GW keeping their entire manufacturing operation local in the UK does seem kinda nuts for a company doing £200 million a year.
Props to them for doing it, but it makes their inability to write clear concise rules that much more frustrating. I don't want to be angry at a company that I know has it's heart in the right place.
I don't think GW is a bad company. I just think charging 50+ dollars for a single "build and paint it yourself" plastic model is crazy. Right alongside the Nintendo Labo.
It is great they are making things in the UK and self financing their own factories with money on hand vs loans. that is great... for the company. It is certainly a thing some consumers may value (I fall into this category of good job GW), but others simply will not care and just buy from whatever is the cheapest and IP law be damned.
I have seen so many players buying chinacast/russian cast models that are literal remolds from GW sprue and identical (other than costing like 30% of what GW charges) At the end of the day no matter how well a company treats their employees, runs their business or is good for the community... a markup to $50 on $0.25 worth of plastic in a $0.10 box is hard to stomach.
Personally I would love to see GW open a few more factories but maybe in other market. Maybe one in NZ would give those down under a price break, and maybe on in the US or Canada to pay less for shipping around the world.
1. A Lot of assertions, no citations or valid demonstration of basis or foundation.
2. Link to "proof" of earnings statement was bugged and didn't go to anything I could tell, so I'm not saying anything about his "source" that he did provide.
3. His rational is self-justifying, or more simply, he's using his assertions as proof of his assertions. This is a logical fallacy.
4. Claims personal experience or makes himself out to be an expert. This requires proof, or it is an appeal to authority fallacy.
5. False Dichotomy. Either GW is motivated by greed, or it isn't. Logical fallacy. GW can be greedy, and not motivated by it.
6. Very interesting article otherwise. If true, color me surprised.
1. A Lot of assertions, no citations or valid demonstration of basis or foundation.
2. Link to "proof" of earnings statement was bugged and didn't go to anything I could tell, so I'm not saying anything about his "source" that he did provide.
3. His rational is self-justifying, or more simply, he's using his assertions as proof of his assertions. This is a logical fallacy.
4. Claims personal experience or makes himself out to be an expert. This requires proof, or it is an appeal to authority fallacy.
5. False Dichotomy. Either GW is motivated by greed, or it isn't. Logical fallacy. GW can be greedy, and not motivated by it.
6. Very interesting article otherwise. If true, color me surprised.
1. A Lot of assertions, no citations or valid demonstration of basis or foundation.
2. Link to "proof" of earnings statement was bugged and didn't go to anything I could tell, so I'm not saying anything about his "source" that he did provide.
3. His rational is self-justifying, or more simply, he's using his assertions as proof of his assertions. This is a logical fallacy.
4. Claims personal experience or makes himself out to be an expert. This requires proof, or it is an appeal to authority fallacy.
5. False Dichotomy. Either GW is motivated by greed, or it isn't. Logical fallacy. GW can be greedy, and not motivated by it.
6. Very interesting article otherwise. If true, color me surprised.
Reddit in a nutshell my friend.
So, how do we get people to stop using reddit as "Well researched articles"?
Here's my main issue with all of the defense of price rises on GW's part.
There are "we're manufacturing here", and "well materials cost went up", etc. Those arguments are all predicated on GW making a very small profit on something they sell. "Oh times are tough we need to eek out an additional $5 per kit". GW isn't making a tiny sliver of profit per box. They're making a very healthy profit.
Market materials and costs impact a "premium" product less than they do a bottom end product. We're not talking about a $4.99 action figure which bumped to $5.50 because of the market or the economy, etc. We're talking about a company asking $60 for a box of two sprues. Even if they paid double the cost of production vs. China etc., they're still making healthy profit on each of those kits. Other UK based products (Renedra is a big UK based plastics manufacturer who does sprues for numerous companies - Perry Brothers, etc.) are still being sold for 30-40 dollars with more sprues per box, etc.
The continued "they need to do this to survive this harsh economy!" defense is getting silly.
You're not factoring in overheads. And I don't just mean manufacturing ones, I'm talking about costs of design, art, community support, stores. The list is endless.
Talking about the gross margin on a box is basically pointless.
Have you ever bought a digital product? The gross margin on each unit of those can be as high as 100%
G00fySmiley wrote: It is great they are making things in the UK and self financing their own factories with money on hand vs loans. that is great... for the company. It is certainly a thing some consumers may value (I fall into this category of good job GW), but others simply will not care and just buy from whatever is the cheapest and IP law be damned.
I have seen so many players buying chinacast/russian cast models that are literal remolds from GW sprue and identical (other than costing like 30% of what GW charges) At the end of the day no matter how well a company treats their employees, runs their business or is good for the community... a markup to $50 on $0.25 worth of plastic in a $0.10 box is hard to stomach.
Personally I would love to see GW open a few more factories but maybe in other market. Maybe one in NZ would give those down under a price break, and maybe on in the US or Canada to pay less for shipping around the world.
Yeah, our local store did a controversy this weekend in outright banning non-gw armies from the store.
Defined as
Less than 60% of the model is GW = Not Allowed
Total 3d Printed Army = Not Allowed
Converted a different game of the same scale to 40K = Allowed, If your opponent is okay, but totally banned from any events.
Yeah, our local store did a controversy this weekend in outright banning non-gw armies from the store.
Defined as
Less than 60% of the model is GW = Not Allowed Total 3d Printed Army = Not Allowed Converted a different game of the same scale to 40K = Allowed, If your opponent is okay, but totally banned from any events.
Unless your store is a GW store; your store is full of dumbasses. There is no nice way of saying that. Apart from maybe the second one, what right does an FLGS think it has to dictate what miniatures people use?
It's an interesting article, for sure, and there are some commendable things going on there, especially around the sensible investments and debt-free nature of the company. That's always been one of GW's strengths.
However, while all these reasons may be justified when it comes to how GW price their products (and I'm not saying they are), after a certain point I, as the consumer, don't care. It's great that the company manages its money well, but the corporate politics and financial modelling are of no concern to me. What I am concerned about is the final price I'm paying and whether I think it's justified given what I'm purchasing. When considering that justification I couldn't care less about corporate structures and employee pay. It still ahs to represent good value for me independent of any of that. While we're talking about employee pay, it's a little disingenuous to give GW credit for staff profit sharing bonuses when it's well known the level of pay in the industry as a whole and at GW in particular is pretty low.
Slipspace wrote: It's an interesting article, for sure, and there are some commendable things going on there, especially around the sensible investments and debt-free nature of the company. That's always been one of GW's strengths.
However, while all these reasons may be justified when it comes to how GW price their products (and I'm not saying they are), after a certain point I, as the consumer, don't care. It's great that the company manages its money well, but the corporate politics and financial modelling are of no concern to me. What I am concerned about is the final price I'm paying and whether I think it's justified given what I'm purchasing. When considering that justification I couldn't care less about corporate structures and employee pay. It still ahs to represent good value for me independent of any of that. While we're talking about employee pay, it's a little disingenuous to give GW credit for staff profit sharing bonuses when it's well known the level of pay in the industry as a whole and at GW in particular is pretty low.
That's all well and good. If it's not worth it to you, fine. The issue is when people seem to think they have a right to access the product at a price they like, and if they can't then they have a right to break the law to get it. Which is total cattle manure.
If it's not good value to you, just don't buy. If enough people agree with you, GW will get the message. If other people continue to buy it then that's fair enough really, just shows GW price their product correctly on balance.
Grimtuff wrote: Apart from maybe the second one, what right does an FLGS think it has to dictate what miniatures people use?
All the rights in the world, its a private place and they can enforce whatever rules they wish. Whilst they are not directly reliant on only GW products like a GW store is, a FLAGS which holds a lot of games might well try to enforce rules that restrict games to what the store sells. Because just like at a GW store the FLAGs is out to make money and if gamers are playing games the store doesn't or can't stock then the store is losing out on potential sales. It also means their gamers are "advertising" stuff the store can't provide to any new gamers.
Considering how many small time 3rd party firms there are out there I can well believe that a FLAGS might want to protect itself form ending up with everyone playing 40K with models the store cannot stock because the small companies aren't in distribution networks or aren't geared up to supply the store.
Slipspace wrote: It's an interesting article, for sure, and there are some commendable things going on there, especially around the sensible investments and debt-free nature of the company. That's always been one of GW's strengths.
However, while all these reasons may be justified when it comes to how GW price their products (and I'm not saying they are), after a certain point I, as the consumer, don't care. It's great that the company manages its money well, but the corporate politics and financial modelling are of no concern to me. What I am concerned about is the final price I'm paying and whether I think it's justified given what I'm purchasing. When considering that justification I couldn't care less about corporate structures and employee pay. It still ahs to represent good value for me independent of any of that. While we're talking about employee pay, it's a little disingenuous to give GW credit for staff profit sharing bonuses when it's well known the level of pay in the industry as a whole and at GW in particular is pretty low.
That's all well and good. If it's not worth it to you, fine. The issue is when people seem to think they have a right to access the product at a price they like, and if they can't then they have a right to break the law to get it. Which is total cattle manure.
If it's not good value to you, just don't buy. If enough people agree with you, GW will get the message. If other people continue to buy it then that's fair enough really, just shows GW price their product correctly on balance.
Not sure where you're first paragraph came from - I'm on no way advocating for buying recasts or breaking the law. Nothing in my response suggest that I am. As to your second paragraph, that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm merely pointing out that the internal workings of a company, while interesting, aren't really relevant to me when considering the value proposition their products represent. I'm not sitting here thinking "the new Executioner tank seems too expensive to me, but I've just read that GW are investing a lot of money in new production and warehouse facilities, so now I'll buy two!"
Yeah, our local store did a controversy this weekend in outright banning non-gw armies from the store.
Defined as
Less than 60% of the model is GW = Not Allowed
Total 3d Printed Army = Not Allowed
Converted a different game of the same scale to 40K = Allowed, If your opponent is okay, but totally banned from any events.
