Browsing on YouTube, because I should be working. And I came across the following video which I thought might be of interest. Essentially, Midwinter Minis came across a 1997 Citadel Price guide, and using an inflation calculator, worked out equivalent prices.
Now, I am not drawing conclusions here, just starting off the topic. And I think that what could be fun would be to use his spreadsheet to work out what your current army might’ve cost in 1997. No, scratch that. Spreadsheet isn’t comprehensive. Nads.
Fasinating stuff in that some stuff has leap up stupidly, but other stuff has... Dropped?
Clearly the change from metal to plastic is in there. I can't believe guardsmen have dropped - I wonder if he was taking into account the old box was 20 and the new box is ten?
Interesting the Codex's are all net cheaper, but of course now we have to pay for suppliments, and they've outsourced their printing overseas, which used to be in the UK.
... I guess... GW... Isn't... As bad... As I... Thought?
Yes, the plastic squad is cheaper than the original metal squad - but the plastic lacks a Heavy Weapon team. It does however include the Vox Caster, which was a separate model during 2nd Ed.
If anyone has a 1997 price guide, I’d be interested in completing the spreadsheet (crap as I am with a Excel, I can still enter values!) for sake of an in depth reference.
Hmm, haven't watched the video yet, but do they take into account that several newer equivalent models are significantly more expensive than older equivalents? Take the Dunerider and Impulsor, which seem to be the new price point for more basic transports. Both kits are $75 USD compared to say $45 for a rhino/razorback or $58 for a wave serpent.
Fasinating stuff in that some stuff has leap up stupidly, but other stuff has... Dropped?
Clearly the change from metal to plastic is in there. I can't believe guardsmen have dropped - I wonder if he was taking into account the old box was 20 and the new box is ten?
Interesting the Codex's are all net cheaper, but of course now we have to pay for suppliments, and they've outsourced their printing overseas, which used to be in the UK.
... I guess... GW... Isn't... As bad... As I... Thought?
Ugh, that sentence was hard to say.
As i said, it's only true if you are in the UK.
For everyone outside, there are fantasy conversions, diffrent inflation and therefore purchase power issues.
F.e. GW hiked prices constantly over here, whilest inflation has been at an all time low comparatively and PP has lowered.
I think the main point that many things have only risen with inflation isn't totally unreasonable although there will always be a bit of cherrypicking.
I think though if you did the history, you'd find GW applied very little if any inflation to their range from say 1998->2010. So in real terms it became cheaper. Partly this seemed reasonable - because models were redone in plastic. So you stopped buying 3 metal guys for £5-6, and could now buy 10 plastic guys for £15 or so.
But from about 2010/2012 I feel above inflation increases became the norm. This was especially true for characters - as noted in the video. Almost every year we saw clam pack characters go up by about £1 or more - which is why they are now over £20, perhaps even £25 today.
Really though the feeling of GW costs more is because they replace the old to the new. So for example you have say the current Ork Boyz kit - released I want to say around 2008 or so, for £20 maybe, now £22.50.
If they did a new kit we all know it would be £35-40 today. And the models might be a bit bigger and Orkier (even if people love the current Boyz) - but for an aspiring Ork player who needed to grab 30-90 of them, that's going to hurt. Compare with getting 60~ GSC Acolytes.
I saw this video the other day. It's heavily skewed by starting the comparison in 1997, rather than 2000 or so, because all the troops comparisons are done against metal blister packs.
40K actually was hideously expensive in the late 90s, and that's a huge part of why Warzone got traction as a 40K competitor. The release of plastic kits was a huge relief for 40K, and in some cases (eg Tacticals), the price per-model dropped by half in the switch.
Take Cadians as an example. In 1997, ten pewter Cadians cost £17, which after accounting for inflation to 2020 means the prices have dropped. However, in 2003, the plastic Cadian set released at a price of £18 for twenty models. Accounting for inflation puts the current price of the same exact sculpt at 57% higher today than it was on release.
The elephant in the room is that while inflation has driven prices upwards, wages have largely stayed static both in the US and UK, reducing the average purchasing power of a typical consumer. Not GW's fault there, but when discussing the affordability of the hobby as a whole it's relevant.
And lastly, while not strictly related to the per-model price, the number of models required to play the game has steadily crept upwards as well. Comparing the size of armies between 2nd, 5th, and 8th there's a noticeable upward trend. I was actually really surprised at the points increases in the transition to 9th, but my 2000pt army from 3rd is still only ~1500pts now. That, too, increases the perceived price of the hobby, even if the models were to stay at the same price.
The switch from white metal to plastic throws the numbers off, wasn't the drive to plastic because tin prices got somewhat volatile late 90s / early 00s which made medium / longterm planning tricky
Still have the but feeling that 30 speesh marines for a tenner doesn't line up with the 75 squids or so they'd cost today, not Landraiders for 7ish (was 15ish for two if my aging grey matter recalls properly)
catbarf wrote: I saw this video the other day. It's heavily skewed by starting the comparison in 1997, rather than 2000 or so, because all the troops comparisons are done against metal blister packs.
40K actually was hideously expensive in the late 90s, and that's a huge part of why Warzone got traction as a 40K competitor. The release of plastic kits was a huge relief for 40K, and in some cases (eg Tacticals), the price per-model dropped by half in the switch.
Take Cadians as an example. In 1997, ten pewter Cadians cost £17, which after accounting for inflation to 2020 means the prices have dropped. However, in 2003, the plastic Cadian set released at a price of £18 for twenty models. Accounting for inflation puts the current price of the same exact sculpt at 57% higher today than it was on release.
The elephant in the room is that while inflation has driven prices upwards, wages have largely stayed static both in the US and UK, reducing the average purchasing power of a typical consumer. Not GW's fault there, but when discussing the affordability of the hobby as a whole it's relevant.
And lastly, while not strictly related to the per-model price, the number of models required to play the game has steadily crept upwards as well. Comparing the size of armies between 2nd, 5th, and 8th there's a noticeable upward trend. I was actually really surprised at the points increases in the transition to 9th, but my 2000pt army from 3rd is still only ~1500pts now. That, too, increases the perceived price of the hobby, even if the models were to stay at the same price.
UK Minimum Wage will play a part in the overheads, as this graph shows.
Its a regular claim that wages have been static in the UK and US - but while I can't speak for the US, this doesn't really make sense based on consumer behaviour.
