to buy stuff to play it, well, that's also great - because more people playing a game is also a good thing for the gaming community. If the game is hugely popular but nobody is actually spending any money on it... well then that's a clear sign that the company making the game is doing something wrong. Nothing to do with people being 'cheap'.

I'm very much of the opinion that as a hobbyist I can buy or not buy whatever I damn well want to. I will purchase minis and rules on a regular basis with part of the limited (£50 to £70) budget I allow myself every month for entertainment purposes. With such a small budget I have to be careful to get good value for money, I look at that in multiple ways but it does boil down to how much fun will I get from this purchase. As such I look for miniatures and rulesets with multiple uses. In other words minis that are easily used with more than one ruleset and rules that can be used with multiple settings or time periods. If looking to get multiple uses out of my purchases makes me "cheap" then I embrace that but I think that I'm just sensible and looking for the best value for money that I can.

Of course the fact that these days I massively prefer metal miniatures does mean that I have to be even more careful with my money because they can be very expensive in a 1 to 1 comparison with plastics but that's a subject for a different thread.

I think it all boils down to "reward good behavior".

Make good product: I buy it.

There are some out there that will print on cardstock all the "models" and print out some scanned pdf for rules and not spend a bit of money on the game they play, but I find them as few and far between.
I find they tend to play the net lists since the personal effort and investment is that much less to build your army (and maybe a an old grognard used to playing with gaming chits).

I have a friend that bought all his miniatures used and made an entire armored company of space marines.
That was very cheap, but a TON of work.

Cheap? Maybe to do with specific games but if you add up EVERYTHING these miniature gamers on these forum boards play: there would be nothing cheap about their spending at all.
How many people have every model of a given faction in a given game?
More than I think people would believe.

 insaniak wrote:

100BostonFan wrote:
I feel its cheap to want a game to be good, strive, and grow when you are unwilling to support it with your money..

You still have this backwards.


I want the Justice League movie to be good. If it's not good enough for me to be interested in paying money to see it, I won't bother paying money to see it... I'll just wait for it to make it to free-to-air TV, or borrow the DVD from a friend.

Games are no different. If a company offers a product that players like enough to support, then they will support it. It's not up to the players to throw money at the game producer to encourage them to produce a better product.


If you like a game and want to support it, that's great. If someone else enjoys playing a game, but doesn't want to or can't afford to buy stuff to play it, well, that's also great - because more people playing a game is also a good thing for the gaming community. If the game is hugely popular but nobody is actually spending any money on it... well then that's a clear sign that the company making the game is doing something wrong. Nothing to do with people being 'cheap'.

You dont watch a movies from a gak producer or company in the hopes that the money you give will some how make them better and better.

Wargamers, on the whole, aren't particularly cheap. However, unlike a lot of hobbies of similar depth, it's possible to be involved for cheap. For example, if your hobby is golf, you have to have your own clubs, and balls, and greens fees. You can shave some money off here and there, but there's simply a floor. Wargaming allows, at least in theory, an amazing amount of creative ability to game for cheap to free. It's possible, so you get some people doing it.

In other words, it's not that wargamers are inherently cheap, but those that are cheap are both very cheap, and surprisingly vocal about it.

beowulfhunter wrote:
You think wargamers are cheap, try interacting with RPG players. We have a group who pirate their pdfs, bringvthier own snacks to avoid buying from the store, and bawk at paying a few bucks a person to play.

There's something vaguely embarrassing about seeing gaming groups at the FLGS. I've seldom seen a group playing at the store hat were anything other than grotesque caricatures of every gaming stereotype.

 Polonius wrote:

There's something vaguely embarrassing about seeing gaming groups at the FLGS. I've seldom seen a group playing at the store hat were anything other than grotesque caricatures of every gaming stereotype.

Yeah. Not sure what that is that's going on there, but it's something I've noticed too.

 daedalus wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

There's something vaguely embarrassing about seeing gaming groups at the FLGS. I've seldom seen a group playing at the store hat were anything other than grotesque caricatures of every gaming stereotype.

Yeah. Not sure what that is that's going on there, but it's something I've noticed too.

I mean, nobody looks cool while roleplaying. I get that. But when I see an adult pathfinder group at a store, I know exactly what I'll see: giant fat guy, smelly guy, creepy guy, super annoying voice guy/girl, and nonstop sexual innuendo guy/girl. It's like something out of central casting.

 Polonius wrote:

I mean, nobody looks cool while roleplaying. I get that. But when I see an adult pathfinder group at a store, I know exactly what I'll see: giant fat guy, smelly guy, creepy guy, super annoying voice guy/girl, and nonstop sexual innuendo guy/girl. It's like something out of central casting.

That's basically the perfect stereotype.

I think about my group (who sticks to basements and kitchen tables) and we tick off giant fat guy, and one guy who's like, half-way the nonstop sexual innuendo guy.

I don't think there's anyone who's "creepy guy", though giant fat guy likes his characters to be a bit too much into torture, which could probably fall into creepy sometimes.

I'm kinda monotone, so I'm probably super annoying voice guy if there is one, depending on the situation. No one's ever complained though.

I am pretty proud to that that we are 100% smelly guy free though!

I will will admit to copying and printing some of my own cards for Armada and Xwing. But then again I am typically buying as much product as two people, as I end up having to host my minis games to get any play out of them. And frankly, when you get right down to it, it is not any more damaging to FFG than buying secondhand GW models, which is commonly accepted.

100BostonFan wrote:
No..as they are giving nothing for a game they want to enjoy...they are providing others the way and means to bypass paying as well....Its ok not to support a game or even play with proxy to see if you will like it...I feel its cheap to want a game to be good, strive, and grow when you are unwilling to support it with your money.

Those that like Shadespire..want to see future expansions, but print out the boards and cards...and then use their existing models are cheap players.

Is it the fault of the gamer, or for GW for producing a game they don't want to buy? I mean, presumably most of these "print out the boards and cards" players are doing so because they want the game but don't value the bundled minis, and would buy it if it was available in a rules-only format. The starter pack contains Stormcast and Korne Bloodbound - something that anyone who bought AoS already has, and with the Stormcast at least, are deeply unpopular across the fanbase.