Unless your store is a GW store; your store is full of dumbasses. There is no nice way of saying that. Apart from maybe the second one, what right does an FLGS think it has to dictate what miniatures people use?
Well it was the 40K specific group that made the decision, they came to the store owner on their own, he capitulated in the end.
The community of players were quite clear, only one objected to this and he decided to take his business elsewhere. I was actually surprised 99% seemed for it.
Personally I would love to see GW open a few more factories but maybe in other market. Maybe one in NZ would give those down under a price break, and maybe on in the US or Canada to pay less for shipping around the world.
They used to have a foundry in the US producing metal models. It would be unlikely to be cost effective to have to double up all of the moulds to produce plastic in North America, though, and even less so for the volume of sales down under.
What the other poster is pointing out though is that "justifying cost" is something that is often completely irrelevant to the consumer. I tend to agree. However, the second someone mentions that they don't find X value in Y product, people stream out of the woodwork trying to tell them why they "should" value Y product. The same argument comes up with the single-character package prices. "They sell less, so they charge more" is dragged out endlessly. As a consumer...I don't care. The end result is still too high of a price tag for the value that I'm getting from the purchase. The same argument can be made about million dollar wristwatches. I fully understand they made five of some model, and they're handmade, bla bla bla....still personally don't value that watch enough to accept it as a reasonable price tag, etc.
I do vote with my wallet, as I think plenty of people do. What gets tiresome is people trying to justify a price as if that should change how I value the product. I value the product solely on the product's merits itself. If there are two competing products which are identical then I'm likely to consider the source. There has to be an overwhelming good or an overwhelming bad for me to solely ban/endorse a product because of the company's actions. That's not very common.
PS: And none of this has anything to do with entitlement...another overused internet buzz-word to people not buying something. I 100% respect any company/entity to sell whatever they want at whatever price. When people get butt hurt because I don't endorse a price tag people start throwing around the entitled nonsense (mainly because they can't logically argue or present themselves as adults - see also users of: troll, incel, hater, etc.).
What the other poster is pointing out though is that "justifying cost" is something that is often completely irrelevant to the consumer. I tend to agree. However, the second someone mentions that they don't find X value in Y product, people stream out of the woodwork trying to tell them why they "should" value Y product. The same argument comes up with the single-character package prices. "They sell less, so they charge more" is dragged out endlessly. As a consumer...I don't care. The end result is still too high of a price tag for the value that I'm getting from the purchase. The same argument can be made about million dollar wristwatches. I fully understand they made five of some model, and they're handmade, bla bla bla....still personally don't value that watch enough to accept it as a reasonable price tag, etc.
I do vote with my wallet, as I think plenty of people do. What gets tiresome is people trying to justify a price as if that should change how I value the product. I value the product solely on the product's merits itself. If there are two competing products which are identical then I'm likely to consider the source. There has to be an overwhelming good or an overwhelming bad for me to solely ban/endorse a product because of the company's actions. That's not very common.
PS: And none of this has anything to do with entitlement...another overused internet buzz-word to people not buying something. I 100% respect any company/entity to sell whatever they want at whatever price. When people get butt hurt because I don't endorse a price tag people start throwing around the entitled nonsense (mainly because they can't logically argue or present themselves as adults - see also users of: troll, incel, hater, etc.).
This reminds me of how some people will buy stuff that is on sale, just because it's on sale, rather than actually needing/wanting it.
"I saved 50% on this X" they say. To which I reply: "I saved 100% by not buying that X that I didn't need in the first place"
It also bears mentioning that GW holds a virtual monopoly on wargaming. Like it or not, the vast majority of wargames played are 40k, so if you want to get into wargaming, you really only have one viable choice. Therefore, GW can "afford" to have higher prices. For most people, they'll be the only option around, unless they want to deal with a lack of opponents.
Agreed, like any company in a good position, GW's real pricing policy is simple: charge as much as people will pay. We don't need silly attempts to justify it.
Was certainly an interesting read, but there are other things GW could do to make game more manageable to the hobbyist. For example, a rule set that could allow customers to purchase fewer models. I would love for an article equating the price of GW models to the increased profitability of companies that manufacture rare-earth magnets.
flandarz wrote: I don't think GW is a bad company. I just think charging 50+ dollars for a single "build and paint it yourself" plastic model is crazy. Right alongside the Nintendo Labo.
I would pay $50-$75 for a tank model, and over $100 for a big and nice tank model, like a Baneblade.
I would not pay more than $30-$35 for infantry models.
I did already know that GW does their manufacturing in Britain, and figured the price increases were to develop a war chest to protect them against Brexit. I don't really think it's complaint worthy; I find the cost of books to be more obnoxious.
For example, a rule set that could allow customers to purchase fewer models
It's called Kill team. Also 40k can be played at smaller scales. nothing says you can't pull out A HQ,a troop unit, a fast attack unit a heavy support unit, roll em into a patrol detachment and play that. in fact I've always suspected GW intends that to be the starting place. Hence why start collecting boxes, (and know no fear) all just happen to be a patrol detachment.
And yeah GW doing their manafacturing ion the UK is pretty well known. TBH we have to expect some... price disruptions thanks to Brexit.
The Newman wrote: GW keeping their entire manufacturing operation local in the UK does seem kinda nuts for a company doing £200 million a year.
Props to them for doing it, but it makes their inability to write clear concise rules that much more frustrating. I don't want to be angry at a company that I know has it's heart in the right place.
1. A Lot of assertions, no citations or valid demonstration of basis or foundation.
2. Link to "proof" of earnings statement was bugged and didn't go to anything I could tell, so I'm not saying anything about his "source" that he did provide.
3. His rational is self-justifying, or more simply, he's using his assertions as proof of his assertions. This is a logical fallacy.
4. Claims personal experience or makes himself out to be an expert. This requires proof, or it is an appeal to authority fallacy.
5. False Dichotomy. Either GW is motivated by greed, or it isn't. Logical fallacy. GW can be greedy, and not motivated by it.
6. Very interesting article otherwise. If true, color me surprised.
Could you please provide links and proof of all the spelling in your Forum statement? I would also like you to provide ten articles from accredited sources that back up your statements of logic and thought process. After you give me the big mental middle finger....just smile a little. :-)
Nvs wrote: For example, a rule set that could allow customers to purchase fewer models.
It's called Kill Team and it has been around for about two years. The rules are pretty good too. If you prefer, you can also play Necromunda. I heard it was pretty good and pretty cheap too.
Nvs wrote: For example, a rule set that could allow customers to purchase fewer models.
It's called Kill Team and it has been around for about two years. The rules are pretty good too. If you prefer, you can also play Necromunda. I heard it was pretty good and pretty cheap too.
Necromunda is absolutely not cheap. The 2 basic books needed for the game cost $110. No actual miniatures. No paints. No terrain. Not even dice. I actually believe that GWs senior management reserved parking spaces are platinum bunkers full of gold plated lamborghinis.
Personally I would love to see GW open a few more factories but maybe in other market. Maybe one in NZ would give those down under a price break, and maybe on in the US or Canada to pay less for shipping around the world.
They used to have a foundry in the US producing metal models. It would be unlikely to be cost effective to have to double up all of the moulds to produce plastic in North America, though, and even less so for the volume of sales down under.
I think the LA Bunker and maybe one other on the East Coast made Forgeworld as well.
What the other poster is pointing out though is that "justifying cost" is something that is often completely irrelevant to the consumer. I tend to agree. However, the second someone mentions that they don't find X value in Y product, people stream out of the woodwork trying to tell them why they "should" value Y product. The same argument comes up with the single-character package prices. "They sell less, so they charge more" is dragged out endlessly. As a consumer...I don't care. The end result is still too high of a price tag for the value that I'm getting from the purchase. The same argument can be made about million dollar wristwatches. I fully understand they made five of some model, and they're handmade, bla bla bla....still personally don't value that watch enough to accept it as a reasonable price tag, etc.
I do vote with my wallet, as I think plenty of people do. What gets tiresome is people trying to justify a price as if that should change how I value the product. I value the product solely on the product's merits itself. If there are two competing products which are identical then I'm likely to consider the source. There has to be an overwhelming good or an overwhelming bad for me to solely ban/endorse a product because of the company's actions. That's not very common.
PS: And none of this has anything to do with entitlement...another overused internet buzz-word to people not buying something. I 100% respect any company/entity to sell whatever they want at whatever price. When people get butt hurt because I don't endorse a price tag people start throwing around the entitled nonsense (mainly because they can't logically argue or present themselves as adults - see also users of: troll, incel, hater, etc.).
But either way, this basically sums up my feelings on the matter.
Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about GW's investments. All I care about is the end price of its miniatures.
G00fySmiley wrote: It is great they are making things in the UK and self financing their own factories with money on hand vs loans. that is great... for the company. It is certainly a thing some consumers may value (I fall into this category of good job GW), but others simply will not care and just buy from whatever is the cheapest and IP law be damned.
I have seen so many players buying chinacast/russian cast models that are literal remolds from GW sprue and identical (other than costing like 30% of what GW charges) At the end of the day no matter how well a company treats their employees, runs their business or is good for the community... a markup to $50 on $0.25 worth of plastic in a $0.10 box is hard to stomach.
Personally I would love to see GW open a few more factories but maybe in other market. Maybe one in NZ would give those down under a price break, and maybe on in the US or Canada to pay less for shipping around the world.
Of course at the end of day gw can't compete in price with copycats. That is lost war the day it starts. Gw lower their prices, recaster does too. Gw hits point of loss on sales first
G00fySmiley wrote: It is great they are making things in the UK and self financing their own factories with money on hand vs loans. that is great... for the company. It is certainly a thing some consumers may value (I fall into this category of good job GW), but others simply will not care and just buy from whatever is the cheapest and IP law be damned.