You'd expect consumption of all sorts of hobbies, entertainments, holidays etc to be static - or even declining, and at least prior to this year, it clear wasn't. This isn't meant to lead to some "haha, millennials eating that avocado toast again" takes - but this idea we are all penniless and hard up is hard to square with that reality. Especially since I'm pretty sure housing costs have gone up above inflation, as have probably other base essentials like energy. Food has gone down, but I'm not sure that would make enough of a difference.
Tyel wrote: Its a regular claim that wages have been static in the UK and US - but while I can't speak for the US, this doesn't really make sense based on consumer behaviour.
You'd expect consumption of all sorts of hobbies, entertainments, holidays etc to be static - or even declining, and at least prior to this year, it clear wasn't. This isn't meant to lead to some "haha, millennials eating that avocado toast again" takes - but this idea we are all penniless and hard up is hard to square with that reality. Especially since I'm pretty sure housing costs have gone up above inflation, as have probably other base essentials like energy. Food has gone down, but I'm not sure that would make enough of a difference.
there's a difference between average consumer behaviour, which includes the statistical extremepoints, torwards a comparison that is closer to the median level.
Especially in regards to "average Purchasing power".
However, in 2003, the plastic Cadian set released at a price of £18 for twenty models. Accounting for inflation puts the current price of the same exact sculpt at 57% higher today than it was on release.
What might also be interesting is if someone good with numbers could reverse engineer the price of Big Ticket items, such as Imperial Knights using the same inflation numbers?
catbarf wrote: I saw this video the other day. It's heavily skewed by starting the comparison in 1997, rather than 2000 or so, because all the troops comparisons are done against metal blister packs.
Agreed. Though plastic availability was somewhat skewed.
Looking at prices from 1995 a box of metal termagants cost twice what a box of plastic gaunts did (£9 for 10 plastic gaunts) and special/heavy weapons could often cost twice as much again.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: What might also be interesting is if someone good with numbers could reverse engineer the price of Big Ticket items, such as Imperial Knights using the same inflation numbers?
Biggest items I can think of that are pretty much unchanged from their old counterparts are the various Land Raider variants. Maybe a Baneblade/Shadowstorm, depending on when they switched over from being a Forgeworld-only thing...?
Its a regular claim that wages have been static in the UK and US - but while I can't speak for the US, this doesn't really make sense based on consumer behaviour.
You'd expect consumption of all sorts of hobbies, entertainments, holidays etc to be static - or even declining, and at least prior to this year, it clear wasn't. This isn't meant to lead to some "haha, millennials eating that avocado toast again" takes - but this idea we are all penniless and hard up is hard to square with that reality. Especially since I'm pretty sure housing costs have gone up above inflation, as have probably other base essentials like energy. Food has gone down, but I'm not sure that would make enough of a difference.
Entertainment is typically the last thing to be cut. Even in times of serious economic stress, people still spend on "fun". I worked in film and tv during and immediately after 9/11 (in the U.S.). When my FX company did not have a tv or film contract, we did work for theme and amusement parks. Even with travel shut down and the economy in the toilet, theme parks were still contracting us left and right. Ditto the major recession later in the decade when housing crashed. People want their escape whether they can really afford it or not.
H.B.M.C. wrote: UK Wraithguard - £32.50
UK Howling Banshees - £32.50
OZ Wraithguard - AUD$55
OZ Howling Banshees - AUD$90
I'm sure it's just inflation...
Nah, it’s BS what it is (the prices, not your post.)
Problem is Aussies keep paying it. The Outer Circle is a great example of this; it's no secret how critical he is of GW's pricing, especially with regards to AUS, and then he whips out his brand new, 2000pt Nighthaunt army and acts surprised when GW keep cranking it up.
Tyel wrote: Its a regular claim that wages have been static in the UK and US - but while I can't speak for the US, this doesn't really make sense based on consumer behaviour.
You'd expect consumption of all sorts of hobbies, entertainments, holidays etc to be static - or even declining, and at least prior to this year, it clear wasn't. This isn't meant to lead to some "haha, millennials eating that avocado toast again" takes - but this idea we are all penniless and hard up is hard to square with that reality. Especially since I'm pretty sure housing costs have gone up above inflation, as have probably other base essentials like energy. Food has gone down, but I'm not sure that would make enough of a difference.
it's difficult to find a lot of numbers, but looking at america and adjusting for inflation, since 2010 at least spending on entertainment as a percentage of income for the average american has gone down 15%.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: What might also be interesting is if someone good with numbers could reverse engineer the price of Big Ticket items, such as Imperial Knights using the same inflation numbers?
Biggest items I can think of that are pretty much unchanged from their old counterparts are the various Land Raider variants. Maybe a Baneblade/Shadowstorm, depending on when they switched over from being a Forgeworld-only thing...?
I was thinking the same - Baneblade/Shadowstorm would be good comparison old & new (and perhaps vs. old Armorcast versions and what they'd cost at current inflation). Perhaps also a Warhound/Reaver titan?
Overall, I've always use the cost of a Land Raider to gauge GW's (over)pricing, especially vs. a normal tank model kit (say, by Revell). I do remember when the LR kit went up to $50, I quit buying GW models for a good bit - same thing when it went to $75.
... I guess... GW... Isn't... As bad... As I... Thought?
Ugh, that sentence was hard to say.
I think a lot of people experience stagnating wages, which drives some of the perception.
The flip side to that of course is those like me that got lucky, and have been able to find higher wages. Compared to 8 years ago, I’m earning 2 and a half times as much (ish. Think I’m closer to triple). So I’ve been more insulated to GW’s prices and rises than others.]
Another thing video missed was that while model price might not have gone up that much army price has which affects accessability. Even inflation adjusted i doubt 1997 army costed 400 it can easily cost now. (if that even covers it).
That's why these things are averages. I have to ask - this notion of wages stagnating - is that in comparison to inflation? Because I find it very hard to believe that on average, wages haven't risen in the last 10 years.
An extremely important factor is the quality of the product. GW has definitely seen price rises over the years. They aren't as bad when factoring in inflation, but they are undeniably present in a significant way. However the products themselves are of vastly superior quality; it makes sense that they would cost more. Someone could still make the argument that prices are higher than they should be, but it remains that a straight comparison of prices to inferior miniatures is not a fair one.
Super Ready wrote: That's why these things are averages. I have to ask - this notion of wages stagnating - is that in comparison to inflation? Because I find it very hard to believe that on average, wages haven't risen in the last 10 years.