The game is £40 here, which is a lot of money if you don't want the bundled warbands. If they had the base game (no warbands minis/cards) for £20 I'm sure a lot of those "print and play" players would buy it.

Shadespire is an interesting example, putting aside my doubts tha GW rules drones are capable of developing a tightly balanced game a la MTG or Hearthstone

I was tempted but have no urge to buy mini's I don't need for cards I do, X-Wing has already shown that isn't consumer friendly

But offer me the rules and card packs every so often (and maybe some nice neoprene playmats as cardboard is yuck) and I'll most likely give it a whirl,

The thing about FFG, is that they started out as a board games company, and has remained primarily a board games company to this day. Most board game companies only do one production run of each game, and then sells the game until they run out of stock. FFG has more than one leg to stand on, unlike most miniatures companies, and will stop marketing and manufacturing a game as soon as it stops being profitable. Then there's also the matter of IP licenses, as we saw last year, when GW didn't renew their licence with FFG. In the past, FFG has abruptly discontinued other board games with miniatures, particularly Battle Lore, which was likely unprofitable due to production costs, yet despite that, Battle Lore was well received and has a large following.

Personally, I've spent so much money on FW that I'd rather not think about it, but I have a Krieg army which amounts to at least 3000 points, yet I still haven't bought the 8th edition rulebook. Not because I don't play, but because I'd rather purchase it as a softcover, and until that happens all I really need is the PDF they released for free and my 8th edtion FW index.

So, OP fess up. Why did you change the title?

Ruin wrote:
So, OP fess up. Why did you change the title?

Maybe he recognized that people on Dakka are not exclusively cheap?
Though with well over 5000 postings, I really should donate to this board.

Ruin wrote:
So, OP fess up. Why did you change the title?

Someone said I was judging gamers at large based on the posts I see here...they are 100% correct..so I changed the title. No huge conspiracy or secret.

Tangentially related.

100BostonFan wrote:
It just seems as a community we want quality games, but a lot of us do not want to spend any money for these games.

Have you looked at GW's prices lately? Take the holiday bundles that go for £100 in the UK. They're listed as $170 for the US. On what planet does £100 = $170? The current exchange rate should put the use price at $135 at most (rounded up). This pattern holds all across GW's line, except for older stuff that hasn't been adjusted upward yet. My God. We've become Australia. Okay, maybe not quite, but still...

Anyway, this is why it seems like we don't want to spend any money for these games. We're being asked to pay way too much for them.

 Breotan wrote:

100BostonFan wrote:
It just seems as a community we want quality games, but a lot of us do not want to spend any money for these games.

Have you looked at GW's prices lately?

He said quality games.

I think the issue is the quality of model you get from GW for the money.

Say for instance this:

1/35 Pz.Bef.Wg.V Panther Ausf.G (picked this since 1/35 scale is pretty close to the GW scale that is still too small).
http://www.dragon-models.com/d-m-item.asp?pid=DRA6847
~$70 (https://www.scalemates.com/kits/1009286-dragon-6847-pz-bef-wg-v-panther-ausf-g)

Predator
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Predator-2017
~$70

Would you call these comparable tank models for the price?
A Predator goes together pretty fast and dirty in comparison which is what we want for wargaming but requires a much more simple mold that the Dragon kit.

Why be so "cheap"?
Because this hobby runs on "bulk" rather than spend a month or so doing fine detailing on a tank, we crank them out in groups of 3 or so.

Good reference by the way:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Scale_Model_Kits_for_40K

 Breotan wrote:

100BostonFan wrote:
It just seems as a community we want quality games, but a lot of us do not want to spend any money for these games.

Have you looked at GW's prices lately? Take the holiday bundles that go for £100 in the UK. They're listed as $170 for the US. On what planet does £100 = $170? The current exchange rate should put the use price at $135 at most (rounded up). This pattern holds all across GW's line, except for older stuff that hasn't been adjusted upward yet. My God. We've become Australia. Okay, maybe not quite, but still...

Anyway, this is why it seems like we don't want to spend any money for these games. We're being asked to pay way too much for them.

I don't think GW actually understands how different currencies work. More specifically, I don't think they realize that the comparative values of currencies change over time.

They understand full well how it works, the prcining protects the value of their product, nor is it as unique as people make out it's just GW happens to be a major non USA company.

FFG stuff largely converts at close to $1 = £1 pricing here after tax at rrp. The UK price is inclusive of our VAT tax, whereas I believe in the US the sales tax varies state to state so the conversion is probably worse than most people work out.

Privateer press stuff is even worse, combining poor quality control and availability with a terrible comparative price.

Back on topic; different people in a hobby with different budgets is not unique to wargaming. What I dislike a lot is different groups trying to convince each other that their way is the true way and everyone else is wrong. Too many define the value of their chosen system by it not being something else, not by what it is itself.

I think what s a bit unique to non historical wargaming groups and is the sheer increasing toxic nature of some communities towards competing games or different points of view with their hobby.

I wouldn't say I'm cheap so much as thrifty, I picked up a Start Collecting Scions and a box of Greatswords at the same time for example, using the spare parts from the Scions to make 20 of them all in all, the spare heads of the Greatswords then were used on Heresy era Marines and Guard sergeants to maximise their usefulness. Using as much from a kit is an art in the "lots of arms and heads, not enough torsos and legs" that GW does, I have lots of Lootas and Burnas due to creative chopping up of Black Reach Ork boyz as the bodies. Most of my mates are the same, so I'd say most gamers are just thrifty.

I guess I'm also guilty of being a cheapskate because while there is no AoS or WHFB community in my area, I like to paint up multiple warbands for me and my buddy to use (especially for skirmish level games) and instead of buying the AoS rules materials to game with, I use the free rulesets from One Page games to play my home games of Age of Sigmar with their 'One Page Fantasy' and even some skirmish level 40k with 'Grimdark Future'.

because its not appearance for me, I am a cheap bastard.

 thekingofkings wrote:
because its not appearance for me, I am a SEXY bastard.