I have seen so many players buying chinacast/russian cast models that are literal remolds from GW sprue and identical (other than costing like 30% of what GW charges) At the end of the day no matter how well a company treats their employees, runs their business or is good for the community... a markup to $50 on $0.25 worth of plastic in a $0.10 box is hard to stomach.
Personally I would love to see GW open a few more factories but maybe in other market. Maybe one in NZ would give those down under a price break, and maybe on in the US or Canada to pay less for shipping around the world.
Of course at the end of day gw can't compete in price with copycats. That is lost war the day it starts. Gw lower their prices, recaster does too. Gw hits point of loss on sales first
Except as we've seen in other industries (namely music) if you drop the price point to something most consumers are willing to pay you can still make a profit and reduce piracy.
GW for all it's faults makes good miniatures and unless I've really missed something no pirates have their own polystyrene injection mold set up, so if my choice was $20 for plastic and $10 for resin I'd sure pick the plastic because it's still in my price range and it's the better material to work with. Even if the pirates dropped it to $5 I'd still pay more for the better product. But that gets harder and harder to justify the higher the price (and the higher price disparity) gets.
flandarz wrote: It also bears mentioning that GW holds a virtual monopoly on wargaming. Like it or not, the vast majority of wargames played are 40k, so if you want to get into wargaming, you really only have one viable choice. Therefore, GW can "afford" to have higher prices. For most people, they'll be the only option around, unless they want to deal with a lack of opponents.
Hmm, no. GW is certainly big, well known, & widely available. But you're wrong on that whole monopoly/only viable choice thing.
Now it might be true that GW is the only game in town where ever you're at or with whomever you're gaming with....
flandarz wrote: It also bears mentioning that GW holds a virtual monopoly on wargaming. Like it or not, the vast majority of wargames played are 40k, so if you want to get into wargaming, you really only have one viable choice. Therefore, GW can "afford" to have higher prices. For most people, they'll be the only option around, unless they want to deal with a lack of opponents.
Hmm, no. GW is certainly big, well known, & widely available. But you're wrong on that whole monopoly/only viable choice thing. Now it might be true that GW is the only game in town where ever you're at or with whomever you're gaming with....
It depends on where you live. In the UK at least, it's a real problem when there's barely a fifteen minute drive between another GW store. Maintaining a major highstreet presence like that means 99% of people get into wargaming via 40k and tend to stick with it.
Gaming clubs do exist, but they're not nearly as prevalent as LFGS in the US and other countries, which means GW has near total market saturation here. That improved a bit during 7th when a number of people were desperate to get into something other than GW products, but it didn't last with 8th just because 95% of people's mates wanted an excuse to go back to the 40k collections they'd been building for a decade or so.
GW are pretty much the market dominant company for fantasy and sci-fi wargames. You can take your warhammer army to practically ANY local game store or club and almost guarantee yourself a game or at least that locals are playing it.
No other company is half as strong, though Privateer Press got closer but they've fallen apart in some regions and lost their hold as of late with some of their changes. Shutting down of their Press Ganger system has hit them hard in that respect.
Other firms are exceptionally hit and miss at the local level. Sure there's far more variety out there now than there ever was, but there's also more variation club to club. Infinity, Dropfleet, Mantic, etc... There's a host of companies which are well known and of a good size, but still hit and miss
If you're going to cite negative market influencers (brexit, tarrifs, etc) as causation to price increase, that's fine. So that means when those conditions reverse to favorable market conditions, GW lowers their prices right? What's that.... Crickets? Yes GW will never lower prices and will simply make the inflated price the new benchmark, and they do this for any reason they can think of, whether actual or just possible predicted conditions. That's why you Gdub white knights can go ahead and keep the shareholders happy and I'll enjoy the same hobby at 1/3 the price.
flandarz wrote: It also bears mentioning that GW holds a virtual monopoly on wargaming. Like it or not, the vast majority of wargames played are 40k, so if you want to get into wargaming, you really only have one viable choice. Therefore, GW can "afford" to have higher prices. For most people, they'll be the only option around, unless they want to deal with a lack of opponents.
Hmm, no. GW is certainly big, well known, & widely available. But you're wrong on that whole monopoly/only viable choice thing.
Now it might be true that GW is the only game in town where ever you're at or with whomever you're gaming with....
A virtual monopoly isn't quite the same as an actual monopoly. What I'm saying is that most wargaming IS done via GW products. Doesn't matter where you live, you're 10 times more likely to find an opponent if you're playing 40k than anything else. That gives GW what amounts to a monopoly on the market. You could spend hundreds of dollars on a different wargame and maybe never find an opponent, or you could devote that same money towards 40k and pretty consistently find an opponent anytime you want to play.
And, to be fair, GW isn't the only one who holds this kind of monopoly on a hobby. WotC also has one on Tabletop gaming. Steam has one for PC gaming. Yes, there ARE alternatives out there. But the popularity and saturation of GW, WotC, and Steam makes using anything else kind of a waste of money, unless you got friends you can convince to play with you.
... Only if you're a 12 year old kid who thinks CCGs = table top gaming. WOTC also produces D&D yes, but they are VERY much being challanged by Pathfinder these days
Considering Pathfinder is basically exactly 3.5 D&D, that's not saying much. And it is STILL easier to find a group for D&D than it is for Pathfinder. To me, challenging D&D would require that there be at least 1 Pathfinder game to every 2 D&D games. But I'd be willing to bet it's closer to 1 to 10, if not higher.
... Only if you're a 12 year old kid who thinks CCGs = table top gaming. WOTC also produces D&D yes, but they are VERY much being challanged by Pathfinder these days
5e turned things around. I dunno, maybe things are different in your area, but everyone I know is playing 5e D&D now instead of PF.
... Only if you're a 12 year old kid who thinks CCGs = table top gaming. WOTC also produces D&D yes, but they are VERY much being challanged by Pathfinder these days
People still play Pathfinder?
It's a mess of a freaking system compared to how smooth and streamlined 5E is.
... Only if you're a 12 year old kid who thinks CCGs = table top gaming. WOTC also produces D&D yes, but they are VERY much being challanged by Pathfinder these days
People still play Pathfinder?
It's a mess of a freaking system compared to how smooth and streamlined 5E is.
That was largely my impression as well. The only reason Pathfinder gained the foothold they have is because it was more D&D than D&D 4th edition. The impression I got of 5th edition was it really returned to its roots while still have more modern streamlined rules that make the old 3rd/3.5 D&D rules look mighty rickety. I am sure that Pathfinder is still the second most popular RPG, but like whatever is 2nd to Warhammer, it is fair distance away now. Being that is basically an OGL of 3rd edition D&D, I don't see it picking up the steam it once had so long as WOTC don't try and new Coke their system again.
I'd buy the price increase if this wasn't the best theyve been since Lord of the Rings. I'm sorry but you can't tell me GW has had record earnings and sales and then say "oh trust me guys, price increases are totally necessary!" Especially not when companies like Tamiya, Bandai, or even direct competition like Warlord can make a similar quality kit for far cheaper.
That goes double for kits where the molds long paid themselves off. I want to see someone argue the Cadian shock troops deserved a price increase with a straight face. I can get literally 4x the models in plastic at that price that are higher quality with more options, or even jump over to resin boutique models in some countries. If you were trying to argue something like skitarii needed a price increase that's one thing, those are gorgeous models, very complex, and relatively new. That's understandable. But don't tell me a kit that's been around over 10 years needs it, especially when said kit used to over double the models for less than that price.
SickSix wrote: Sorry but there is really no justification for raising prices beyond inflation on 30 year old plastic kits (Cadians).
And it doesn't matter what their motivation is when their product is no longer considered worth the asking price.
Sane consumers aren't going to keep overpaying for plastic soldiers out of some sense of virtue because 'GW does it right'. LOL
Genuine question - have they actually raised the price above inflation? If you track from when the kit was released and the price it was then.
The ones I checked? Not so much. Some were more, some were less, most if not all were pretty close, and given the 6 year or so gap GW seems to like for price increases would be between this increase and the last on plus I had to try and remember what I was paying 20+ years ago... https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ is free to use if you have a better memory. 25.00 1993 Dollars are 44.32 2019 Dollars. $35 is $62.08 Going the other direction, The $100.00 Repulsor today would have been $56.41 The $80 Repulsor would have been $45.13 The $65 Redemptor would have been $36.67
I found this guy who did this a few years ago - https://hubcap-reloaded.livejournal.com/379050.html with WD prices - a year 2000 WD priced the Land Raider at 30 British Pounds. The exchange rate in 2000 was 1.45 to 1.5 - making the land raider 43.50 to 45.00 (probably $45) $45 in 2000 is 66.94 today.
The Tactical box jumped from 12 pounds (17.50 probably a $20.00 box) in 2000 to 23 pounds in 2012 (33.35 which could be why I remember $35 Tactical Marines) $20 2000 dollars are 29.75 today. $35 2012 dollars are $39.05 today.
MrMoustaffa wrote: I'd buy the price increase if this wasn't the best theyve been since Lord of the Rings. I'm sorry but you can't tell me GW has had record earnings and sales and then say "oh trust me guys, price increases are totally necessary!" Especially not when companies like Tamiya, Bandai, or even direct competition like Warlord can make a similar quality kit for far cheaper.
That goes double for kits where the molds long paid themselves off. I want to see someone argue the Cadian shock troops deserved a price increase with a straight face. I can get literally 4x the models in plastic at that price that are higher quality with more options, or even jump over to resin boutique models in some countries. If you were trying to argue something like skitarii needed a price increase that's one thing, those are gorgeous models, very complex, and relatively new. That's understandable. But don't tell me a kit that's been around over 10 years needs it, especially when said kit used to over double the models for less than that price.