Depends on the raise.
If I get an annual raise of 2%, but inflation was 2.5%, and my rent rises by 3%, my wage has reduced.
Super Ready wrote: That's why these things are averages. I have to ask - this notion of wages stagnating - is that in comparison to inflation? Because I find it very hard to believe that on average, wages haven't risen in the last 10 years.
It is a complex dynamic involving actual wages, inflation, and cost of living. The basic reality is that cost of living has increased far beyond wages.
Take Cadians as an example. In 1997, ten pewter Cadians cost £17, which after accounting for inflation to 2020 means the prices have dropped. However, in 2003, the plastic Cadian set released at a price of £18 for twenty models. Accounting for inflation puts the current price of the same exact sculpt at 57% higher today than it was on release.
The elephant in the room is that while inflation has driven prices upwards, wages have largely stayed static both in the US and UK, reducing the average purchasing power of a typical consumer. Not GW's fault there, but when discussing the affordability of the hobby as a whole it's relevant.
And lastly, while not strictly related to the per-model price, the number of models required to play the game has steadily crept upwards as well. Comparing the size of armies between 2nd, 5th, and 8th there's a noticeable upward trend. I was actually really surprised at the points increases in the transition to 9th, but my 2000pt army from 3rd is still only ~1500pts now. That, too, increases the perceived price of the hobby, even if the models were to stay at the same price.
These are the key points. The fact that plastic miniatures now aren't a lot more expensive than metal miniatures then isn't a very good comparison when the exact same plastic kits have been jacked up in price substantially (typically more than 30% over inflation) over the the last 20 years. When you combine with that largely stagnant wages and inflated model counts in the average army, you get a hobby that is significantly more expensive relative to the average person's budget than it was.
I mean look at this latest ridiculous push to get people to buy several hundred quid worth of extremely expensive GW branded terrain as part of their armies, with the explicit instruction that the terrain you'll want will vary based on your army, so you may need to also buy different terrain sets for each army you own too. There is really no doubt that GW is continuing to look for any way possible to jack up the cost of the hobby.
NinthMusketeer wrote: However the products themselves are of vastly superior quality; it makes sense that they would cost more.
I think when you have products that literally have not changed (eg Cadians, Catachans, Ork Boyz, Dire Avengers) but have increased in price well in excess of inflation, this argument isn't universally applicable. And while increasing quality definitely represents increased value for painters, I think there's a considerable subset of the community that is more concerned with how expensive it is to play the game than how nice their models are.
If these beyond-inflation price increases only happened when units got updated sculpts, I think it'd be a lot more reasonable.
Tbh, I'm not sure if the video was trying to make a serious point.
Materials and their price change, production cost and means change, box content changes, purchasing power changes, international pricing policy.... Yeah.
It's an interesting topic for sure, I'd be cool to have an exhaustive study taking into account as many variables as possible. A dumbed down video barely scratches the surface.
VBS wrote: Tbh, I'm not sure if the video was trying to make a serious point.
Materials and their price change, production cost and means change, box content changes, purchasing power changes, international pricing policy.... Yeah.
It's an interesting topic for sure, I'd be cool to have an exhaustive study taking into account as many variables as possible. A dumbed down video barely scratches the surface.
It takes the steam out of the one-sided arguments. As with everything - it isn't always so simple.
I "remember" buying the metal LoC for $50 around that time. He should scan all the prices - it'd be a nice trip down memory lane. In any case if my memory is correct that $50 model is now $81. The new LoC is $140, but it's 4 times (or more) the size, too.
VBS wrote: Tbh, I'm not sure if the video was trying to make a serious point.
Materials and their price change, production cost and means change, box content changes, purchasing power changes, international pricing policy.... Yeah.
It's an interesting topic for sure, I'd be cool to have an exhaustive study taking into account as many variables as possible. A dumbed down video barely scratches the surface.
It takes the steam out of the one-sided arguments. As with everything - it isn't always so simple.
I "remember" buying the metal LoC for $50 around that time. He should scan all the prices - it'd be a nice trip down memory lane. In any case if my memory is correct that $50 model is now $81. The new LoC is $140, but it's 4 times (or more) the size, too.
Clearly the change from metal to plastic is in there. I can't believe guardsmen have dropped - I wonder if he was taking into account the old box was 20 and the new box is ten?
Yeah that's an important bit. The current plastic guardsmen being cheaper, adjusting for inflation, than the original metals were, wouldn't surprise me, but the plastics also used to be $35 for 20, not $36 for 10. Adjusting for inflation from when they changed that (2010ish, maybe 2009) a squad of ten should be more $22, if adjusting from when the plastic Cadians were first released (2002/2003) probably more $25 for 10. There's definitely areas where changes in materials or inflation do not account for price increases.
That said, there's some good points raised in that many products aren't really much more expensive, and in all fairness to GW many of the more expensive the models are much more impressive and physically larger than most older models which justify higher costs on many newer models (e.g. old Greater Daemons to new ones). The problem is gamer's budgets on average haven't increased
The model quality is higher, but I don't know that it's a particular gain to be paying more for a bigger model. Moving those huge new models is a massive pain; I'd much rather they had kept the LoC the old size instead of giving him steroids.
Clearly the change from metal to plastic is in there. I can't believe guardsmen have dropped - I wonder if he was taking into account the old box was 20 and the new box is ten?
Yeah that's an important bit. The current plastic guardsmen being cheaper, adjusting for inflation, than the original metals were, wouldn't surprise me, but the plastics also used to be $35 for 20, not $36 for 10. Adjusting for inflation from when they changed that (2010ish, maybe 2009) a squad of ten should be more $22, if adjusting from when the plastic Cadians were first released (2002/2003) probably more $25 for 10. There's definitely areas where changes in materials or inflation do not account for price increases.
That said, there's some good points raised in that many products aren't really much more expensive, and in all fairness to GW many of the more expensive the models are much more impressive and physically larger than most older models which justify higher costs on many newer models (e.g. old Greater Daemons to new ones). The problem is gamer's budgets on average haven't increased
That is a different (and entirely valid) topic.]
The video is comparing the cost of 10 Catachans in 1997 to the cost of 10 Catachans in 2020 directly.
Otherwise we’d need to look into what 10 metal Catachans cost immediately prior to the 20 strong box of plastics as well.
Again, that is of course an entirely valid discussion topic. But, isn’t covered in the video we’re discussing.