Fixed

Perceived value. After TONS of price hikes and gakky rules updates, it just becomes less "valuable" to the gamer. I still want one of each army for 6th WFB and 3rd 40K, but not badly enough to pay current retail for them.

 Breotan wrote:

100BostonFan wrote:
It just seems as a community we want quality games, but a lot of us do not want to spend any money for these games.

Have you looked at GW's prices lately? Take the holiday bundles that go for £100 in the UK. They're listed as $170 for the US. On what planet does £100 = $170? The current exchange rate should put the use price at $135 at most (rounded up). This pattern holds all across GW's line, except for older stuff that hasn't been adjusted upward yet. My God. We've become Australia. Okay, maybe not quite, but still...

Anyway, this is why it seems like we don't want to spend any money for these games. We're being asked to pay way too much for them.

You wanted independence and not pay the King's taxes. You have your cake, now eat it with the topping included, you rebellious colonials (I jest, this is just a joke)

 Just Tony wrote:
Perceived value. After TONS of price hikes and gakky rules updates, it just becomes less "valuable" to the gamer. I still want one of each army for 6th WFB and 3rd 40K, but not badly enough to pay current retail for them.

I don't know....you mean to say a Landraider is not worth the 100% price hike it's seen since its release?

Minis Gaming has gone to a very weird place lately. I have actually had people scoff at the idea of buying secondhand models on ebay, or from sellers like the giant bitz store at Gencon that sells single figures in ziplock bags, like previously owned minis are too 'tainted' by cooties to offset the usual massive savings.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Minis Gaming has gone to a very weird place lately. I have actually had people scoff at the idea of buying secondhand models on ebay, or from sellers like the giant bitz store at Gencon that sells single figures in ziplock bags, like previously owned minis are too 'tainted' by cooties to offset the usual massive savings.

Let's be honest, they very often are tainted. Poor assembly, worse paint, there are tons of models on ebay that I wouldn't take even if they were free. I don't care how much they cost, it's just not worth the effort required to salvage them. And given that chance of ending up with garbage I'd rather pay a bit more for something NIB and guarantee that I don't have to deal with it.

Meh, maybe I am just coming from a viewpoint that is used to previous years of buying metal models on ebay that require nothing more than Simple Green to make brand new, and I am super choosy when buying preassembled plastic minis. I have never had to repair what I have bought from Ebay, or the big used GW minis seller at Gencon, unless it's a mini I am already prepared to salvage going into the purchase. If I have good evidence that I am buying plastics that are assembled correctly, I see no reason to buy new ones.

Doesn't mean I don't buy plenty of new stuff, of course.

Different strokes for different folks. There's nothing wrong with wanting to start with new models, especially since plastic is tougher to strip and challenging to impossible to disassemble/reassemble.

I buy a ton of stuff second hand, and not just nicely painted or primed stuff. I buy garbage lots, with blurry photos, trying to get lucky. Sometimes I lose (like when the oop hellhound did not have a turret or upper hull plate) but sometimes I win (like when what looked like a OOP Griffon turned out to be one, and complete).

OTOH, I'm aware that spending hours cleaning and repairing a leman russ is, dollar for dollar, not the best use of my time. But I enjoy it. So, for those that don't, I totally get it!

 AegisGrimm wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Perceived value. After TONS of price hikes and gakky rules updates, it just becomes less "valuable" to the gamer. I still want one of each army for 6th WFB and 3rd 40K, but not badly enough to pay current retail for them.

I don't know....you mean to say a Landraider is not worth the 100% price hike it's seen since its release?

I dont think those 50 cent cans of cokes 10 years ago aren't worth the 75 to 1 dollar they charge out of standard vending machines and quicky marts these days. nothing really changed but they are charging more.

edit horrific quote fail.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Perceived value. After TONS of price hikes and gakky rules updates, it just becomes less "valuable" to the gamer. I still want one of each army for 6th WFB and 3rd 40K, but not badly enough to pay current retail for them.

I don't know....you mean to say a Landraider is not worth the 100% price hike it's seen since its release?

Minis Gaming has gone to a very weird place lately. I have actually had people scoff at the idea of buying secondhand models on ebay, or from sellers like the giant bitz store at Gencon that sells single figures in ziplock bags, like previously owned minis are too 'tainted' by cooties to offset the usual massive savings.

I'm saying that, AND that the rules have sloshed to the point that the perceived value as gaming pieces has been lessened.

 Breotan wrote:

100BostonFan wrote:
It just seems as a community we want quality games, but a lot of us do not want to spend any money for these games.

Have you looked at GW's prices lately? Take the holiday bundles that go for £100 in the UK. They're listed as $170 for the US. On what planet does £100 = $170? The current exchange rate should put the use price at $135 at most (rounded up). This pattern holds all across GW's line, except for older stuff that hasn't been adjusted upward yet. My God. We've become Australia. Okay, maybe not quite, but still...

Anyway, this is why it seems like we don't want to spend any money for these games. We're being asked to pay way too much for them.

The arguments about UK to US exchange rates not adding up is the same for countless US based companies products that are sold in the UK.

A $20 action figure will cost us £20 in the UK, a $300 games console will be £300 over here. It was exactly the same way back when the pound was much stronger than the dollar. It has always been the case. Is it right or fair? Hell no. But it is certainly not a one way process.

ListenToMeWarriors wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

100BostonFan wrote:
It just seems as a community we want quality games, but a lot of us do not want to spend any money for these games.

Have you looked at GW's prices lately? Take the holiday bundles that go for £100 in the UK. They're listed as $170 for the US. On what planet does £100 = $170? The current exchange rate should put the use price at $135 at most (rounded up). This pattern holds all across GW's line, except for older stuff that hasn't been adjusted upward yet. My God. We've become Australia. Okay, maybe not quite, but still...

Anyway, this is why it seems like we don't want to spend any money for these games. We're being asked to pay way too much for them.

The arguments about UK to US exchange rates not adding up is the same for countless US based companies products that are sold in the UK.

A $20 action figure will cost us £20 in the UK, a $300 games console will be £300 over here. It was exactly the same way back when the pound was much stronger than the dollar. It has always been the case. Is it right or fair? Hell no. But it is certainly not a one way process.