I think there is a big difference here though. Tamiya, and Bandai have a much more broad audience, that is to say they appeal to people who may have no interest in table top gaming. Especially if you add in something like Revel or Tamiya which have broad appeal. The old kits getting price increases as far as I can tell have been pretty minor. We're talking about +5$ for guardsmen, seems a bit silly for someone to get upset about. I would guess the older kits aren't selling, especially when compared with newer kits.
The only think stopping me from buying a guard army is the fact that neither regiment I like has models in plastic. If they did, I'd go full in on a new army this fall.
G00fySmiley wrote: It is great they are making things in the UK and self financing their own factories with money on hand vs loans. that is great... for the company. It is certainly a thing some consumers may value (I fall into this category of good job GW), but others simply will not care and just buy from whatever is the cheapest and IP law be damned.
I have seen so many players buying chinacast/russian cast models that are literal remolds from GW sprue and identical (other than costing like 30% of what GW charges) At the end of the day no matter how well a company treats their employees, runs their business or is good for the community... a markup to $50 on $0.25 worth of plastic in a $0.10 box is hard to stomach.
Personally I would love to see GW open a few more factories but maybe in other market. Maybe one in NZ would give those down under a price break, and maybe on in the US or Canada to pay less for shipping around the world.
Of course at the end of day gw can't compete in price with copycats. That is lost war the day it starts. Gw lower their prices, recaster does too. Gw hits point of loss on sales first
Except as we've seen in other industries (namely music) if you drop the price point to something most consumers are willing to pay you can still make a profit and reduce piracy.
GW for all it's faults makes good miniatures and unless I've really missed something no pirates have their own polystyrene injection mold set up, so if my choice was $20 for plastic and $10 for resin I'd sure pick the plastic because it's still in my price range and it's the better material to work with. Even if the pirates dropped it to $5 I'd still pay more for the better product. But that gets harder and harder to justify the higher the price (and the higher price disparity) gets.
I feel the same way, but with very few financial obligations, I have the time and money to spend on my hobby. It might be different for someone living on a more fixed budget. There is also a great feeling that comes from supporting the company though, buying the official kits and working on them. I think it just feels....nice?
I was kinda hoping they'd wait till after brexit settled to figure this one out, but at the rate it's going I understand settling on the 'well feth me, may as well make money while we wait' side.
That said, I can only take this discussion so seriously when the sponsored article over on the front page is rent to own miniatures. There's wasting money on luxury plastics, and then there's throwing it out the window completely.
1. A Lot of assertions, no citations or valid demonstration of basis or foundation.
2. Link to "proof" of earnings statement was bugged and didn't go to anything I could tell, so I'm not saying anything about his "source" that he did provide.
3. His rational is self-justifying, or more simply, he's using his assertions as proof of his assertions. This is a logical fallacy.
4. Claims personal experience or makes himself out to be an expert. This requires proof, or it is an appeal to authority fallacy.
5. False Dichotomy. Either GW is motivated by greed, or it isn't. Logical fallacy. GW can be greedy, and not motivated by it.
6. Very interesting article otherwise. If true, color me surprised.
I agree with most of this, even though the 'article' says some decent things about the company, which would be nice if proven true.
However, and this is me nitpicking here and maybe I'm an idiot who doesn't understand logical fallacies, but wouldn't being greedy, by definition, be your motivation? As in the overt consumption or acquisition of something (somewhat) pathologically driving your behaviour?
I can't visualise being greedy, which is doled out by a value judgement of another's behaviour on an indeterminate spectrum between "what I find acceptable" to "what I don't find acceptable", being applied and yet not being someone's motivation, I mean..that's the point of using the term to describe someone's behaviour.
Also in terms of the writer's point about being motivated by greed, it seems the argument is that they could do a lot more (as a business) if they were as cynically motivated by the greed of acquiring more wealth as is often stated by critics of the company.
In that sense it's a very valid argument...if true.
Of course, if you are talking about a vague, degree, of greed where people's behaviour is inconsistent and they may be motivated by different drives at different moments, of course I agree. But that also kind of works in the company's favour as well, being as it's made up of these inconsistent human beings, it would then be fair to view the entity they are part of in light of this, normal, but often irritating, inconsistency in behaviour. Otherwise one is being very intellectually dishonest.
Which I suppose comes back to the essential point of that reddit post: That they aren't as cynically motivated by greed as is sometimes assumed.
... Only if you're a 12 year old kid who thinks CCGs = table top gaming. WOTC also produces D&D yes, but they are VERY much being challanged by Pathfinder these days
People still play Pathfinder?
It's a mess of a freaking system compared to how smooth and streamlined 5E is.
That was largely my impression as well. The only reason Pathfinder gained the foothold they have is because it was more D&D than D&D 4th edition. The impression I got of 5th edition was it really returned to its roots while still have more modern streamlined rules that make the old 3rd/3.5 D&D rules look mighty rickety. I am sure that Pathfinder is still the second most popular RPG, but like whatever is 2nd to Warhammer, it is fair distance away now. Being that is basically an OGL of 3rd edition D&D, I don't see it picking up the steam it once had so long as WOTC don't try and new Coke their system again.
leaving aside pathfinder vs D&D for now. I think it's worth noting that table top RPGs are also very differant from table top mini games due to "buy in" most people know D&D, on that I agree with, but at the same time, if I'm in a D&D group and am intrigued by say.. Wraith and Glory, it's a realitively simple matter for me to buy a single copy of the core book, share it with my game group, and play the RPG. total buy in for a RPG can be less then a hundred bucks for a group of 5 people. (don't get me wrong I like to have a core copy of the rules of whatever system I play for my own use, I'm just talking the minimum) 40k? you simply can't do that. for a group of 5 people, you need 5 armies, that's a big buy in. and it makes switching mini games, or trying a new mini game a MUCH less agreeable prospect. Off the top of my head, my own gaming Library contains, D&D, Pathfinder, Champions, Star Trek Aventures, Star Wars Saga Edition, Dark Heresy (as well as rogue trader, death watch and black crusade which I consider essentially "campaign books" I admit) Shadowrun, Battletech, and proably a few others I forget. There's no way I'd invest in that many systems if I needed to spend the kinda money nesscary for war gaming.
1. A Lot of assertions, no citations or valid demonstration of basis or foundation.
2. Link to "proof" of earnings statement was bugged and didn't go to anything I could tell, so I'm not saying anything about his "source" that he did provide.
3. His rational is self-justifying, or more simply, he's using his assertions as proof of his assertions. This is a logical fallacy.
4. Claims personal experience or makes himself out to be an expert. This requires proof, or it is an appeal to authority fallacy.
5. False Dichotomy. Either GW is motivated by greed, or it isn't. Logical fallacy. GW can be greedy, and not motivated by it.
6. Very interesting article otherwise. If true, color me surprised.
Agreed. My partner who has a PhD in a similar field to the dude says that a bunch of the stuff could be totally wrong. It's an opinion piece rather than a factual document. But in the academic world everything is opinion with data and everything can be argued.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think the term greed gets tossed about a lot and we imagine it as a big fat corporate man with a cigar eating money and always wanting more.
However, what we really mean is them going "should we think about us or the consumer first?" And then them thinking about themselves.
BrianDavion wrote: I think it's worth noting that table top RPGs are also very differant from table top mini games due to "buy in" most people know D&D, on that I agree with, but at the same time, if I'm in a D&D group and am intrigued by say.. Wraith and Glory, it's a realitively simple matter for me to buy a single copy of the core book, share it with my game group, and play the RPG. total buy in for a RPG can be less then a hundred bucks for a group of 5 people. (don't get me wrong I like to have a core copy of the rules of whatever system I play for my own use, I'm just talking the minimum) 40k? you simply can't do that. for a group of 5 people, you need 5 armies, that's a big buy in. and it makes switching mini games, or trying a new mini game a MUCH less agreeable prospect. Off the top of my head, my own gaming Library contains, D&D, Pathfinder, Champions, Star Trek Aventures, Star Wars Saga Edition, Dark Heresy (as well as rogue trader, death watch and black crusade which I consider essentially "campaign books" I admit) Shadowrun, Battletech, and proably a few others I forget. There's no way I'd invest in that many systems if I needed to spend the kinda money nesscary for war gaming.
Agree with this. I'm a DM for The Dark Eye aka Realms of Arkania (the German equivalent of D&D) which is infamous for the vast amount of books they publish because there are rules for everything everywhere in its playing world. I own multiple hard-cover books and a dozen e-books (official ones I bought from their store). My players have 2-3 books at maximum, some have none. I severely doubt that you can build and paint a 1500 point army for the money I spent on all that.
The point of conflict has always been people thinking that tabletop wargaming should be equivalent in costs to other hobbies like D&D and that a full army should cost as much as the buy in of a D&D group ($100 or so)
Thats been a common theme for a couple of decades in price threads.
auticus wrote: The point of conflict has always been people thinking that tabletop wargaming should be equivalent in costs to other hobbies like D&D and that a full army should cost as much as the buy in of a D&D group ($100 or so)
Thats been a common theme for a couple of decades in price threads.
Another thing I notice is that people often overlook two or three key aspects
1) GW kits often come with spare parts and optional builds. Most other miniature ranges don't have any of this at all, a majority are mono-pose mono-build models. Infinty, Warmachine, Malifaux, etc.... The vast majority give you 1 build per model.
2) Army size - GW armies are often bigger out of the box than those other skirmish games. Though Warmachine has scaled up somewhat, most of the others are still strong skirmish games.
Whilst this doesn't explain it all it certainly explains some of the differences.
This is also why skirmish games are so prevalent and saturate the market. There really is no room in the market for another mass battle game, and the interest for anything beyond skirmish I think is extraordinarily niche.
auticus wrote: This is also why skirmish games are so prevalent and saturate the market. There really is no room in the market for another mass battle game, and the interest for anything beyond skirmish I think is extraordinarily niche.
Yes and honestly no.