Clearly the change from metal to plastic is in there. I can't believe guardsmen have dropped - I wonder if he was taking into account the old box was 20 and the new box is ten?
Yeah that's an important bit. The current plastic guardsmen being cheaper, adjusting for inflation, than the original metals were, wouldn't surprise me, but the plastics also used to be $35 for 20, not $36 for 10. Adjusting for inflation from when they changed that (2010ish, maybe 2009) a squad of ten should be more $22, if adjusting from when the plastic Cadians were first released (2002/2003) probably more $25 for 10. There's definitely areas where changes in materials or inflation do not account for price increases.
That said, there's some good points raised in that many products aren't really much more expensive, and in all fairness to GW many of the more expensive the models are much more impressive and physically larger than most older models which justify higher costs on many newer models (e.g. old Greater Daemons to new ones). The problem is gamer's budgets on average haven't increased
That is a different (and entirely valid) topic.]
The video is comparing the cost of 10 Catachans in 1997 to the cost of 10 Catachans in 2020 directly.
Otherwise we’d need to look into what 10 metal Catachans cost immediately prior to the 20 strong box of plastics as well.
Again, that is of course an entirely valid discussion topic. But, isn’t covered in the video we’re discussing.
But that is just straight dishonest as they are not the same product. You know why everyone jokingly uses Freddos as a barometer for inflation, because they are the same bloody product as they were back in the day.
In 1999 20 plastic Catachans cost you £10. In 2020 10 of the exact same sculpts cost £20. That is the comparisons that should be used, not dishonestly comparing different product. Otherwise you can literally say they have never risen in price, as those 10 metal Catachans back in the day were £20 for 10. Not even taking into account in 1997ish the prices took a jump anyway due to GW switching from lead to pewter.
It is a very disengenuous stance for the video to take, intentionally manipulating the data to portray an altered picture of what is actually there. Basically the same as the ideological spin US news puts on everything these days, no surprise it's getting some eye rolls.
The video is comparing the cost of 10 Catachans in 1997 to the cost of 10 Catachans in 2020 directly.
Otherwise we’d need to look into what 10 metal Catachans cost immediately prior to the 20 strong box of plastics as well.
Again, that is of course an entirely valid discussion topic. But, isn’t covered in the video we’re discussing.
If the purpose of the video is 'have GW's prices actually trended upwards in excess of inflation?', then cherry-picking a year that represents a historical high point, prior to the release less-expensive and still-current models, does not accurately or completely answer the question.
If the question was 'were GW models in specifically 1997 less expensive than their current design equivalents after accounting for inflation?', then it'd be accurate. But it's clearly making a much more general point than that.
Clearly the change from metal to plastic is in there. I can't believe guardsmen have dropped - I wonder if he was taking into account the old box was 20 and the new box is ten?
Yeah that's an important bit. The current plastic guardsmen being cheaper, adjusting for inflation, than the original metals were, wouldn't surprise me, but the plastics also used to be $35 for 20, not $36 for 10. Adjusting for inflation from when they changed that (2010ish, maybe 2009) a squad of ten should be more $22, if adjusting from when the plastic Cadians were first released (2002/2003) probably more $25 for 10. There's definitely areas where changes in materials or inflation do not account for price increases.
That said, there's some good points raised in that many products aren't really much more expensive, and in all fairness to GW many of the more expensive the models are much more impressive and physically larger than most older models which justify higher costs on many newer models (e.g. old Greater Daemons to new ones). The problem is gamer's budgets on average haven't increased
That is a different (and entirely valid) topic.]
The video is comparing the cost of 10 Catachans in 1997 to the cost of 10 Catachans in 2020 directly.
Otherwise we’d need to look into what 10 metal Catachans cost immediately prior to the 20 strong box of plastics as well.
Again, that is of course an entirely valid discussion topic. But, isn’t covered in the video we’re discussing.
But that is just straight dishonest as they are not the same product. You know why everyone jokingly uses Freddos as a barometer for inflation, because they are the same bloody product as they were back in the day.
In 1999 20 plastic Catachans cost you £10. In 2020 10 of the exact same sculpts cost £20. That is the comparisons that should be used, not dishonestly comparing different product. Otherwise you can literally say they have never risen in price, as those 10 metal Catachans back in the day were £20 for 10. Not even taking into account in 1997ish the prices took a jump anyway due to GW switching from lead to pewter.
Yeah, it's in fact so disingenuous that I think that youtuber is getting kickbacks or goodies in exchange for shilling.
It's clearly got nothing to do with the fact they only price guide they have is for 1997 and they already highlighted the difficulty in getting concise historical prices from that time period or anything.
Yeah I think it's just a really unfortunate coincidence with using almost the least representative year as the comparison point. I doubt the guy meant to shill or anything, it just happened by chance that the year he chose was one of the only years that made the comparison look ok for GW.
yukishiro1 wrote: The model quality is higher, but I don't know that it's a particular gain to be paying more for a bigger model. Moving those huge new models is a massive pain; I'd much rather they had kept the LoC the old size instead of giving him steroids.
To each his own - I want to own one of every GD. That was my dream as a kid. The new LoC is my spirit animal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hecaton wrote: Yeah, it's in fact so disingenuous that I think that youtuber is getting kickbacks or goodies in exchange for shilling.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: It's clearly got nothing to do with the fact they only price guide they have is for 1997 and they already highlighted the difficulty in getting concise historical prices from that time period or anything.
Mmmm, sounds like a copout. Either do the research or don't, don't try to obfuscate the issue.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: It's clearly got nothing to do with the fact they only price guide they have is for 1997 and they already highlighted the difficulty in getting concise historical prices from that time period or anything.
Mmmm, sounds like a copout. Either do the research or don't, don't try to obfuscate the issue.
Plus, of all years they could have picked; 1997 is the worst of the bunch. As I mentioned in my other post The Great Lead Sale happened in 1997 when GW switched from lead to pewter and the prices (and contents of blisters) changed dramatically almost overnight.
I've got scans of loads of White Dwarfs (yo ho ho! ) and you can see the changes pre and post lead. When the Catachans first came out they were lead and you could get four special weapon guys in a single blister pack for £4.99. I got in this hobby just after the GLS and the IG special weapon blisters were two guys for either £3 or £4 (I don't remember precisely). So straight off the bat the numbers are out of whack as their baseline changed in that year.
Voss wrote: How does it account for things like Dire Avengers- the box got cut in half model-wise and was subsequently hit with price raises?