Mostly because manufacturers hedge their bets when selling abroad. Since you need to keep your list prices stable, you want to be safe in case there's a sudden appreciation.

ListenToMeWarriors wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

100BostonFan wrote:
It just seems as a community we want quality games, but a lot of us do not want to spend any money for these games.

Have you looked at GW's prices lately? Take the holiday bundles that go for £100 in the UK. They're listed as $170 for the US. On what planet does £100 = $170? The current exchange rate should put the use price at $135 at most (rounded up). This pattern holds all across GW's line, except for older stuff that hasn't been adjusted upward yet. My God. We've become Australia. Okay, maybe not quite, but still...

Anyway, this is why it seems like we don't want to spend any money for these games. We're being asked to pay way too much for them.

The arguments about UK to US exchange rates not adding up is the same for countless US based companies products that are sold in the UK.

A $20 action figure will cost us £20 in the UK, a $300 games console will be £300 over here. It was exactly the same way back when the pound was much stronger than the dollar. It has always been the case. Is it right or fair? Hell no. But it is certainly not a one way process.

It's not really a case of GW just inflating for the hell of it like you're talking about with action figures and games consoles.

GW seem to be working off pre-brexit exchange rates, my guess is they're trying to cover themselves if the exchange rate swings back up again, the GBP vs USD hasn't been this low since mid 80's, and even then it was only temporarily that low. Whether they're right or wrong is another matter, it's been over a year since the brexit drop, but I'm sure GW don't want to drop prices massively and then have to raise them suddenly if the GBP rises again.

Australia pricing is way worse because the GBP vs AUD hasn't been at a level that matches the current release prices for about 15 years, and has been well below it for about 6 or 7 years.

I came from a relatively poor background, and had to do a lot of improvising for my gaming hobby for many years - which usually meant either using a friends books/models or buying secondhand.

I've since been lucky to move up in the world, and while I buy an ungodly amount new nowadays, I still try to stretch my dollar as far as I can. GW's stuff has always been on the expensive side, but it's practically at eye-watering Apple level these days (coming from someone posting on an iPad, no less). Many times I have found myself debating between buying into a whole game vs. some 40K upgrade, and more often than not, GW has been losing on that front. More and more, any GW purchase I make is some second-hand model off e-bay, already assembled and mostly painted - and yet still cheaper than brand new.

I will unabashedly continue to scrimp and save to stretch my gaming dollar to go as far as I can make it, and I do not apoligize for any of my actions in this regard. If I don't feel I would get my money's worth from a purchase, I'll look elsewhere; it's my dollars and in the regard to my hobbies, I will dictate how it is spent.

This comes with the poor college kid attitude and my first few jobs before I managed to dig into a salaried position. Many of the players on these forums started the hobby as a child or a college kid and had a lack of funds. It's rare I meet someone who started playing in their 30s+

I'm extremely cheap with wargaming... at $1500/year spending. During college? I'd eBay hunt or Warstore everything. Now? - support the local store that I barely go to since I own multiple tables of terrain and game at my place.

I am cheap because I actually get some small measure of satisfaction from being cheap in this hobby. It is like I am getting one over on the man!

I am not afraid to use paper templates to play a game....
https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2016/12/wargaming-on-budget-paper-templates.html

...and I love to scratchbuild or sculpt my own models when I can
https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2017/07/wargaming-on-budget-making-models.html

In extreme cases, I will make everythign I need such as rules, templates, and models!
https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2017/08/random-aquanautica-imperialis-picts.html

I guess since I hate DIY for my home/car I might as well be DIY with wargaming!

To be fair, most comes from a trade-off. When I was younger I had more time than money, and as I got older I had more moeny than time. As this trends changed I focused on different aspects of the hobby. Now, I have no money or time!

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

ListenToMeWarriors wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

100BostonFan wrote:
It just seems as a community we want quality games, but a lot of us do not want to spend any money for these games.

Have you looked at GW's prices lately? Take the holiday bundles that go for £100 in the UK. They're listed as $170 for the US. On what planet does £100 = $170? The current exchange rate should put the use price at $135 at most (rounded up). This pattern holds all across GW's line, except for older stuff that hasn't been adjusted upward yet. My God. We've become Australia. Okay, maybe not quite, but still...

Anyway, this is why it seems like we don't want to spend any money for these games. We're being asked to pay way too much for them.

The arguments about UK to US exchange rates not adding up is the same for countless US based companies products that are sold in the UK.

A $20 action figure will cost us £20 in the UK, a $300 games console will be £300 over here. It was exactly the same way back when the pound was much stronger than the dollar. It has always been the case. Is it right or fair? Hell no. But it is certainly not a one way process.

It's not really a case of GW just inflating for the hell of it like you're talking about with action figures and games consoles.

GW seem to be working off pre-brexit exchange rates, my guess is they're trying to cover themselves if the exchange rate swings back up again, the GBP vs USD hasn't been this low since mid 80's, and even then it was only temporarily that low. Whether they're right or wrong is another matter, it's been over a year since the brexit drop, but I'm sure GW don't want to drop prices massively and then have to raise them suddenly if the GBP rises again.

Australia pricing is way worse because the GBP vs AUD hasn't been at a level that matches the current release prices for about 15 years, and has been well below it for about 6 or 7 years.

Of course they're covering themselves. A big price drop for current exchange rates won't be sustainable when the exchange rate returns but the product is devalued in the eyes of customers because they've become accustomed to lower prices. Consumer goods don't fluctuate with exchange rate as a rule.

Additionally, it's very difficult to lower prices on consumer goods without it being perceived as weakness by investors. If it's not part of a clearly defined strategy then it's not happening.

100BostonFan wrote:
It just seems as a community we want quality games, but a lot of us do not want to spend any money for these games.

That pretty much sounds like me. I'm definitely a cheapskate.

If I may explain a bit, in a hobby like ours where there's so many games that vie for your attention and every game does what they can to get you to buy only their miniatures, rules, etc. it get's darned expensive. I can no longer speak as one who finds cheaper ways to play expensive games, though when I did play 40k, I found innumerable ways to stretch my gamign dollar by buying used figs, stripping them and repainting.