I see a good few mass battle games try to get into the market. I think the issue is not that there isn't demand but that:
1) Bigger games are a bigger investment and players want to play with those models not shelve them. Starting a 40K or AoS army you can pretty much guarantee that you can take it anywhere in the country to a club and find players to play against. If they play wargames they likely play those, and if not currently active there's likely more than a few in the club with armies.
2) Model quality. Kings of War is a big one here; it became very popular as a rules set, but the models. Eh honestly hte models whilst they hold a style, appear more akin to a quality from 20 or 30 years ago when you compare them to what GW puts out.
And that's the other issue GW puts out a really high bar that is hard to beat, esp if you want a mass battle game and thus need a LOT of models.
Skirmish games are popular because companies can make them far more cheaply. I think had Warmachine not crippled itself on MKIII and with the shutdown of many of their outreach programs (Press Gangers, their magazine, mostof their forums) they would easily be moving toward a mass battle system like AoS/Kings of war. They did exactly what most of the game companies are likely hoping to do - start with skirmish and scale up gradually.
We forget that 40K started with what we'd consider today as skirmish sized armies.
It's also easier to start your company with resin/metal on the skirmish scale and then build toward possible plastics for mass armies. Otherwise getting together the money for plastics for huge armies is a very big investment and a huge amount of risk and the miniatures market is just not big enough to attract the super investors needed for that. Even Kickstarters come in very shy on raising those kind of funds
It's a mess of a freaking system compared to how smooth and streamlined 5E is.
Spoiler:
5e is a good system and there are many things I prefer about it (the ability to move before, after, and/or between attacks, the ability to full attack after moving more than 5ft, the scaling cantrips that means Archmages aren't stuck using crossbows etc.).
However, I don't think it's outright better than Pathfinder. For all that I love 5e and the improvements its made, there are also things about Pathfinder that I prefer:
- I love the customisation available to races. Especially for races like Tieflings, which 5e basically threw in a dumpster marked 'play Hellboy or GTFO'.
- Pathfinder has a lot more basic classes - including many that don't have an equivalent in 5e (e.g. the Summoner). Maybe these will eventually make it into 5e, but until then Pathfinder is the only option for them.
- IMO Pathfinder's skill system is by far the best I've seen for a D&D-type system. I think it's better than that of any D&D edition, including 5e.
- Likewise, I much prefer the Damage Reduction/Elemental Resistance system in Pathfinder - which allows for different degrees of resistance, to the Resistance system in 5e where everything just halves damage (because apparently damage - 10 is just too complicated ).
- It's certainly not as streamlined as 5e but that's not always a negative thing. For example, whilst I much prefer 5e's combat in terms of moving and attacking, so many of its monsters - even 'boss' monsters - have been stripped of most or all of their interesting abilities and/or spells. Each to their own but I'm really not a fan of this.
- Legendary Resistance can go die in a fire.
Again, I love D&D 5e and it's been by far my most played system. I just don't think it's better than Pathfinder in every aspect and I can certainly understand people choosing to still play the latter instead.
1) GW kits often come with spare parts and optional builds. Most other miniature ranges don't have any of this at all, a majority are mono-pose mono-build models. Infinty, Warmachine, Malifaux, etc.... The vast majority give you 1 build per model.
GW kits also have a tendency to come with insufficient special weapons to equip every member of the squad with the same weapon. So I fear I'm not willing to give them extra credit for giving me parts I don't need in exchange for not including parts I do. And then charging through the nose for those parts anyway.
Kings of War is a mass battle game, but it has been around since the mid 2000s. It was where a lot of whfb folks went to when 7th turned to 8th edition.
Your point #1 is the keystone to why mass battle games these days for the most part fail unless that mass battle system lets you use whatever models you want.
Personally I would love to see GW open a few more factories but maybe in other market. Maybe one in NZ would give those down under a price break, and maybe on in the US or Canada to pay less for shipping around the world.
They used to have a foundry in the US producing metal models. It would be unlikely to be cost effective to have to double up all of the moulds to produce plastic in North America, though, and even less so for the volume of sales down under.
yea, I get they would probably not be best served to make all molds 2-3 times. though with modern metal 3d printing you can make injection molds for much less than you could a decade ago. but moving some for major kits might help and allow them to lower base costs for entry. Say make the most commonly selling models. Ork boyz, imperial guardsmen, primaris intercessors, etc. there and leave the less commonly selling things like shadowswords, stompas, wulfen (and other individual chapter models) still get just made in UK. Then going forward as new molds are made for new units they get 3x what they usually do. might make sense as less shipping and less costly realestate available.
This was such a typical reddit post. A wall of text from a person with only a semi-relevant background claiming one thing to be true than proving another. All that was proved was that GW doesn't really operate the same as a normal modern business. Seriously, self-financing all these new projects rather than taking out debt? That's not virtuous, it's just dumb. That's exactly what business loans are for, and that would be better for GW's bottom line. *Then* maybe they wouldn't have to pass the costs onto the customer! All this post showed me is that GW is used to a massive margin, and they will pass costs directly onto the consumer rather than cut into that. Again, as others have said, all those details were well and good but I'm still being asked to pay more for Cadians and Termagants, and that's ludicrous.
It's a mess of a freaking system compared to how smooth and streamlined 5E is.
Spoiler:
5e is a good system and there are many things I prefer about it (the ability to move before, after, and/or between attacks, the ability to full attack after moving more than 5ft, the scaling cantrips that means Archmages aren't stuck using crossbows etc.).
However, I don't think it's outright better than Pathfinder. For all that I love 5e and the improvements its made, there are also things about Pathfinder that I prefer: - I love the customisation available to races. Especially for races like Tieflings, which 5e basically threw in a dumpster marked 'play Hellboy or GTFO'. - Pathfinder has a lot more basic classes - including many that don't have an equivalent in 5e (e.g. the Summoner). Maybe these will eventually make it into 5e, but until then Pathfinder is the only option for them. - IMO Pathfinder's skill system is by far the best I've seen for a D&D-type system. I think it's better than that of any D&D edition, including 5e. - Likewise, I much prefer the Damage Reduction/Elemental Resistance system in Pathfinder - which allows for different degrees of resistance, to the Resistance system in 5e where everything just halves damage (because apparently damage - 10 is just too complicated ). - It's certainly not as streamlined as 5e but that's not always a negative thing. For example, whilst I much prefer 5e's combat in terms of moving and attacking, so many of its monsters - even 'boss' monsters - have been stripped of most or all of their interesting abilities and/or spells. Each to their own but I'm really not a fan of this. - Legendary Resistance can go die in a fire.
Again, I love D&D 5e and it's been by far my most played system. I just don't think it's better than Pathfinder in every aspect and I can certainly understand people choosing to still play the latter instead.
1) GW kits often come with spare parts and optional builds. Most other miniature ranges don't have any of this at all, a majority are mono-pose mono-build models. Infinty, Warmachine, Malifaux, etc.... The vast majority give you 1 build per model.
GW kits also have a tendency to come with insufficient special weapons to equip every member of the squad with the same weapon. So I fear I'm not willing to give them extra credit for giving me parts I don't need in exchange for not including parts I do. And then charging through the nose for those parts anyway.
I feel like GW has come full circle in the extra bits department. My oldest plastic sprues were quite barebones. Then the later 40k and WFB sprues had tons of extra bits and weapons and even if you didnt get enough in 1 tactical box, by the time you have bought an assault marine squad, a devastator squad and a few elite units you had enough fists,swords, flamers, meltas and plasmas to go around for the squads that needed them. Same with boxes made for making one or more character with different options in the same box.
But now we have Primaris units and characters that are monopose and have 0 melee/special weapon options and costs a ton. Wouldnt surprise me if they extend the liberal choices normal squad leaders/characters have to the primaris counterparts without giving us any more bits. The intercessor sgt can wear a power sword/fist but there isnt any in the box and I need 10 fists for my next unit of sanguinary guard, which I thankfully already have 8 extras (+2 from the Sanguinary guard box) from earlier boxes of marines over the years but my primaris will have to be without fists :(.
I aslo feel sorry for all tactical terminators and grey knights the last few years with them losing their arms and guns for equipping better units with stormbolters, and even shields from the assault terminators, since there isnt any good source of them at all from GW. I have been taking glances at my half finished terminators and their stormbolters and I can feel them sweating at their shelf. If GW sold me a box of 10 left handed and 10 right handed stormbolters for the same prices as a tactical squad I and every marine player I know, very few of us lately though, would buy a box in a heartbeat. I have wanted a Storm bolter sprue since 5th edition like they have the special weapons or jumppacks on their online store.
... Only if you're a 12 year old kid who thinks CCGs = table top gaming. WOTC also produces D&D yes, but they are VERY much being challanged by Pathfinder these days
People still play Pathfinder?
It's a mess of a freaking system compared to how smooth and streamlined 5E is.
5ed is incredibly bland. I find it good only for beginners.
If I want a simple system I just play BECMI or one retro-clone of that version of the game.
I've played D&D for over 15 years and I think 5e is the best edition I've played. And judging from YouTube, I think most veterans feel similarly. But if you feel differently, then I ain't gonna begrudge you your opinion on the matter.
... Only if you're a 12 year old kid who thinks CCGs = table top gaming. WOTC also produces D&D yes, but they are VERY much being challanged by Pathfinder these days
People still play Pathfinder?
It's a mess of a freaking system compared to how smooth and streamlined 5E is.
5ed is incredibly bland. I find it good only for beginners.
If I want a simple system I just play BECMI or one retro-clone of that version of the game.
I've been playing Pathfinder for almost 10 years now. I once joined a 5th ed group, and had to quit after several sessions because of how dull and empty the system is.
All the Pathfinder material is free online, so it's not hard to get into.
Pathfinder, I don't know about 2.0, suffers from a lot of system flaws from DnD 3rd. I can see people jumping to 5th for sure. I prefer classless systems strongly.