Well, if memory serves Dire Avengers came in blister packs of three, with the Exarch being a separate blister?
The comparisons in the vid are straight “what was it then, and what is it now”.
Oh young people today, back in my day (late 80s) Dire Avengers was £2.50 for 5, the price jump to £2.99 was rough as meant I had to push bike it to the shop rather than have bus money spare, and I think exarchs came in packs of 2 for the same, although most of mine were regular grunts with different paint job or 'exarch' painted on the rim of the base, then £2.99 for 4 which was a bit cheeky as besides Reapers i think all aspects was minimum 5, don't recall blisters of 3
They changed to blisters of 3 when they went to pewter. I got my Eldar army Christmas 1998 and distinctly remember having 6 man squads of both Banshees and Scorpions due to 2x blisters of each.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: It's clearly got nothing to do with the fact they only price guide they have is for 1997 and they already highlighted the difficulty in getting concise historical prices from that time period or anything.
Mmmm, sounds like a copout. Either do the research or don't, don't try to obfuscate the issue.
He literally opened a box of Necromunda for a totally different video, which happened to have a price guide in it, and he decided to comment on it because it would have taken up too much space in the other video.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: It's clearly got nothing to do with the fact they only price guide they have is for 1997 and they already highlighted the difficulty in getting concise historical prices from that time period or anything.
Mmmm, sounds like a copout. Either do the research or don't, don't try to obfuscate the issue.
He literally opened a box of Necromunda for a totally different video, which happened to have a price guide in it, and he decided to comment on it because it would have taken up too much space in the other video.
I mean, that's literally in the video.
OK, so he's just lazy, got it. Stuff of Legends exists and can very easily be used to access catalogs with prices that include still available models to make a better, more accurate comparison with.
Yeah the thing with that video is comparing metal to plastic from 1997 to now. Which frankly isn't good enough.
A more sensible check would be post '08 to now. And I know fine well the plastic kits have gone up monstrously.
When I was seriously into the hobby an Imperial Guard Sentinel was £12, 20 guardsmen was £15-18. A chimera was maybe £22? And more importantly, things like the battalion boxes gave you a hell of a lot of models for £50. That Ad Mech box I picked up from a 25% off RRP retailer was still £45 and I got 12 (!!) models for that. Can't even field a 500 point force. And that was the sole point of those boxes, to get people into the hobby by giving them an army to start playing.
That exact same sentinel model, which hasn't even changed is now £22.50? What?? Ludicrous.
It also doesn't take into account that a 2k point game has vastly changed in the number of models required. As the editions have progressed you need more models for a 2k game but there are less models per box. This to me is the biggest swizz.
And it's definitely on purpose. How are you meant to build a horde army without selling a kidney these days?
And above all else, they add in the larger models for the larger games which are a massive outlay. The £90 - 100 + outlay for a single miniature is eye watering.
The thing is GW know what they're about, the people running the company run it like a business. And they are clearly doing a good job. Like any garage start up company/band/tv show/internet star/misc other, once they get too big then you start to lose out. The personality becomes corporate as the capitalist machine drives us all down. It just sucks for us poor schmucks, especially if you don't have a lot of money to get by.
Thanks for posting the video, it was quite interesting.
The only thing that bugged me is that he used the plague marine reinforcements box to get to 10 plague marines. That box was specifically announced to be a collector item and not meant for getting the best bang for your bucks, especially since we also had ETB plague marines until recently.
That said, I agree that it doesn't represent the price hikes that have been going on properly. I started getting into the game somewhere near the end of 4th/beginning of 5th and I still have invoices from wayland games were the exact same models we can buy today are almost 50% less expensive than they are now, which means that the price hike from 1997 was to 2020 is roughly the same as the price hike from 2010 to 2020.
Jidmah wrote: Thanks for posting the video, it was quite interesting.
The only thing that bugged me is that he used the plague marine reinforcements box to get to 10 plague marines. That box was specifically announced to be a collector item and not meant for getting the best bang for your bucks, especially since we also had ETB plague marines until recently.
That said, I agree that it doesn't represent the price hikes that have been going on properly. I started getting into the game somewhere near the end of 4th/beginning of 5th and I still have invoices from wayland games were the exact same models we can buy today are almost 50% less expensive than they are now, which means that the price hike from 1997 was to 2020 is roughly the same as the price hike from 2010 to 2020.
Plus the prices were not always consistent across countries. I went to Germany in 2000/2001ish and the regiment boxes there were 30dm. Back then the exchange rate was 3dm to £1 so they were still a tenner a box there. I only remember that quite distinctly as I immediately bragged to my friends back home how I'd found a bunch of cheap(er) 40k stuff after the UK had had its recent price hike on them, taking them up to £12 IIRC.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It is a very disengenuous stance for the video to take, intentionally manipulating the data to portray an altered picture of what is actually there. Basically the same as the ideological spin US news puts on everything these days, no surprise it's getting some eye rolls.
The majority of the 'big' Warhammer YouTube channels are now more or less influencers or people trying to get GW's attention to become the former now. Whilst I can hardly be called unbias when it comes to the opposite opinion, the painful spin of it does reek of the usual YouTuber "golly gee aren't GW great fellow consumner? Check out my next video where wonderful and glorious GW sent me the latest release for free to """review"""!"
About the only channels I can watch these days are battle reports and painters who do things other than tongue bathe GW models exclusively. The rest either seem to be those damn 'lore' channels where they just read straight off the wiki, or an extension of GW's marketing department.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It is a very disengenuous stance for the video to take, intentionally manipulating the data to portray an altered picture of what is actually there. Basically the same as the ideological spin US news puts on everything these days, no surprise it's getting some eye rolls.
The majority of the 'big' Warhammer YouTube channels are more or less influencers/people trying to get GW's attention to become the former now. Whilst I can hardly be called unbias when it comes to the opposite opinion, the painful spin of it does reek of the usual YouTuber "golly gee aren't GW great fellow consumner? Check out my next video where wonderful and glorious GW sent me the latest release for free to """review"""!"
It's frankly like games journalism on youtube: the hallmark of a good reviewer is, if he (or she) doesn't get review copies anymore from a whole slew of companies.
Germany at that time had odd pricing everywhere though because it was right before the change to Euro - prices everywhere basically froze during that time and then almost doubled when the new currency was officially to be used.
