Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If I was Sir Richard Branson I could simply buy GW instead of running a space tourism company.

Does that make a single £22 Ad Mech Tech Priest Dominus infantry figure cheap compared to a compete 15mm army with 46 figures, priced at £22. for De Bellis Antiquitatis?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If I was Sir Richard Branson I could simply buy GW instead of running a space tourism company.

Does that make a single £22 Ad Mech Tech Priest Dominus infantry figure cheap compared to a compete 15mm army with 46 figures, priced at £22. for De Bellis Antiquitatis?

But but but, The Hobby is an expensive hobby after all. If that De Bollocks Whatever you're saying is so cheap, then it's because its quality can't compare to the mighty 40k and its spess mehreens. I'd be ashamed if I had any DBA army, or Mantic models, those cheap knockoffs of the mighty GW.

Also those Eisenkern Stormtroopers from the previous page, such stupid knockoffs of the impressive, perfectly proportioned 40k cadian plastics, blergh.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If I was Sir Richard Branson I could simply buy GW instead of running a space tourism company.

Does that make a single £22 Ad Mech Tech Priest Dominus infantry figure cheap compared to a compete 15mm army with 46 figures, priced at £22. for De Bellis Antiquitatis?

But why is it so important to compare miniatures to other miniatures instead of hobby expenses in general? That single infantry figure is going to take me 10+ hours to build and paint, and will almost certainly contribute to at least 10+ hours of gaming time. So that's about $1 per hour for the GW model, compared to $100+ per hour for an airplane rental. That pretty solidly puts even the GW model into the "ridiculously cheap" category, regardless of the fact that some other kit is even more ridiculously cheap. I'm not going to suddenly feel like spending 1% of the cost of my other hobby is "expensive" just because I could get it down to 0.5% if I changed games.

I can buy a full sized Infinity army, all the dice I need, and templates and a tape measure for the same price as the core 40k rulebook.

Are people really going to try and tell me 40k isn't expensive, or that the whole hobby is expensive and GW is no different?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If I was Sir Richard Branson I could simply buy GW instead of running a space tourism company.

Does that make a single £22 Ad Mech Tech Priest Dominus infantry figure cheap compared to a compete 15mm army with 46 figures, priced at £22. for De Bellis Antiquitatis?

But why is it so important to compare miniatures to other miniatures instead of hobby expenses in general? That single infantry figure is going to take me 10+ hours to build and paint, and will almost certainly contribute to at least 10+ hours of gaming time. So that's about $1 per hour for the GW model, compared to $100+ per hour for an airplane rental. That pretty solidly puts even the GW model into the "ridiculously cheap" category, regardless of the fact that some other kit is even more ridiculously cheap. I'm not going to suddenly feel like spending 1% of the cost of my other hobby is "expensive" just because I could get it down to 0.5% if I changed games.

Because without some sort of structure, we just compare everything to a giant mountain made of diamonds and everything is cheap?

It staggers me that despite my ongoing crusade to address the issue, that people still fail to distinguish between £/$ cost and value. It's futile to compare financial cost outside of the same, at least tangentially related, sphere, it's ridiculous to try and argue value because it's intensely personal.

What you use as a demonstration of "cost per hour" in terms of what a GW model costs vs the amount of entertainment it provides, I could easily argue as an investment of time as well as money, time has value, after all. The reason 40K feels expensive is because the OP isn't getting a what he/she feels is a decent ROI. In terms of hours provided painting/modeling, one can easily argue you can get a lot more hours for the same money, as you could just buy more models from someone else, in terms of gaming, well...

It isn't unsurprising that poor balance can make the time and money invested in getting a unit to the table feel like a complete waste when it just gets creamed by the new hotness in turn 2.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If I was Sir Richard Branson I could simply buy GW instead of running a space tourism company.

Does that make a single £22 Ad Mech Tech Priest Dominus infantry figure cheap compared to a compete 15mm army with 46 figures, priced at £22. for De Bellis Antiquitatis?

it isn't about being cheap, it's about getting exactly what you want...

that Dominus is my favorite mini of 2015, and is sitting on my desk waiting for some paint...
he inspires me to get through my workload so that i can get to him...

a 15mm DBA army is one of the last things that would be on my wants list, so it would be like throwing money in the toilet...
a box of stuff gathering dust, that would give me no fun in return for my money...

like i said in my first post, there is no arguing about the GW HHHobby being expensive...
expensive is not necessarily a problem...
if the OP is no longer feeling like he gets his money worth, then the game/hobby starts to feel TOO expensive, which is where it becomes a problem...
it would suck to feel like you are no longer getting value out of something that you used to love...

cheers
jah

 jonolikespie wrote:
I can buy a full sized Infinity army, all the dice I need, and templates and a tape measure for the same price as the core 40k rulebook.