Price increases in general, unless they are egregious, can always been summed up as inflation. We all get uptight about it be the reality is, unless you are still in your 20s, you probably remember when anything from gas to a BigMac combo were less than half what they are now. Thats just a fact of modern economic paradigms.
What troubles me is how this hobby continues to get away with pricing hard good (models) based not on production cost, but rather on points or "in-game" value. A quick scan of the price hikes seems to only further exacerbate that.
On the notion of "everything made in UK", are not the books printed in China?
What troubles me is how this hobby continues to get away with pricing hard good (models) based not on production cost, but rather on points or "in-game" value. A quick scan of the price hikes seems to only further exacerbate that.
On the notion of "everything made in UK", are not the books printed in China?
From what I gather the only "link to points" is that GW scales prices based "roughly" on purchase quantities. Ergo a hero will be priced more than a basic troop set in terms of materials involved because they can expect to only sell you one hero pack, but they can expect to see you multiple troop packs. However its not so simple because some troops are more expensive than others which suggests that there's some army or set (production blocks rather than army blocks) pricing going on - ergo groups of models supporting each other not based at the army level.
Sunsanvil wrote: What troubles me is how this hobby continues to get away with pricing hard good (models) based not on production cost, but rather on points or "in-game" value. A quick scan of the price hikes seems to only further exacerbate that.
Look at CCG and you will see this, but orders of magnitude higher. How much more for a rare Magic card that cost the exact same amount to print?
One of the reasons I never got into CCG.
Sunsanvil wrote: What troubles me is how this hobby continues to get away with pricing hard good (models) based not on production cost, but rather on points or "in-game" value. A quick scan of the price hikes seems to only further exacerbate that.
Look at CCG and you will see this, but orders of magnitude higher. How much more for a rare Magic card that cost the exact same amount to print?
One of the reasons I never got into CCG.
Wizards sells booster packs, which have a flat cost. Relative rarity/usefulness of different cards may move the prices every which way, but that's not via Wizards and so you can't compare it to what GW does.
Sunsanvil wrote: Price increases in general, unless they are egregious, can always been summed up as inflation. We all get uptight about it be the reality is, unless you are still in your 20s, you probably remember when anything from gas to a BigMac combo were less than half what they are now. Thats just a fact of modern economic paradigms.
What troubles me is how this hobby continues to get away with pricing hard good (models) based not on production cost, but rather on points or "in-game" value. A quick scan of the price hikes seems to only further exacerbate that.
On the notion of "everything made in UK", are not the books printed in China?
Prices doesnt have to increase with inflation. Many things we use today get cheaper and cheaper while also becoming more and more powerful. Like electronics. You get way more for 100$/€ today than you got for 150 10 years ago. And R&D is just getting more and more expensive in that business every year. Production technique and scale makes the stuff cheaper with time.
GW also has better production abilities and scale than before so they could also be cheaper with time. And I dont buy that designers cost them alot. They probably pay less of a % of their income each year for that stuff so for them product design gets cheaper unlike for computers were companies like Intel put in billions just in research and increase it every year.
For a tiny studio I would suspect that designers take a large share of the tiny profits they may have but I dont see GW having that problem. Their main income is 40k and how much new designing have they actually done in the last decade? Almost everything is just a tweak on something already existing and they have better tools than ever to so it with too.
Sunsanvil wrote: Price increases in general, unless they are egregious, can always been summed up as inflation. We all get uptight about it be the reality is, unless you are still in your 20s, you probably remember when anything from gas to a BigMac combo were less than half what they are now. Thats just a fact of modern economic paradigms.
What troubles me is how this hobby continues to get away with pricing hard good (models) based not on production cost, but rather on points or "in-game" value. A quick scan of the price hikes seems to only further exacerbate that.
On the notion of "everything made in UK", are not the books printed in China?
Prices doesnt have to increase with inflation. Many things we use today get cheaper and cheaper while also becoming more and more powerful. Like electronics. You get way more for 100$/€ today than you got for 150 10 years ago. And R&D is just getting more and more expensive in that business every year. Production technique and scale makes the stuff cheaper with time.
GW also has better production abilities and scale than before so they could also be cheaper with time. And I dont buy that designers cost them alot. They probably pay less of a % of their income each year for that stuff so for them product design gets cheaper unlike for computers were companies like Intel put in billions just in research and increase it every year.
For a tiny studio I would suspect that designers take a large share of the tiny profits they may have but I dont see GW having that problem. Their main income is 40k and how much new designing have they actually done in the last decade? Almost everything is just a tweak on something already existing and they have better tools than ever to so it with too.
+1 to all of this. In fact, I think if it weren't for their brick and mortar presence (which I think is a mixed bag, but that's another topic), GW's margins would be enormous -- as mentioned above, they're not breaking the bank on design. They're CERTAINLY not breaking the bank on rules and IP development (12 guys writing rules and making piddly wages for 40k probably means they've got at most 50 in the company).
GW's financials can be used to show their overall profit margin. And with a by category breakdown. You can see that here.
There are a lot of assumptions going on here, such as piddly wages for the design team, tech cost only going down. And there are some outright wrong claims (Almost everything is a tweak on something etc).
I mean, that's objectively wrong. Imperial Knights? Less than 10 years old. Entirely new line. Genestealer Cults, Adeptus Mechanicus, Dark Eldar, Kharadron, Sylvaneth, Daughters of Khaine, Nighthaunt, Stormcast Eternals, Warhammer Underworlds, Bloodbowl, Necromunda, Adeptus Titanicus, the Primaris Range, Adeptus Custodes, Fyreslayers, Idoneth Deepkin. All very recent (I think Dark Eldar still squeak in under the 10 years claim?), all either entirely new ranges, or significant updates of older ones, with minimal recycling of models.
And ultimately, GW are a plc, beholden solely to their share holders. And that's not many of us (I don't any, for the record). We as customers? Yeah, to do the former they need to please the latter as a whole. But individual customers? Nope. No obligation to us whatsoever.
Profit margin? Last year, they raked in an impressive £219,868,000. For evidence, see the link above. Profit before taxation? £74,546,000.00
By my calculation, that's almost exactly 33% profit. Before tax. Which they explain to be 19.9% of that. So their 'take home' I work out to be in the region of £59,711,346.00.
That's not the massive price gougey profit margin many seem to expect them to have.
A 33% profit margin in ANY business is massive. Huge. Highly profitable.
I ran a bakery. If I could push margins past 30%, I was making huge profits. It's tough to make that kind of margin on something as cheap as bread.
If GW is raking in a 33% margin before taxes, any business would be elated and ecstatic to make that kind of margin. When a third of your business is profit, the last thing you need to do is hike prices.
Sunsanvil wrote: On the notion of "everything made in UK", are not the books printed in China?
The initial large print runs are, at least. They're wanting to move the printing in-house (along with cards, transfers, boxes, etc.) but the factory isn't there yet (and I doubt it would be cost-efficient, but what do I know).
Ghool wrote: A 33% profit margin in ANY business is massive. Huge. Highly profitable.
I ran a bakery. If I could push margins past 30%, I was making huge profits. It's tough to make that kind of margin on something as cheap as bread.
If GW is raking in a 33% margin before taxes, any business would be elated and ecstatic to make that kind of margin. When a third of your business is profit, the last thing you need to do is hike prices.
Standard in hospitality is 60% GP. The sector and industry massively impact what margin you expect, so it's not really comparable.
It's about a bakery being extremely profitable with over a 30% profit margin. Bread has huge margins and it's easy to make money on. Not a lot of businesses can make those sorts of profits. Not unless your costs are extremely low. And with bread they are.
If GW is making a greater than 30% margin, it means their operating costs are very very low. Any business and I mean any business, that produces a product will be hugely successful with a margin like GW has. So much so, that raising prices is not needed. If their margins were taking a hit, I can see prices needing to be raised. But they're gangbusters on the profits. As a former business owner, I can see they're already doing exceptionally well. I don't see the need for a price hike.
Ghool wrote: A 33% profit margin in ANY business is massive. Huge. Highly profitable.
I ran a bakery. If I could push margins past 30%, I was making huge profits. It's tough to make that kind of margin on something as cheap as bread.
If GW is raking in a 33% margin before taxes, any business would be elated and ecstatic to make that kind of margin. When a third of your business is profit, the last thing you need to do is hike prices.
Standard in hospitality is 60% GP. The sector and industry massively impact what margin you expect, so it's not really comparable.
Show me any business that's making a 60% gross profit please. I have never in my 25 years of running g restaurants and bakeries have I ever seen one have higher than a 35% GP.
The standard for hospitality is 30%, and in any business that's doing well.
GW do, and as stated, are legally obliged to turn the biggest profit margin they can.
With things going all over the shop politically, the price rises are quite possibly 'make hay while the sun shines'.
UK businesses are not legally obliged to turn the largest profit they can. They are legally obliged to work towards the success of the company, but that term can be defined in a number of ways and is deliberately left vague by the law. It does, obviously, involve having positive cash flow and/or making investments towards one, but maximisation of profit is only a criterion if it is stated as such by the company itself. There are a number of obligations, but most are linked to the purposes of the company.
No idea about other countries, but GW is a UK company, so if it set t's purposes as, say "Maintaining the longevity of our flagship gaming products whilst ensuring continued excellence in model design and basing all operations in the UK", that would give them a different set of goals to pure profit (though none zero profit is a necessary means to the end for those goals). I doubt that is the GW position because I just made it up, but I wouldn't be surprised if they have purposes beyond profit and as such are legally obliged to fulfil those goals, as well as the none profit-based measures of success.
Spoiler:
Companies Act 2006 wrote:172: Duty to promote the success of the company
(1)A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to—
(a)the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,
(b)the interests of the company’s employees,
(c)the need to foster the company’s business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,
(d)the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment,
(e)the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and
(f)the need to act fairly as between members of the company.
(2)Where or to the extent that the purposes of the company consist of or include purposes other than the benefit of its members, subsection (1) has effect as if the reference to promoting the success of the company for the benefit of its members were to achieving those purposes.