In addition, the British pound was always much more valuable than the German Mark, while the Euro is roughly the same.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It is a very disengenuous stance for the video to take, intentionally manipulating the data to portray an altered picture of what is actually there. Basically the same as the ideological spin US news puts on everything these days, no surprise it's getting some eye rolls.
The majority of the 'big' Warhammer YouTube channels are more or less influencers/people trying to get GW's attention to become the former now. Whilst I can hardly be called unbias when it comes to the opposite opinion, the painful spin of it does reek of the usual YouTuber "golly gee aren't GW great fellow consumner? Check out my next video where wonderful and glorious GW sent me the latest release for free to """review"""!"
It's frankly like games journalism on youtube: the hallmark of a good reviewer is, if he (or she) doesn't get review copies anymore from a whole slew of companies.
Unfortunately it seems that unlike video games, it's largely the shill channels who manage to trigger the algorithms and overwhelmingly get the views. That probably has a lot more to do with how fewer wargaming channels there are to video games of course, but it could also be to do with people wanting their opinions reaffirmed - having Valrak stop short of wetting himself every time a new Primaris kit's out will do a lot to affirm someone's expensive purchase I suppose.
Jidmah wrote: Germany at that time had odd pricing everywhere though because it was right before the change to Euro - prices everywhere basically froze during that time and then almost doubled when the new currency was officially to be used.
In addition, the British pound was always much more valuable than the German Mark, while the Euro is roughly the same.
Yeah, not been back recently; but to teenage me it was like stumbling on a gold mine as the deep discounters weren't really a thing back then. It was buy GW retail prices or jog on.
Jidmah wrote: Thanks for posting the video, it was quite interesting.
The only thing that bugged me is that he used the plague marine reinforcements box to get to 10 plague marines. That box was specifically announced to be a collector item and not meant for getting the best bang for your bucks, especially since we also had ETB plague marines until recently.
That said, I agree that it doesn't represent the price hikes that have been going on properly. I started getting into the game somewhere near the end of 4th/beginning of 5th and I still have invoices from wayland games were the exact same models we can buy today are almost 50% less expensive than they are now, which means that the price hike from 1997 was to 2020 is roughly the same as the price hike from 2010 to 2020.
Yeah, in fact orks in 2008-2010 were actually cheaper than orks in mid-late 90s when most of the stuff were metal or plastic+metal. In 3rd edition to field a typical squad of boyz the ork player needed to buy the plastic infantry kit (16 dudes) then a blister with a metal nob and 2-3 blisters with orks with special weapons, because in 3rd spamming as many special weapons in all infantry squads was the way to go. In 5th edition getting two plastic boxes, cheaper than the older 16man kit, was enough to field a functioning squad, probably even redundant.
Warbikes were sold in packs of 1, then in packs of 3 with just double the price, not 3x.
Let's not even start with gretchins which were sold in packs of 3 or 4 and you also needed another blister with the runtherd. 8+ single metal blisters just to field the 99 points unit.
Price hikes from 1997 to 2010 weren't significant, in fact many things were actually cheaper. Price hikes from 2010 to 2020 are significant though.
About the only channels I can watch these days are battle reports and painters who do things other than tongue bathe GW models exclusively. The rest either seem to be those damn 'lore' channels where they just read straight off the wiki, or an extension of GW's marketing department.
Likewise. Miniac is one of my personal faves as he covers a lot of stuff, not just GW. Same for BlackMagicCraft.
As for lore, seriously- look into Oculus Imperia, they're a relatively new channel where the entire thing is done in an in-universe style. The narrator plays one of the new Logos Historica that have been appointed by Gulliman so it is done 100% kayfabe and not just reading from the Wiki like so many other channels (*cough* Onemindsyndcate *cough*) do.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It is a very disengenuous stance for the video to take, intentionally manipulating the data to portray an altered picture of what is actually there. Basically the same as the ideological spin US news puts on everything these days, no surprise it's getting some eye rolls.
The majority of the 'big' Warhammer YouTube channels are more or less influencers/people trying to get GW's attention to become the former now. Whilst I can hardly be called unbias when it comes to the opposite opinion, the painful spin of it does reek of the usual YouTuber "golly gee aren't GW great fellow consumner? Check out my next video where wonderful and glorious GW sent me the latest release for free to """review"""!"
It's frankly like games journalism on youtube: the hallmark of a good reviewer is, if he (or she) doesn't get review copies anymore from a whole slew of companies.
Unfortunately it seems that unlike video games, it's largely the shill channels who manage to trigger the algorithms and overwhelmingly get the views. That probably has a lot more to do with how fewer wargaming channels there are to video games of course, but it could also be to do with people wanting their opinions reaffirmed - having Valrak stop short of wetting himself every time a new Primaris kit's out will do a lot to affirm someone's expensive purchase I suppose.
now now, no need to be mean to valrak.
But yeah, overall , more sceptical channels do indeed seem to get the "short end" from the algorithm.
The price hikes though are also often just an "issue" for veterans really. I mean, someone wants to start guard now he will never know that he could've had double the minis for the same price as now for the half.
Then there is the whole GW cosmos, which if you leave and go look for 3rd parties, something also more often done by vets, suddendly show the kind of margins GW is working with.
F.e. i can get 30 28mm plastic figures with 90 head options from Wargames atlantic, which do look better then the cadians for the same price 10 cadians cost me.
The video is comparing the cost of 10 Catachans in 1997 to the cost of 10 Catachans in 2020 directly.
Otherwise we’d need to look into what 10 metal Catachans cost immediately prior to the 20 strong box of plastics as well.
Again, that is of course an entirely valid discussion topic. But, isn’t covered in the video we’re discussing.
Cherry picking by having that book. Somebody has prices of year x feel free to do.
Newsflash: to compare prices of year x you need to have prices of that year at hand. Who holds pricelist of every year? Lol. Do you? If not stop the high attitude, he used what he had available
If the purpose of the video is 'have GW's prices actually trended upwards in excess of inflation?', then cherry-picking a year that represents a historical high point, prior to the release less-expensive and still-current models, does not accurately or completely answer the question.
If the question was 'were GW models in specifically 1997 less expensive than their current design equivalents after accounting for inflation?', then it'd be accurate. But it's clearly making a much more general point than that.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Sentinel kit has changed. Original had a choice of Multi-Laser or Heavy Flamer, with further weapons added as Hybrid Kits.
The current one offers all the weapon options, and if memory serves, leg articulation.