Are people really going to try and tell me 40k isn't expensive, or that the whole hobby is expensive and GW is no different?

Yeah and the scales are vastly different. An infinity army is like 6-15 models. My squad of Firewarriors alone is 5.

 Gamgee wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
I can buy a full sized Infinity army, all the dice I need, and templates and a tape measure for the same price as the core 40k rulebook.

Are people really going to try and tell me 40k isn't expensive, or that the whole hobby is expensive and GW is no different?

Yeah and the scales are vastly different. An infinity army is like 6-15 models. My squad of Firewarriors alone is 5.

And which of those is better is totally opinion. You might dislike having so few models on the table, I look a a 40k board and find it so cluttered that I have no idea how people play.

The part that is an objective cost comparison is where I can buy a whole army and everything I need to game with one system for the cost of the core rules (not even all the rules you need to by to play!) of the other.

Army sizes are irrelevant there, but that is exactly why 40k feels expensive.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
I can buy a full sized Infinity army, all the dice I need, and templates and a tape measure for the same price as the core 40k rulebook.

Are people really going to try and tell me 40k isn't expensive, or that the whole hobby is expensive and GW is no different?

Yeah and the scales are vastly different. An infinity army is like 6-15 models. My squad of Firewarriors alone is 5.

And which of those is better is totally opinion. You might dislike having so few models on the table, I look a a 40k board and find it so cluttered that I have no idea how people play.

The part that is an objective cost comparison is where I can buy a whole army and everything I need to game with one system for the cost of the core rules (not even all the rules you need to by to play!) of the other.

Army sizes are irrelevant there, but that is exactly why 40k feels expensive.

I play wargame I'm all too used to clusters of squares moving around screens so a 40k table seems tame by comparison.

But the point remains that to play a full game of infinity with rules, an average number of models, templates and dice it costs SIGNIFICANTLY less than it does to do the same with 40k.

That is why 40k feels more expensive.

That is true. Or why Infinity feels cheaper. The effect works both ways. It is, but it feels way cheaper when it really isn't that super cheap of a hobby.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Because without some sort of structure, we just compare everything to a giant mountain made of diamonds and everything is cheap?

But there IS a structure. Most, if not all, of the comparisons I've seen involve hobbies and other "fun" expenses that normal non-billionaire people might actually have. When I'm comparing the cost of airplane rentals to the cost of 40k it's not because airplane rentals are the most expensive thing ever, it's because that's one of the things that is competing with 40k for my money.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If I was Sir Richard Branson I could simply buy GW instead of running a space tourism company.

Does that make a single £22 Ad Mech Tech Priest Dominus infantry figure cheap compared to a compete 15mm army with 46 figures, priced at £22. for De Bellis Antiquitatis?

But why is it so important to compare miniatures to other miniatures instead of hobby expenses in general? That single infantry figure is going to take me 10+ hours to build and paint, and will almost certainly contribute to at least 10+ hours of gaming time. So that's about $1 per hour for the GW model, compared to $100+ per hour for an airplane rental. That pretty solidly puts even the GW model into the "ridiculously cheap" category, regardless of the fact that some other kit is even more ridiculously cheap. I'm not going to suddenly feel like spending 1% of the cost of my other hobby is "expensive" just because I could get it down to 0.5% if I changed games.

I completely agree with this.

Life isn't a choice between 26 different miniature-related hobby companies. It's a choice between doing things that you enjoy, and comparing the relative costs of those things with how rewarding the activities are. As Peregrine put it, a buck an hour is probably a decent start for figuring out what I can get out of GW stuff, plus I have something nice to keep afterwards that's potentially useful for years (decades, even). Are there other miniature wargaming and miniature modelling brands that are cheaper? Yes!

But at the end of the day, for most people with some kind of disposable income, all miniature wargaming hobbies are so cheap on the entertainment cost scale that the enjoyment factor -- whichever brand offers more entertainment -- matters a whole lot more, at least to me. Would I rather spend $5,000 on entertainment for a year or $500 on a hobby? Okay, I have to think about that. But do I want to spend $500 or $200? Well, if both are going to get me 500+ hours of entertainment, screw it; it's just whichever makes me happier, especially when it's broken down into increments of $50 and $20.

In fairness, there ARE hobbies that are cheaper than miniature wargaming, too. For example, you can spend next to nothing and get 10,000 hours on Diablo 3 or World of Warcraft. Or even Hearthstone, if you want to really torture yourself (technically, you get way more game play out of it if you don't spend any money ). There are even healthy things like hiking and biking that cost almost nothing (you need some initial basic equipment), and many sports that are nearly free to play. Or the local chess club. Or go an a walk on the beach with a nice girl or guy. Where budget is a really serious consideration, in most first-world nations, there's lots of leisure-time activities that are nearly-free.