(3)The duty imposed by this section has effect subject to any enactment or rule of law requiring directors, in certain circumstances, to consider or act in the interests of creditors of the company.
The Company's main priority is the company although the well being of staff is mentioned along with shareholders and the customers.
I just priced up the 129pp GC army from the June WD battle report and it comes too £790 for about 2 thirds of an army. That’s crazy forget stuff like ps5’s you could get a gaming PC for what a full army cost. Hell you could get a decent holiday for that it’s crazy money for mass produced plastic toy soldiers hobby or not.
GW run there products to produce a minimum margin of 70% so on the above army they make roughly £550 Profit and that is the bare minimum.
GW in no way NEED to put any prices up based just on there previous financial report, they WANT to put prices up because they are selling hand over fist even at the current very high prices and now want to milk the mug...loyal customers just like Kirby never left.
Honestly it’s fair enough if your willing to pay these prices it is your money, however the current price rise and the following price rises to come are indefensible. Unless your a GW shareholder or a Randian nutjob
Klickor wrote: Prices doesnt have to increase with inflation. Many things we use today get cheaper and cheaper while also becoming more and more powerful. Like electronics. You get way more for 100$/€ today than you got for 150 10 years ago.
Well, electronics/tech is a sort of special case in that they are introduced at very very low production/high cost, and quickly ramp up to high production/low cost. Yet even then, its not as crazy as it once was: strait-purchase iPhone prices have more than doubled in 10 years.
To me the question is less one of "are these price increases justified?" and more one of "are these prices justified (period)?". In other words, I thought GW model prices were ludicrous before the recent price hike. Ludicrous prices are subject to inflation just the same as reasonable prices in that if GW was shafting us before, they eventually will need to raise prices if they want to continue to ream us.
For me personally, more evil than overpriced plastic models is disproportionately overpriced plastic models.
1. A Lot of assertions, no citations or valid demonstration of basis or foundation.
2. Link to "proof" of earnings statement was bugged and didn't go to anything I could tell, so I'm not saying anything about his "source" that he did provide.
3. His rational is self-justifying, or more simply, he's using his assertions as proof of his assertions. This is a logical fallacy.
4. Claims personal experience or makes himself out to be an expert. This requires proof, or it is an appeal to authority fallacy.
5. False Dichotomy. Either GW is motivated by greed, or it isn't. Logical fallacy. GW can be greedy, and not motivated by it.
6. Very interesting article otherwise. If true, color me surprised.
Reddit in a nutshell my friend.
Heh.
Making a list of fallacies is not an effective refutation of a post. Dakka in a nutshell.
1. He specifically cites their earnings report which is publicly available
2. See #1 - or click the link (https://s19485.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Annual-report-with-cover-final-v.pdf)
3. No he didn't. He explained from what perspective he was viewing the information.
4. No he didn't. Each point is self contained and bears no reference to his expertise.
5. The world isn't black and white.
Ghool wrote:If GW is raking in a 33% margin before taxes, any business would be elated and ecstatic to make that kind of margin. When a third of your business is profit, the last thing you need to do is hike prices.
This ^^^
For comparison, a margin of 4% at the low end and 10% at the high end is normal for the UK supermarket industry, which is one of the most competitive markets of any kind, anywhere in the world. GW is many things, a successful business that represents a solid, long term value investment if you're into shares for one, but what it is not is some beneficent master that absorbs costs on behalf of its customers. They have a strong position and a very reliable customer base and they know it.
I see lots of talk about Brexit having some negative impact on and frankly it's ignorant. The biggest GW customer is the USA and the UK, they won't be impacted.
At most there will be 9% tariff of goods into Europe. This is highly unlikely as a no deal Brexit is still likely to be avoided, even if it means a temporary suspension of taxes and duties whilst a deal is finalised post leaving the EU.
In the case that it happens he government is preparing a tax subsidy package for business that might be affected by the tariffs.
I have no idea about business economics, business ethics or any of the other things pointed out in the article.
GW's prices have gone beyond what I'm willing to pay (I should add, probably...) that's pretty much the end of it for me.
Time will tell if enough other people feel the same way...
I'll say here what I said in the other thread regarding the price hikes. I'm familiar with Games-Workshop's dedication to its Nottingham based manufacturing. It's admirable, and I hope they keep it going forever. However that doesn't change the reality, that their product is barely affordable in relatively less developed economies such as where I live, and if lost sales due to a disorderly Brexit force prices to go any higher, the market here may very well collapse entirely. That would break my heart. If the only way to survive here after Brexit were to open up new manufacturing for regional markets, while keeping Nottingham open for the UK market, I think most people would understand their decision to do so, and give them the kudos they deserve for holding out for so long.
Ishagu wrote: I think people need to be reminded that GW is a luxury product. It isn't food, it isn't fuel, it isn't a utility.
Feel free to walk away if you think it's too expensive. You don't need it for your livelihood.
No gak Sherlock....
Doesn’t mean it cannot be overpriced and not value for money like literally every other product you can buy with your hard earned cash, essential or otherwise.
Ishagu wrote: I think people need to be reminded that GW is a luxury product. It isn't food, it isn't fuel, it isn't a utility.
Feel free to walk away if you think it's too expensive. You don't need it for your livelihood.
No gak Sherlock....
Doesn’t mean it cannot be overpriced and not value for money like literally every other product you can buy with your hard earned cash, essential or otherwise.
Of course it can be overpriced, but the thing everyone has to remember is that they don't have a right to access GW stuff, and that they can set any price they want for it.
There is no moral right to play GW games. If you don't like the prices, give your money to a different games producer.
Ultimately if GW are making healthy profits, they've probably put the right price on things - even if a few people aren't happy about it.
Why are both of you spouting this stuff like it's some kind of revelation? All of this has been said over and over again going back decades with the same arguments being made only coming out of different people's mouths.
BOTH of you have said the good ol' GW white knight chestnut of "GTFO if you do not like the prices". Oh, yowie wowie! You pair must be excellent for cultivating new blood for this hobby...
Despite all of that, everything you said RE: prices is true; it does not nullify the right for anyone to discuss the topic. Value for money and affordability are two different things. I can easily afford GW's single characters for example, do I find them value for money? Absolutely not.
Grimtuff wrote: Why are both of you spouting this stuff like it's some kind of revelation? All of this has been said over and over again going back decades with the same arguments being made only coming out of different people's mouths.
BOTH of you have said the good ol' GW white knight chestnut of "GTFO if you do not like the prices". Oh, yowie wowie! You pair must be excellent for cultivating new blood for this hobby...
Despite all of that, everything you said RE: prices is true; it does not nullify the right for anyone to discuss the topic. Value for money and affordability are two different things. I can easily afford GW's single characters for example, do I find them value for money? Absolutely not.
This +1
Nobody is saying GW is essential to anybody's life.
You aren't saying it, but in the past this discussion has always devolved to a point where people make claims as if they are entitled to play GW games, and get casts of their models by any means.
I'm just trying to head that off.
As I say, if you don't like the pricing you are perfectly entitled to that opinion. However basic economics suggests their pricing is appropriate for the demand of their product, based on how successful the company is.
As for international pricing, well compare the price of an American made Guitar between America and the UK. Honestly, I don't really understand why 40k is so popular in the USA when they make so many games domestically that can be accessed for far cheaper.
Fire warriors are an obnoxious $50 a box since they are a dual kit with 3 different weapon choices for each dude. If GW wants to raise prices to match production costs etc then they should limit the amount of extra garbage they force me to buy while reducing the bottleneck on actually useful bits. It hits you again on the secondary market since the price of kits going up will drive up the price of individual bits on ebay etc which you are forced to go to if you want moderately optimized or matching loadouts. Price increases on top of forcing people to buy extras they don't want or need is double dipping and makes it significantly harder to choke down. Bottlenecking useful bits so people are forced to rely on ebay for things like the Reaper chaincannon or CIBs only adds insult to injury.
The Company's main priority is the company although the well being of staff is mentioned along with shareholders and the customers.
I just priced up the 129pp GC army from the June WD battle report and it comes too £790 for about 2 thirds of an army. That’s crazy forget stuff like ps5’s you could get a gaming PC for what a full army cost. Hell you could get a decent holiday for that it’s crazy money for mass produced plastic toy soldiers hobby or not.
GW run there products to produce a minimum margin of 70% so on the above army they make roughly £550 Profit and that is the bare minimum.
GW in no way NEED to put any prices up based just on there previous financial report, they WANT to put prices up because they are selling hand over fist even at the current very high prices and now want to milk the mug...loyal customers just like Kirby never left.
Honestly it’s fair enough if your willing to pay these prices it is your money, however the current price rise and the following price rises to come are indefensible. Unless your a GW shareholder or a Randian nutjob
GW make 17% profit on their goods, because they have to package, deliver, advertise and keep stores running. So your £790 is £134 in GW's back pocket. Whilst this is still a healthy margin, I work in the NHS and regularly deal with our suppliers, it is no where near the level of money grabbing that can be achieved on a captive market.
That said I don't think it's as black and white as the article makes out. Yes a lot of the cost of GW minis comes from UK manufacture and actually paying taxes. But GW don't need to increase prices the way they have. I feel like annual price rises in line with inflation would make it easier to swallow and more transparent but there will always be price rises.
Grimtuff wrote: Why are both of you spouting this stuff like it's some kind of revelation? All of this has been said over and over again going back decades with the same arguments being made only coming out of different people's mouths.
BOTH of you have said the good ol' GW white knight chestnut of "GTFO if you do not like the prices". Oh, yowie wowie! You pair must be excellent for cultivating new blood for this hobby...
Despite all of that, everything you said RE: prices is true; it does not nullify the right for anyone to discuss the topic. Value for money and affordability are two different things. I can easily afford GW's single characters for example, do I find them value for money? Absolutely not.