I and my gaming group have come around to the discovery that this hobby doesn't have to be super expensive and you can buy the figs you like (even if they are the expensive ones) play with the rules you like (lots of truely great well-written, elegant rulesets out there that dont' cost $80), not chase the new-edition-addiction, play smaller games and the result of all this is that you can play more games, better games and spend alot less mony.

I'd point out that the OP's desire for folks to buy the figs and minis that a game creates is pretty much confined to the sci-fantasy realm of gaming. Almost no one on the historical side is whining about how Flames of war gamers aren't buying FoW brand vehicles or how Bolt Action gamers are using other brands of miniatures. Historical gamers never bought into the aritificial -and frankly silly- idea that you have to buy the figs, rules and background from the same manufacturere.

I am a little bit late too the discussion, for me it is like with the star wars battlefront 2 loot crate debacle, i don't want to give my money to a company that sees us just as money cows.
And i spend lots of money to get Kingdom death imported to Japan, again it is about perceived value, if i feel that a company is trying to sell me a product that i feel they made an effort and stand behind their product, then i am willing to spend my money on it.

And living in Japan there are so many high quality plastic kits for a reasonable price that GW pricing makes no sense, although they have been improving over the last few years.

 Eilif wrote:
I'd point out that the OP's desire for folks to buy the figs and minis that a game creates is pretty much confined to the sci-fantasy realm of gaming. Almost no one on the historical side is whining about how Flames of war gamers aren't buying FoW brand vehicles or how Bolt Action gamers are using other brands of miniatures. Historical gamers never bought into the aritificial -and frankly silly- idea that you have to buy the figs, rules and background from the same manufacturere.

This is a very important point. It can take a lot of effort for gamers used to the sci-fi/fantasy game model of buying the miniatures and rules together to break out of that cycle. Now admittedly there are a lot of reasons to buy a manufacturer's miniatures when you buy their rules. The biggest one I can think of is convenience, I'm not accusing gamers of being lazy but it's definitely a lot easier to buy the "official" miniatures rather than scouring the ranges of multiple miniature companies for what you want. Another important reason is simply liking that manufacturer's miniatures, that could be because they're easy to paint, cheaper than equivalents (something of a rarity that one), made to a higher quality or finding them to be the most visually pleasing. The final important reason I can think of is being blunt, ignorance. There seem to be a lot of people who simply don't know that alternative options exist.

However looking at this positively, these days there are a lot of independent rule writers and miniature manufacturers producing really high quality sci-fi and fantasy products for the gamer who is willing to step out side of the bubble of one source for everything. I for one will continue to support these companies over the one's who try to insist on their customers using only their rules and their miniatures as I feel that approach stifles creativity, where as being able to mix and match from multiple sources encourages it.

I probably count as cheap in alot of peoples eyes.

I was priced out of GW by their price increases. Sure. I could pay the $265 or whatever it is these days for sets but I wont. I started the hobby with the Deagostini LOTR magazines that me and my cousins were getting. These gave me a decent selection of LOTR metals and army sprues that were cheaper than what GW sold the minis for. Back then I picked up the Return of the Kings set with a full size book in it for something like $85.

When I started 40k, Macragge was around that price too and had the large crashed lander terrain pieces which are a sizeable amount of plastic. I forgot what I paid for my 2 Blackreach sets but when I got to 6th edition, I was already sick of the prices when I put down $165 for dark vengeance and $85 for the 6th Dark Angels codex. Codex alone costing what whole boxesets used to... Bought a finecrap Belial and that was the end of my GW days.


Spent a heap on Infinity, X-wing and a mixture of sources for minis for Frostgrave since. And also on terrain too which wouldnt have been in the budget!

So am I cheap? Probably but Ive found a better enjoyment to dollar ratio. And thats what matters to me more than if my shopping elsewhere hurts the over-entitled companies gouging me.

 Nick Ellingworth wrote:


However looking at this positively, these days there are a lot of independent rule writers and miniature manufacturers producing really high quality sci-fi and fantasy products for the gamer who is willing to step out side of the bubble of one source for everything. I for one will continue to support these companies over the one's who try to insist on their customers using only their rules and their miniatures as I feel that approach stifles creativity, where as being able to mix and match from multiple sources encourages it.

Definitely.

It is a golden age for indie and cheapskate gamers. The number of miniature, vehicle, accessory and terrain ranges -both indie and tied to a current game- is huge. Further, the quality and variety of indie rulesets is only growing. There's a ton of good stuff via PDF now (Blasters and bulkheads, Song of Blades Mech Attack, just to name a few) and Osprey seems to have almost single handledly multiplied the number of affordable in-print rulesets with good production values.

Maybe I'm not as quite cheap as I thought since I enjoy supporting these companies and buy new products from them fairly often.

 Eilif wrote:
It is a golden age for indie and cheapskate gamers. The number of miniature, vehicle, accessory and terrain ranges -both indie and tied to a current game- is huge. Further, the quality and variety of indie rulesets is only growing. There's a ton of good stuff via PDF now (Blasters and bulkheads, Song of Blades Mech Attack, just to name a few) and Osprey seems to have almost single handledly multiplied the number of affordable in-print rulesets with good production values.

Maybe I'm not as quite cheap as I thought since I enjoy supporting these companies and buy new products from them fairly often.

You might not be cheap but I bet you're trying to extract the maximum amount of hobby enjoyment out of every penny you spend on the hobby, I know that's what I do. I think as hobbyists that's what we need to do as much as possible. Of course what that is will be completely different from person to person which is a big part of what makes this hobby so entertaining.

You can count me as another one of Osprey's admirers, they've produced a magnificent variety of well written and even better priced rulesets in their wargames series and they publish the likes of Bolt Action and Dracula's America among others. Plus they produce some excellent board games. As for downloads, I've got at least 10 downloaded rulesets that I've been willing to pay for plus countless free rules (FUBAR etc) and I've printed out copies of most of them.