Ok ya got me but I ask you considering the Armageddon Steel Legion sentinel was also cheap and that had different weapons. Is leg articulation really deserving the extra £10+ price tag?
Personally, not a chance in hell. But that's just me. I can't really accept the fact that they make you pay more money for 10 models than you used to for 20 for the same kit. I like horde armies and that there sucks the big time.
oni wrote: I give him A for effort, but it's another incomplete explanation that will do little more than stir the pot.
Yeah. It seems like people constantly try to push the agenda that GW isn't that expensive by making poor comparisons or just really don't understand why it's commonly thought of being more expensive than their competition.
So things like this come off as little more than pro-GW propaganda
Something touched on earlier was an increase in the quality of the models, leading to a higher cost.
Now, quite frankly, improvement is something that every company should be striving for. And it most certainly does not have to come with increase costs.
However, the other aspect is whether some of the "increases in quality" have even been warranted. For example, I'd put forth that many people would prefer that troop units be affordable and of adequate quality than expensive but very high quality.
Likewise, we've seen models - even very basic HQ/Elite choices - turn from single characters into entire dioramas. This again seems like an unnecessary "improvement", and something that should be done as a special edition or promotional model, not as the standard version of such.
This can also be seen in other areas, like Codices. My 5th edition DE book was ~£15.50. It had a lot of nice artwork, fluff and other stuff. However, the 7th edition and 8th edition DE books were about £25.00. Most of the art has been replaced by photoghraphs of the models (you know, exactly like the ones in catalogues that other companies give away for free), and the ones that are there are poorly-drawn and/or badly-coloured. But it was a hardback book with high-quality paper, so of course it had to cost much more.
The problem is, these are not long-term books. Because every new book invalidates the previous ones. Hence, I would much rather stick with the cheaper, softback books than these glorified adverts.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that, unless you are increasing quality without also increasing cost, it seems well worth considering whether such an increase is necessary in the first place.
Inflation is the poors man invisible tax. Theres a ton of economic theory around it , but no, GW has become MUCH more expensive, not only accounting for inflation.
oni wrote: I give him A for effort, but it's another incomplete explanation that will do little more than stir the pot.
Yeah. It seems like people constantly try to push the agenda that GW isn't that expensive by making poor comparisons or just really don't understand why it's commonly thought of being more expensive than their competition.
So things like this come off as little more than pro-GW propaganda
That wasn’t the conclusion though, was it?
At no point did he say GW isn’t expensive. Rather, he was able to demonstrate that comparing prices from two fixed points show the price rises may not be as bad as they look on first impressions.
Again, this is a snapshot type thing. It’s not in-depth and doesn’t claim or pretend to be.
Sure, some kits were even better value before being resized and repriced (oh hi Imperial Guard). But that happened between the two fixed points used as reference. It’s 100% a solid conversation that should be had - but it’s a different subject to the one in the video.
My income has increased significantly since 1997 so economics are not the issue. I refuse to spend money on GW's expensive models because I have a higher rules standard than what they are willing to provide. I spend much more on hobby stuff now but only painting supplies from GW.
Tyel wrote: Its a regular claim that wages have been static in the UK and US - but while I can't speak for the US, this doesn't really make sense based on consumer behaviour.
You'd expect consumption of all sorts of hobbies, entertainments, holidays etc to be static - or even declining, and at least prior to this year, it clear wasn't. This isn't meant to lead to some "haha, millennials eating that avocado toast again" takes - but this idea we are all penniless and hard up is hard to square with that reality. Especially since I'm pretty sure housing costs have gone up above inflation, as have probably other base essentials like energy. Food has gone down, but I'm not sure that would make enough of a difference.
Compared to cost of living increases wages have roughly stayed static or many people have had a real terms decline in wealth. However some people are better of, I.e although your statement is true at national level there are some individuals who are worse off since 2008 and some who are better of.
Also the government has increased tax free earning Threshold every year since 2008 so if you income hasn’t gone up your tax burden has gone down.
What would be interesting to see is what types of industry 40K players tend to be in because some industries have done well in terms of of salary increases and some have done worse. Let’s be a bit simple and suggest that many 40K fans work in IT. This is an industry that has performed well regardless of recession and there fore we could see the typical 40K fan is better off now than they were a decade ago, let alone 1997.
Also let’s assume that most people get into 40K young and then stay with the hobby for a 10-20 years. Typically people earn ore as they get older as there career advances.
This is the kind of detail you need to look at.
If all 40K players in UK were NHS nurses then GW would have gone out of business.
Also let’s assume that most people get into 40K young and then stay with the hobby for a 10-20 years. Typically people earn ore as they get older as there career advances.
This is the key point. The average age of the GW customer has gone up dramatically over the 35ish years of the game's history - probably by decades - and with it, their spending ability. When 40k came out in '87 it would have been rare to see someone beyond the mid-30s playing the game and the target audience was teenage boys; now those same people are potentially in their 60s, with some still playing the game, and the average age of a 40k player is probably closer to 40 than to 20.
You can always tell who is shilling for GW when they leave out switching from Metal to Plastics and the change in value of the product.
Their production costs went drastically down but the prices went up, reasonably sure that doesn't correlate with inflation.
Compare that to Laptop computers. 2005 average price was 1k. In 2015 it went down to under $700. Why did the price go down? Because production costs went down and they passed the savings onto the customers. GW chose to go the opposite direction
SemperMortis wrote: You can always tell who is shilling for GW when they leave out switching from Metal to Plastics and the change in value of the product.
Their production costs went drastically down but the prices went up, reasonably sure that doesn't correlate with inflation.
Compare that to Laptop computers. 2005 average price was 1k. In 2015 it went down to under $700. Why did the price go down? Because production costs went down and they passed the savings onto the customers. GW chose to go the opposite direction
Gw has ip quasi monopoloy. That allows them to not be exposed to as much competition therefore there less pressure to Pass on savings.
I also expect that GW now design their minis on a computer rather than sculpting and original model to make a cast. That must be cheaper (he says knowing nothing about this)
The comparison to laptops isn’t that useful though because laptops exist in a world where theirs is a computer in almost every house so you can drop prices and still increase profit.