I'm saying what I'm saying because the attitude of many people posting is one of entitlement. It's as if 40k is a God given right and the high prices are an affront to their freedoms.
All that in the reddit is true, its a lot of facts explaining a lot of things, much unrelated to the subject of how customers are treated and how GW approaches pricing. There is however ethical considerations. Capitalism by its nature is mutually agreeable exploitation. It is a system that makes some low forms of exploitation acceptable because it means "we" benefit. The problem is in believing that an "agreement" washes the hands of any ethical consideration and leaves it entirely on the person who accepted. This notion however is one originating from the people with the greatest possibility of liability and opportunity for abuse; popularizing the notion that the ethics of mutually agreeable exploitation begins and ends on whether someone "agrees" to a proposition. From a company's perspective its great having as little continued expectations on it; it allows them to draw a line in the sand and pretend the only thing they might have to do with their gains is enjoy the profit. The mind set however is a shield to being considered negligent in their ethics. The fact is people agree to bad deals all the time. Indentured servitude is an extreme bad deal, but shows that there is a continued ethical duty that doesn't end on whether a proposal is "agreeable" but on the "mutual benefit" of their enterprise.
Yes you can say just because they can, they should, in a pure capitalistic way. There is however an ethical consideration; while GW has no legal or financial duty its customers, the fact that the hobby on a whole is largely predicated on buying into a system, a game system, that GW fully controls the development, rules, manufacturing, distribution, marketing, and pricing ... In pure capitalism this is praised for business prowess but there is a heightened ethical consideration on inducing any level of dependence on customers. People accept being taken advantage of by companies more and more and its hand waved off with "if you don't like it don't buy..." but that isn't a panacea for disagreeable behavior and ethics when the power balance in the seller-customer relationship is so one sided.
When you buy into a system and become even a bit dependent, the present wrongs are compounded and amplified by your past purchasing. Yes you can walk away from GW, but that undermines the value of your hobby assets. GW can and we accept that they will intentionally render what you have obsolete not just by making better things, but by making what you have less worthwhile.
GW's prices at this point are pretty significantly disconnected from their products. When you look at their stockholder financial statements its clear from their profits derived from sales to independent retailers, that GW prices and sells their products to retailers at what would already be a retail price, the markup over the cost to produce, for most other companies. The retail buyer doesn't really even need to be considered at that point and GW is incredibly insulated from whatever customers might do.
flandarz wrote: It also bears mentioning that GW holds a virtual monopoly on wargaming. Like it or not, the vast majority of wargames played are 40k, so if you want to get into wargaming, you really only have one viable choice. Therefore, GW can "afford" to have higher prices. For most people, they'll be the only option around, unless they want to deal with a lack of opponents.
I don't get why more people don't host their own games. If I want to play a new game, I'll get the starter set and maybe a couple interesting units on both sides and set up a game, then walk my friends through how to play it. Hosting a non-GW game is pretty darn cheap, especially if it's something minis-agnostic.
When I game with Dakka Members, they usually have complete collections themselves, so all we need to do is study the rules we want to try. (And weather their comments about my unpainted miniatures.)
Grimtuff wrote: Why are both of you spouting this stuff like it's some kind of revelation? All of this has been said over and over again going back decades with the same arguments being made only coming out of different people's mouths.
BOTH of you have said the good ol' GW white knight chestnut of "GTFO if you do not like the prices". Oh, yowie wowie! You pair must be excellent for cultivating new blood for this hobby...
Despite all of that, everything you said RE: prices is true; it does not nullify the right for anyone to discuss the topic. Value for money and affordability are two different things. I can easily afford GW's single characters for example, do I find them value for money? Absolutely not.
I'm saying what I'm saying because the attitude of many people posting is one of entitlement. It's as if 40k is a God given right and the high prices are an affront to their freedoms.
No need for the hyperbole from you.
Utter rubbish, you act like even discussing GW's pricing shouldn't happen, no one feels entitled or even acts that way. It's simply become the default counter response to complaints of high prices.
And if I was going to feel entitled to something it wouldn't be plastic soldiers.
Grimtuff wrote: Why are both of you spouting this stuff like it's some kind of revelation? All of this has been said over and over again going back decades with the same arguments being made only coming out of different people's mouths.
BOTH of you have said the good ol' GW white knight chestnut of "GTFO if you do not like the prices". Oh, yowie wowie! You pair must be excellent for cultivating new blood for this hobby...
Despite all of that, everything you said RE: prices is true; it does not nullify the right for anyone to discuss the topic. Value for money and affordability are two different things. I can easily afford GW's single characters for example, do I find them value for money? Absolutely not.
I'm saying what I'm saying because the attitude of many people posting is one of entitlement. It's as if 40k is a God given right and the high prices are an affront to their freedoms.
No need for the hyperbole from you.
Utter rubbish, you act like even discussing GW's pricing shouldn't happen, no one feels entitled or even acts that way. It's simply become the default counter response to complaints of high prices.
And if I was going to feel entitled to something it wouldn't be plastic soldiers.
So you speak for everyone on this forum? Very interesting
I'm saying what I'm saying because the attitude of many people posting is one of entitlement. It's as if 40k is a God given right and the high prices are an affront to their freedoms.
No need for the hyperbole from you.
Utter rubbish, you act like even discussing GW's pricing shouldn't happen, no one feels entitled or even acts that way. It's simply become the default counter response to complaints of high prices.
And if I was going to feel entitled to something it wouldn't be plastic soldiers.
So you speak for everyone on this forum? Very interesting
I don't think he ever asserted that.
GW can do what they want, but their pricing practices reflect their regard for their customers. I don't see anyone treating it as an affront to their freedoms, I see people disappointed that GW doesn't treat them with a certain respect.
The modern mantra is that capitalism is this optimization of shareholder wealth, that as long as people agree to what you put out profits are the single measure of legitimacy. However an underlying theme of capitalism and reason for its preeminence is that it serves the mutual benefit of all parties and society, directly or indirectly. GW isn't unique, what GW does and what some people just shrug at are common enough, but we all have different measures of mutual benefit.
Capitalism is mutual agreeable exploitation, done in little bits so as to not cross ethical lines. A little bit of poison, medicine to keep a society and economy healthy. However when you overemphasize agreeable exploitation over it being mutual, its just one sided and exploitative. Emphasis, it is a question of degrees.
To some there is no line and you can ask for anything in exchange for anything. but throughout history we have conditions that crossed the line despite people agreeing to what they were giving up and how they were being exploited. There are ethical lines and certain practices a company pursues raises their ethical burden.
GW has orchestrated a particularly ideal situation for a company, it controls all levels of how its products are made and sold short of making their own plastic from oil. At the same time they use their overwhelming position in the market place to get terms and conditions that otherwise wouldn't be possible exceeding what is more common. They sell a system, the enjoyment of which is built around the accumulation of their products which they can render obsolete without releasing anything that is an improvement. They can and do undermine the value of our collections to drive their sales. They are in the driver seat, and just like a anyone who offers someone a ride, even if there weren't legal duties, there is ethical duties that come with that. When people say "then don't buy" or "don't play" it is like saying just get out of the moving vehicle it "isn't the drivers fault they didn't stop." Even if it weren't their fault, its not respectful.
GW's market position creates a heightened dependence on them from us the customers and stakeholders and that makes it easier to cross lines. Dependence takes many forms, there is a social dependence when their game is at the center of people's social lives. There is a financial one, when these personal collections have a financial value that GW can tank to drive sales. GW's margins are at a level that when they sell to retailers, GW's margin is what most companies get when they sell to the end customer and doesn't really resemble a wholesale product. So GW is somewhat financially insulated from their customer's impact on their business.
The means though common and ideal for them, are questionable and the end result isn't to the benefit of customers. So it comes down to motivation. Why does GW keep raising its prices? Why is it so unconcerned with servicing a larger number of people? What is their reason and motivation? Motivation in this instance is everything, because if they aren't even considering the impact on us, then to what esteem do they hold us? -Not much of one. Their practices would lead you to believe you are a consumable and disposable utility to their business. You are a money battery and when you're spent they're done with you.
GW can do what they want to do and sell at whatever price they want to, but its dismissive to ignore that they set the stakes and they decide whether they want to respect you or just your money... and if they won't respect us, why should we respect them and why shouldn't we scrutinize their decisions and practices critically.
People are in this hobby for fun and for many talking about all this just isn't fun, so I can't blame them for wanting to ignore or dismiss it... but if people don't want to hear and they don't want to be confronted by opposing opinions they can walk away from this little box of text in this little ol' forum on the wide open internet... there are many ways to walk away but having this discussion, that only happens in forums like this and maybe between friends. So let it happen.
Hypothetically speaking, if a company is manufacturing at capacity and is continually selling out, then no matter how many people find the product to be overpriced the company could still probably charge more to the 'highest bidders'.
If the company increases their manufacturing, they may pass the point of saturation for the highest possible price and they may have to avoid raising prices again so they can shift the extra stock that is now produced.
Sunsanvil wrote: Price increases in general, unless they are egregious, can always been summed up as inflation. We all get uptight about it be the reality is, unless you are still in your 20s, you probably remember when anything from gas to a BigMac combo were less than half what they are now. Thats just a fact of modern economic paradigms.
What troubles me is how this hobby continues to get away with pricing hard good (models) based not on production cost, but rather on points or "in-game" value. A quick scan of the price hikes seems to only further exacerbate that.
I'm pricing based partly or mostly on in-game value is quite reasonable. People don't nessessarily buy models to have plastic sprues, they buy them to use in the game.
Inflation isn't some fact of life, it's an overt central bank policy. I suppose you can listen to macroeconomics lectures if you want to learn why, but it's pretty clear that a high inflation rate reduces the value of loans over time, benefiting debtors at the expense of creditors, and governments are the biggest debtors around.
There is no nice way of saying that. Apart from maybe the second one, what right does an 