I'll fully admit that one of my 'cheap' aspects is that nearly any gaming for me in the near future that takes place in 40k or Age of Sigmar will be involving the free rulesets from One Page Rules. That site has rulesets for both army and skirmish-scale games of 40k and Age of Sigmar that are rules-light and incredibly easy to teach to others, are positively received by many and above all are completely free, allowing my money to be spent on figures and scenery.

I have bought rules for three editions of 40k, and can't keep chasing that never-ending struggle, when I have nearly no local gaming scene, and have to promote and host any boardgames or minis games I want to play. I absolutely love GW universes, but feel no need to keep modern with my rulesets, or indeed even stay loyal to GW for them. I support them just fine by buying models.

 Nick Ellingworth wrote:


You might not be cheap but I bet you're trying to extract the maximum amount of hobby enjoyment out of every penny you spend on the hobby

That's a good way to put it.

I definitely try to get the most from every dime, though that's not the entirety of why I go indie for most of my gaming. Alot of it is also that I just like doing my own thing within my own idea of what I want my gaming to look like and often the products, games, minis, etc that get me there are not the biggest names. I'm not even entirely free of big-name-company games, but even then I didn't simply go out and buy an army at retail.

-For Runewars it was a free game in the Adepticon swag bag and a large used deal that got me and I bought in with the expectation that my chosen army would get double-use via KoW. It also gave me something to buy periodically (unit boxes) at my FLGS so I could support the place we were playing at.
-For Konflikt 47 it was a clearance starter set and a couple of boxes of figs with the knowledge that I'm going to buy a couple platoons have enough to play most any size game and then be done collecting.

 Eilif wrote:

 Nick Ellingworth wrote:


You might not be cheap but I bet you're trying to extract the maximum amount of hobby enjoyment out of every penny you spend on the hobby

That's a good way to put it.

I definitely try to get the most from every dime, though that's not the entirety of why I go indie for most of my gaming. Alot of it is also that I just like doing my own thing within my own idea of what I want my gaming to look like and often the products, games, minis, etc that get me there are not the biggest names. I'm not even entirely free of big-name-company games, but even then I didn't simply go out and buy an army at retail.

-For Runewars it was a free game in the Adepticon swag bag and a large used deal that got me and I bought in with the expectation that my chosen army would get double-use via KoW. It also gave me something to buy periodically (unit boxes) at my FLGS so I could support the place we were playing at.
-For Konflikt 47 it was a clearance starter set and a couple of boxes of figs with the knowledge that I'm going to buy a couple platoons have enough to play most any size game and then be done collecting.

Plus, those Rune Wars and Konflict 47 minis can be used in all sorts of games.

Because these games are expensive.


If I'm paying $X for a mini, I want to make that price stretch as much as I can.

 Easy E wrote:


Plus, those Rune Wars and Konflict 47 minis can be used in all sorts of games.

For sure. I've already got plans to do KOW-compliant unit bases with holes for the Runewars figs. From the very beginning of getting in to Runewars I knew the Daqan (humans) would double as the Kingdoms of Man KoW army I always wanted.

As for K47. It's no coincidence that I decided to weird-up all my Warlord British with West Wind SoTR gas mask heads, tending to make them even more suitable for other post-apoc or sci-fi games. It does make them less usefull for historical gaming, but I've not really got any interest in that anyway.

I don't know about other gamers, but for me there's no "appearance" of being cheap.

I am cheap, and I wave that banner proudly. So in-your-face pay-to-win gamers. I don't CARE what you think.

I would rather hunt down OOP metal figures for a fraction of the price of the newer overdone plastics from GW. Newer doesn't automagically mean better. Mostly because none of the new stuff fits style wise with the rest of my collection and to use the new stuff means replacing 90% of what I have.

Automagically is an awesome word I congratulate you sir!

Here's a shot of a fraction of some of the stuff I've bought in the last couple of years. Call me "cheap", melon-fethers!



Having said and shown that pic - I do want to get the most bang for my buck, especially with painted models. My time is finite, after all. Equally, value of purchases is important to me. Do I want to need to buy two sets of Stormtroopers in an incompatible scale for two different games by the same company? Hell no. If they were 100% compatible in size, Would I have happily bought MORE stormtroopers from the second game with new sculpts to mix in with the first batch and have a gakload of stormtroopers for both games? Check the pic again for your answer.

That pic, Azazelx... thats beauty.

Primo product. That's a cool million on the street.








I'm afraid to see your Kickstarter pillar.

Impressive...Most impressive.

When the apocalypse comes you will be fine for painting for a few years.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Impressive...Most impressive.

When the apocalypse comes you will be fine for painting for a few years.

 Azazelx wrote:
Here's a shot of a fraction of some of the stuff I've bought in the last couple of years. Call me "cheap", melon-fethers!



Having said and shown that pic - I do want to get the most bang for my buck, especially with painted models. My time is finite, after all. Equally, value of purchases is important to me. Do I want to need to buy two sets of Stormtroopers in an incompatible scale for two different games by the same company? Hell no. If they were 100% compatible in size, Would I have happily bought MORE stormtroopers from the second game with new sculpts to mix in with the first batch and have a gakload of stormtroopers for both games? Check the pic again for your answer.

you are NOT cheap, you may be crazy though

 Llamahead wrote:
Another thing to consider is time I've already invested time and effort in painting models I want to get as much use out of them as possible so why not use Zombicide models in half a dozen different rulesets?

That's my situation. As said, Song of Blade and Heroes, and Frostgrave are both good inexpensive games and let you use your existing *painted* miniatures. Why not try them first?

As a boardgamer and KS backer, I have thousands of miniatures to paint, obviously for games I thought were worth playing. Now, comes along another game that wants me to play it, and I don't know if it's any better than the games I already bought. The games I already own (and this includes non-miniature games) I don't have to pay any more money to play ('cuz I already got them! (: or spend time painting (some games don't even have miniatures! (: so the next game in the Cult of the New Queue has to do a better job selling itself than any other games I already own.