Its not just wargamers with knowledge of the other cheaper wargaming companies who think that Games Workshop products are expensive, though.

When I'm talking about wargaming with other people, they inevitably ask how much it costs, and are flabbergasted by the answers. Family who buy me gifts are reluctant about the price - even when its a 'I'm buying $100 of gifts for you what do you want', they'd prefer to get $100 of clothes or computer games or wine than GW stuff because it seems too expensive. I actually did a kind of experiment on some relatives where I told them the cost of Malifaux / GW in alternating orders. People accepted the cost of Malifaux as reasonable independently of whether they'd seen the price of GW before or after. People just don't expect figures to cost that much.
They're exposed to plastic figures as cheap toys, plastic army men, action figures, model tanks. They're exposed to board games as Monopoly, Risk, Catan. They're exposed to strategy and roleplaying games on the computer.
To most people, those seem like the kind of things that provide roughly equivalent types of entertainment to GW products. They expect GW prices to be similar for what seems to be the same kind of thing.

People don't compare it to collecting real cars and planes because its they're not comparable aside from 'they're all discretionary spending'.


GW is especially egregious because it requires so many purchases to really work. To really play the game as intended you need 1000-2000pts of models, plus 2-3 very expensive rulebooks, plus a plethora of tools and scenery. You need to buy 4-5 of exactly the same kit to make a single viable unit, and 2-3 of the same unit to use in the army. So while one box of plastic dudesmen may cost you $50 and that seems reasonable, buying 15 of the same thing doesn't (especially with no bulk discounts). This is partially what makes Warmachine seem cheap by comparison to GW: except in some extreme Tier list examples and some older metal kits, buying a single box set gives you a full unit, that doesn't need to be added to, that you don't need to (and often can't) take multiples of.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If I was Sir Richard Branson I could simply buy GW instead of running a space tourism company.

Does that make a single £22 Ad Mech Tech Priest Dominus infantry figure cheap compared to a compete 15mm army with 46 figures, priced at £22. for De Bellis Antiquitatis?

But why is it so important to compare miniatures to other miniatures instead of hobby expenses in general? That single infantry figure is going to take me 10+ hours to build and paint, and will almost certainly contribute to at least 10+ hours of gaming time. So that's about $1 per hour for the GW model, compared to $100+ per hour for an airplane rental. That pretty solidly puts even the GW model into the "ridiculously cheap" category, regardless of the fact that some other kit is even more ridiculously cheap. I'm not going to suddenly feel like spending 1% of the cost of my other hobby is "expensive" just because I could get it down to 0.5% if I changed games.

If you like cheese, when you go to a cheesemonger to buy some cheese, do you buy some cheese or do you instead go to a clothes shop and buy a new hat? And if you do, does your new hat taste as nice as the selection of cheeses you didn't spend the money on?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you like cheese, when you go to a cheesemonger to buy some cheese, do you buy some cheese or do you instead go to a clothes shop and buy a new hat? And if you do, does your new hat taste as nice as the selection of cheeses you didn't spend the money on?

What's your point? Of course you don't say "I want X" and then buy something completely different instead. But that doesn't change the fact that different hobbies are often competing for the same money, and "cheap" and "expensive" are often defined relative to how much you are spending on other things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:
Its not just wargamers with knowledge of the other cheaper wargaming companies who think that Games Workshop products are expensive, though.

When I'm talking about wargaming with other people, they inevitably ask how much it costs, and are flabbergasted by the answers. Family who buy me gifts are reluctant about the price - even when its a 'I'm buying $100 of gifts for you what do you want', they'd prefer to get $100 of clothes or computer games or wine than GW stuff because it seems too expensive. I actually did a kind of experiment on some relatives where I told them the cost of Malifaux / GW in alternating orders. People accepted the cost of Malifaux as reasonable independently of whether they'd seen the price of GW before or after. People just don't expect figures to cost that much.
They're exposed to plastic figures as cheap toys, plastic army men, action figures, model tanks. They're exposed to board games as Monopoly, Risk, Catan. They're exposed to strategy and roleplaying games on the computer.
To most people, those seem like the kind of things that provide roughly equivalent types of entertainment to GW products. They expect GW prices to be similar for what seems to be the same kind of thing.

People don't compare it to collecting real cars and planes because its they're not comparable aside from 'they're all discretionary spending'.

I would argue that this has way more to do with non-gamers dismissing the entire gaming hobby as "stupid toys for children" rather than a reasonable and informed evaluation of prices.

 Peregrine wrote:
I would argue that this has way more to do with non-gamers dismissing the entire gaming hobby as "stupid toys for children" rather than a reasonable and informed evaluation of prices.