If GW dropped their prices I don’t think their customer base would increase dramatically. So if GW want to get filthy rich they need to jack up their margin
Hearing about the Silent King's price tag led me to examine some anecdotal math; My first Marine army was purchased all at once: two tac squads, a Rhino, a Dreadnought, a Terminator squad, a Land speeder, a Chaplain, and a Whirlwind, as well as the core rulebook, the Marines codex, a paint set (and a couple on top, but I leave those out because I can't remember which ones or how many), the tools, scatter dice, and a can of primer spray. I feel like an Assault Squad may have been involved, but I'm unsure enough about that to leave it out.
The green LEDs of the Pegasus Games downtown branch cash register is still burned into my brain, because at the time it had me facepalming, partially unable to believe the stupidity of my financial decisions: USD$283.76. I know this was in 2001, because the 3rd Edition Tyranid Codex was the new hotness at the time.
Local sales tax of the store in question is 5.5%, so that calculates to $268.97 USD, which is roughly in line with what I recall them costing at the time, having added that up separately.
I calculate all that together now, using current prices; It comes to $526.75 USD, a markup of 196% when the inflation markup should be 147%; 49% over what was needed to be static from 2001 to 2020.
CEO Kasen wrote: Hearing about the Silent King's price tag led me to examine some anecdotal math; My first Marine army was purchased all at once: two tac squads, a Rhino, a Dreadnought, a Terminator squad, a Land speeder, a Chaplain, and a Whirlwind, as well as the core rulebook, the Marines codex, a paint set (and a couple on top, but I leave those out because I can't remember which ones or how many), the tools, scatter dice, and a can of primer spray. I feel like an Assault Squad may have been involved, but I'm unsure enough about that to leave it out.
The green LEDs of the Pegasus Games downtown branch cash register is still burned into my brain, because at the time it had me facepalming, partially unable to believe the stupidity of my financial decisions: USD$283.76. I know this was in 2001, because the 3rd Edition Tyranid Codex was the new hotness at the time.
Local sales tax of the store in question is 5.5%, so that calculates to $268.97 USD, which is roughly in line with what I recall them costing at the time, having added that up separately.
I calculate all that together now, using current prices; It comes to $526.75 USD, a markup of 196% when the inflation markup should be 147%; 49% over what was needed to be static from 2001 to 2020.
Ain't it funny, btw , that is just the consumer side, the production side technically also GOT alot cheaper. Which is not calculated in this, for it is simply to exemplify GW fantasy infaltion and conversion rates.
BTW did you eliminate potential hikes on sales taxes?
yukishiro1 wrote: and the average age of a 40k player is probably closer to 40 than to 20.
That might be true where you are, but it sure doesn't match my experience. The vast majority of 40K players where I am are still teenage boys from middle-class families, exactly the same as it's been for the 30-ish years I've been in this hobby.
This can also be seen in other areas, like Codices. My 5th edition DE book was ~£15.50. It had a lot of nice artwork, fluff and other stuff. However, the 7th edition and 8th edition DE books were about £25.00. Most of the art has been replaced by photoghraphs of the models (you know, exactly like the ones in catalogues that other companies give away for free), and the ones that are there are poorly-drawn and/or badly-coloured. But it was a hardback book with high-quality paper, so of course it had to cost much more.
.
£ for upgrade to hardback doesn't seem that bad. More durability is always nice
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrFickle wrote: I also expect that GW now design their minis on a computer rather than sculpting and original model to make a cast. That must be cheaper (he says knowing nothing about this)
Not really. The big price is the cost of mould. That remains the same.
Insistation on plastic for everything does drive up prices for elites and characters though.
I calculate all that together now, using current prices; It comes to $526.75 USD, a markup of 196% when the inflation markup should be 147%; 49% over what was needed to be static from 2001 to 2020.
and you won't have a standard size army from the above boxes
This can also be seen in other areas, like Codices. My 5th edition DE book was ~£15.50. It had a lot of nice artwork, fluff and other stuff. However, the 7th edition and 8th edition DE books were about £25.00. Most of the art has been replaced by photoghraphs of the models (you know, exactly like the ones in catalogues that other companies give away for free), and the ones that are there are poorly-drawn and/or badly-coloured. But it was a hardback book with high-quality paper, so of course it had to cost much more.
.
£ for upgrade to hardback doesn't seem that bad. More durability is always nice
Why? These are hardly long-term products. Plus my soft-cover books are still fine, all the way back to the 3rd edition Necron codex that I started 40k with.
Dude seems to be an interesting and pleasant content creator. Subscribed. More recent WH channels are far better than the majority of those we used to get who'd just have a random 10 minute tirade against women at any point and such.
yukishiro1 wrote: and the average age of a 40k player is probably closer to 40 than to 20.
That might be true where you are, but it sure doesn't match my experience. The vast majority of 40K players where I am are still teenage boys from middle-class families, exactly the same as it's been for the 30-ish years I've been in this hobby.
Yours doesn't match mine. I haven't seen a teenager playing since I was one (which was most of a decade into last century). Maybe a couple college kids were technically 19 or so, but that's it- I've seen more female players than teenagers in recent years.
CCGs and video games pretty much KO'd the chances of junior high/high school kids getting into Warhammers. Even the year I spent in southwest Britain at the turn of the century, I didn't see kids in the GW store.
In US indie stores, criss-crossing the country over the years, a local PP pressganger brought his kid into the store exactly once during game night, and never again. That's the only time I've seen someone young associated with this hobby (and he very clearly didn't want to be there) since the mid-90s. But on Pokemon or MtG nights, there wasn't room in the same store to put down a board and get a game in. Lots and lots of kids for those.
I think it depends on where you live/game. GW stores tend to have much younger footfall, usually because they - at least Back In The Day - first saw it on a high street, their parents can 'dump' their kid there whilst they go shopping, youngsters can't drive to clubs in the middle of nowhere and won't necessarily know they exist etc. I will say that on the few occasions I've stuck my head into a GW in the past few years, there are a lot more older (late 20's to early 40's) players than there were when I was a bright eyed youngster, where almost everyone playing in-store ranged from about twelve to the very early twenties at a push. There's still plenty of youngsters in there, bu the demographic is definitely more diverse age wise compared to what it was. I think this might be in part because GW's used to have their 16+ 'Veterans Nights' and Beginner-only Sundays, which have promptly been eliminated.
LFGS I notice tend to be teenagers and up, with an average age of around the late twenties to early thirties. Independent clubs is when you start getting your older gents. This is just a UK example.
) and you can see the changes pre and post lead. When the Catachans first came out they were lead and you could get four special weapon guys in a single blister pack for £4.99. I got in this hobby just after the 