And one way to sell itself is to be cheaper. As said, this applies for hobbies outside of miniatures. The $60 Legacy of Dragonholt is on the BGG Hotness, but a thread brought up other competing games, such as the $10 Fable Books and the *free* online Lone Wolf books. With retail products not having the FOMO pressure that KS projects have, I have the leisure of trying out "good and cheap" before "maybe gooder but definitely more expensive". I guess the situation for any hobbyist is whether or not the Next Big Thing justifies not playing and effectively tossing out the Last Big Thing that you dropped a few hundred dollars on.

If I didn't enter the gaming hobby through RPGs or liked shiny things or liked HP Lovecraft, I think the only game in my gaming closet would be Dominion...!

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Impressive...Most impressive.

When the apocalypse comes you will be fine for painting for a few years.

That's an out-there reference which I actually get...congrats.

 Azazelx wrote:
Here's a shot of a fraction of some of the stuff I've bought in the last couple of years. Call me "cheap", melon-fethers!



Having said and shown that pic - I do want to get the most bang for my buck, especially with painted models. My time is finite, after all. Equally, value of purchases is important to me. Do I want to need to buy two sets of Stormtroopers in an incompatible scale for two different games by the same company? Hell no. If they were 100% compatible in size, Would I have happily bought MORE stormtroopers from the second game with new sculpts to mix in with the first batch and have a gakload of stormtroopers for both games? Check the pic again for your answer.

Oooooh Shiney!

 Elbows wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Impressive...Most impressive.

When the apocalypse comes you will be fine for painting for a few years.

That's an out-there reference which I actually get...congrats.

There's time now HAHAHAHA

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:
Here's a shot of a fraction of some of the stuff I've bought in the last couple of years. Call me "cheap", melon-fethers!

Spoiler:

Having said and shown that pic - I do want to get the most bang for my buck, especially with painted models. My time is finite, after all. Equally, value of purchases is important to me. Do I want to need to buy two sets of Stormtroopers in an incompatible scale for two different games by the same company? Hell no. If they were 100% compatible in size, Would I have happily bought MORE stormtroopers from the second game with new sculpts to mix in with the first batch and have a gakload of stormtroopers for both games? Check the pic again for your answer.

you are NOT cheap, you may be crazy though

I'll admit, I'm pretty sure there's some O, C and D involved, but c'est la vie.

 chromedog wrote:
I don't know about other gamers, but for me there's no "appearance" of being cheap.

I am cheap, and I wave that banner proudly. So in-your-face pay-to-win gamers. I don't CARE what you think.

I would rather hunt down OOP metal figures for a fraction of the price of the newer overdone plastics from GW. Newer doesn't automagically mean better. Mostly because none of the new stuff fits style wise with the rest of my collection and to use the new stuff means replacing 90% of what I have.

This is a pretty lame sentiment.

I've been with GW since 1986 and I still have my 80's and 90's stuff. Those were the best mini's available at the time. But over done plastic? Are you drunk? Plastic is way better to work with than metal (and especially metal mini's wit lead) and the sculpts are so much better than the 2 plane old metal stuff.

Take an old rogue trader terminator and place it against one of the new GW or FW ones?

I'm sorry you are cheap. It must really suck to go thru life worrying about money.

I don't need your sorrys. I also don't need your aesthetic sense.

I prefer the look of the 90s eldar (the marines have sucked since 1995, when they became skull fetish crusading space monk knights.). When Jes was at his peak. What's it to you, anyway?

Whether or not you like them is irrelevant to MY tastes.

Also. Learn to sarcasm. Aussies speak it with a subtext. It litters every [sarcasm] part of our [sarcasm] speech - like riding 'roos to school across the harbour bridge.

Surely everyone with any sense should be "cheap" with everything they buy? Otherwise you're wasting money.

Admittedly, I don't always follow that myself; there's an Aldi local to me, but I go to Sainsburys.

Mind you, buying the old stuff off Ebay ain't always cheaper. "oldhammer" has taken off in the last few years, and the scalpers have noticed. Especially if you're looking for metal models with separate arms; you can get Orks, Guardsmen or 'stealer hybrids for reasonable prices, but have fun getting arms for 'em.

Because everyone likes a bargain and if you are old enough to remember when a metal Eldar Phoenix Lord only cost £6 then paying +£15 for one that isn't made of metal seems a bit unfair.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Surely everyone with any sense should be "cheap" with everything they buy? Otherwise you're wasting money.

Admittedly, I don't always follow that myself; there's an Aldi local to me, but I go to Sainsburys.

Mind you, buying the old stuff off Ebay ain't always cheaper. "oldhammer" has taken off in the last few years, and the scalpers have noticed. Especially if you're looking for metal models with separate arms; you can get Orks, Guardsmen or 'stealer hybrids for reasonable prices, but have fun getting arms for 'em.

Ebay is for chumps.
I do my scrounging f2f. I want to see exactly what I'm outlaying the folding stuff for.

We have bring/buy tables at several of the larger conventions where gamers dispose of their unwanted gaming dross.
We have groups on the book of faces that serve a similar purpose.

I'm not such a RT puritan that I'll only take RT plastic guardsmen (they WILL take modern cadian arms, though) - but I generally only get stuff that is relatively complete. That said, I've never had any desire to own stealers, orks or chaos of any stripe, plastic or metal, 1987 to now. I only found out about GW in 1987.

I've picked up METAL eldar war walkers or wraithlords with magnetised weapons for $10-15 AUD each (when the newer plastics were selling for at least double and often triple that or more). 2nd ed Marine dreads (identical to current plastics, but metal, not the older peanuts) complete with several weapon arm sets for a steal, too. (in 2nd ed metal dread days, specific weapons were restricted to certain models. DA had lascannon/missile, BA had furioso (2x dccw), ultramarine was assault cannon/dccw. To find one dread at the start of 3rd ed with AC/Twin las/dccw and missile pod arms all in metal for $25 was a steal - it was more than that for the plastic kit that was new for 3rd ed).

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Surely everyone with any sense should be "cheap" with everything they buy? Otherwise you're wasting money.

Money isn't the only resource. Time, and even energy, are factors as well. I buy a ton of stuff used, but I then strip it (which requires time, supplies, and effort), rebuild it (ditto), and paint it up. If I really took a look at how much time I spent "saving" money, compared to what I can earn working, I'm sure it's a bad balance. But I like it, so it's worth it to me.

In contrast, ever since I've worked full time, I've hired movers every time I move. I'd rather write a check for $600 than spend two days hauling my belongings.

Sometimes, being cheap is self defeating, but sometimes thrift is about the journey, not the destination.

 Polonius wrote:
Sometimes, being cheap is self defeating, but sometimes thrift is about the journey, not the destination.

That pretty much sums up the hobby.
The final product is obviously a goal (just like winning a game) but the process of making the models and playing the games that is the active joy of the game.
Why we "appear to be cheap"?
Because we want our hobby to last for a very long time and running out of money is a hard-stop to it.

That tower of model boxes however.... just barely justifies the horde of unbuilt kits I have.
It we were REALLY cheap I think GW would be the last company to buy from.
Used / badly built / damaged kits for sale are an inexpensive means to get into the hobby AND can prolong the build process.

 Polonius wrote:

Sometimes, being cheap is self defeating, but sometimes thrift is about the journey, not the destination.

That's very true. Have been quite enjoying getting old/part bits for Epic off ebay. It's quite nice getting things that are a messed blob of paint, broken etc. and working to restore them.

The same with armies, I have a rule of only one complete/ready to play army per gaming system. My least favourite goes onto ebay, I like to think that's one more painted army out there in the gaming community, and there are a lot of people that have the money for it but not always the ability or time to put together a painted force.

 Polonius wrote:


Money isn't the only resource. Time, and even energy, are factors as well.

...

Sometimes, being cheap is self defeating, but sometimes thrift is about the journey, not the destination.

This is very true. I don't like to "waste" money either, of course, but I do thoughtfully consider what the cost is, in money, time, etc., when buying something. Which is why I've stopped buying used models in general. Why? Because I've found the time and effort required to strip the paint, fix any horrible assembly issues, get reassembled, etc. is more hassle than the savings of a couple of bucks is worth. So I generally only buy NIB or at the very least unassembled, unpainted stuff. Since I get probably more enjoyment out of the hobbying aspect than the game playing (due to time issues and getting together with other people), I don't want to eat that hobby time up with cursing someone else's bad assembly/paint jobs before I can start doing the stuff I enjoy.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Surely everyone with any sense should be "cheap" with everything they buy? Otherwise you're wasting money.

Admittedly, I don't always follow that myself; there's an Aldi local to me, but I go to Sainsburys.

Mind you, buying the old stuff off Ebay ain't always cheaper. "oldhammer" has taken off in the last few years, and the scalpers have noticed. Especially if you're looking for metal models with separate arms; you can get Orks, Guardsmen or 'stealer hybrids for reasonable prices, but have fun getting arms for 'em.

I've definitely noticed that oldhammer effect on Ebay of late, I used to Ebay for old metal Eldar as I prefer the aesthetics (although I'll admit to replacing my Jetbikes and Wraithguard with less fally over plastics) but even thats getting pricey

 Valander wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


Money isn't the only resource. Time, and even energy, are factors as well.

...

Sometimes, being cheap is self defeating, but sometimes thrift is about the journey, not the destination.

This is very true. I don't like to "waste" money either, of course, but I do thoughtfully consider what the cost is, in money, time, etc., when buying something. Which is why I've stopped buying used models in general. Why? Because I've found the time and effort required to strip the paint, fix any horrible assembly issues, get reassembled, etc. is more hassle than the savings of a couple of bucks is worth. So I generally only buy NIB or at the very least unassembled, unpainted stuff. Since I get probably more enjoyment out of the hobbying aspect than the game playing (due to time issues and getting together with other people), I don't want to eat that hobby time up with cursing someone else's bad assembly/paint jobs before I can start doing the stuff I enjoy.

I have also gone this route.

actually managed to finish an army instead of restripping everything 20times because it wasnt perfect

evancich wrote:

 chromedog wrote:
I don't know about other gamers, but for me there's no "appearance" of being cheap.

I am cheap, and I wave that banner proudly. So in-your-face pay-to-win gamers. I don't CARE what you think.

I would rather hunt down OOP metal figures for a fraction of the price of the newer overdone plastics from GW. Newer doesn't automagically mean better. Mostly because none of the new stuff fits style wise with the rest of my collection and to use the new stuff means replacing 90% of what I have.

This is a pretty lame sentiment.

I've been with GW since 1986 and I still have my 80's and 90's stuff. Those were the best mini's available at the time. But over done plastic? Are you drunk? Plastic is way better to work with than metal (and especially metal mini's wit lead) and the sculpts are so much better than the 2 plane old metal stuff.

Take an old rogue trader terminator and place it against one of the new GW or FW ones?

I'm sorry you are cheap. It must really suck to go thru life worrying about money.

I'm with Chromedog. A few points in response.

- There are some great minis being done today. However there are alot of folks like me who generally prefer the less-skully models for the 90's. I won't deny that nostalgia plays a part too, but for whatever reason the 80's/90's aesthetic is prefered by many.
-As for metal (leaded or not), unless you're doing conversions (which is of course easier in plastic) metal is MUCH faster to use than plastic. Usually little or no assembly required. Quick file any lines glue to base and paint.
-As for "you are cheap " and "worrying about money" are you trying to sound like an entitled child, rich snob or both? Try having a little maturity and sensitivity here. For a good portion of the world money is something that is in short enough supply that one cannot simply buy everything they want. I am a long way from poor, but life and family aint cheap and if I bought all my things new, there's no way I'd be able to keep enjoying the mutliple hobbies that do.
-Lastly, as many have said, for many of us, the hunt for the bargain is part of the fun as is having a bigger collection that one could otherwise afford if buying new.

evancich wrote:


I'm sorry you are cheap. It must really suck to go thru life worrying about money.

Yes, it does in fact suck to go through life worrying about money. I guess not all of us can be independently wealthy.

However, it sucks much worse worrying about money for things that aren't for a hobby; you know stuff like healthcare, child care, food, shelter, etc.

So, I much rather worrying about money for my hobby than worrying about it for my basic needs. That just gets depressing!