But the same people find Malifaux prices to be reasonable when 40k isn't. They might not understand my hobby, but they appreciate that it might cost some amount of money, and Malifaux fits in the reasonable range.

Like people here are talking about aircraft rental and scuba diving fees. I've never done those hobbies; I probably can't make a reasonable and informed decision about the prices. The amounts sound large to me, but they don't seem unreasonable for what you're getting if that's what you want to do. With a bit of thinking you can see where the money is going. Conversely, for GW products the amounts charged don't seem to have any basis in reality, and both wargamers and non-wargamers get that feel.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you like cheese, when you go to a cheesemonger to buy some cheese, do you buy some cheese or do you instead go to a clothes shop and buy a new hat? And if you do, does your new hat taste as nice as the selection of cheeses you didn't spend the money on?

What's your point? Of course you don't say "I want X" and then buy something completely different instead. But that doesn't change the fact that different hobbies are often competing for the same money, and "cheap" and "expensive" are often defined relative to how much you are spending on other things.

My point is that it's irrelevant that angling is cheaper per hour than GW, or that skydiving is more expensive. All three are hobbies, but GW is wargaming and realistically can only be compared with wargaming, because wargaming is something that all wargamers are interested in, and all wargamers aren't interested in rythmic gymnastics, four-in-hand coach driving, or electromicrography.

However, if we are to compare power boat racing with GW and DBA, GW is still a lot more expensive that DBA even though GW is a lot cheaper than power boat racing.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My point is that it's irrelevant that angling is cheaper per hour than GW, or that skydiving is more expensive. All three are hobbies, but GW is wargaming and realistically can only be compared with wargaming, because wargaming is something that all wargamers are interested in, and all wargamers aren't interested in rythmic gymnastics, four-in-hand coach driving, or electromicrography.

However, if we are to compare power boat racing with GW and DBA, GW is still a lot more expensive that DBA even though GW is a lot cheaper than power boat racing.

But why does it matter so much if A is more expensive than B? If A costs $0.01 and B costs $0.05 they're both still "cheap" even though B is five times more expensive than B. What matters most for determining what a person considers "expensive" or "cheap" is how much that thing costs relative to the person's total income and expenses. And in that comparison things like airplane rentals, nights out drinking, etc, are entirely relevant because they set the standard for how much money a person is used to spending and where their "expensive" and "cheap" thresholds might be set.

Trasvi wrote:
But the same people find Malifaux prices to be reasonable when 40k isn't. They might not understand my hobby, but they appreciate that it might cost some amount of money, and Malifaux fits in the reasonable range.

Like people here are talking about aircraft rental and scuba diving fees. I've never done those hobbies; I probably can't make a reasonable and informed decision about the prices. The amounts sound large to me, but they don't seem unreasonable for what you're getting if that's what you want to do. With a bit of thinking you can see where the money is going. Conversely, for GW products the amounts charged don't seem to have any basis in reality, and both wargamers and non-wargamers get that feel.

On the other hand I've had non-gamers make similar "it's so expensive for a silly toy" arguments about X-Wing, a game which is significantly cheaper than GW games. I don't think opinions of outsiders with no real knowledge of the hobby count for very much.

 Peregrine wrote:

But why does it matter so much if A is more expensive than B? If A costs $0.01 and B costs $0.05 they're both still "cheap" even though B is five times more expensive than B. What matters most for determining what a person considers "expensive" or "cheap" is how much that thing costs relative to the person's total income and expenses. And in that comparison things like airplane rentals, nights out drinking, etc, are entirely relevant because they set the standard for how much money a person is used to spending and where their "expensive" and "cheap" thresholds might be set.

I am used to playing with sticks in my back yard, I get infinite hours of enjoyment per dollar, GW is ludicrously expensive and anyone who says otherwise should just shut up

See why we should be comparing like for like now?

I don't feel 40k is expensive. I have been so many hours with 40k and it is not cost so much (at least when you calculate pay/hour).

Actual gaming is only so little part of this hobby, most of it is inside my head.

 agnosto wrote:
Kronk, I could buy a 20-man dfg eisenkhern stormtrooper kit AND accessory kit for less than the price of that GW tac marine kit.

That's the stormtrooper kit and another 4 stories for the accessories.

Thanks for the reply, Agnosto. While I don't care for the eisenkhern look, they are one of the few kits with lots of options for a decent price out there.

As I said, there are a few other companies that make a few good kits. I never disputed that. However, I challenged MrMoustaffa on this quote and have not gotten an adequate response from anyone.

"But don't lie to people or yourself and think GW is cheap or reasonable when literally every company making plastic kits that are even remotely in the same vein are beating them in price or quality, or both."

That simply isn't true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:


InB4, "Something something something, but they're not Space Marines so they don't my aesthetic, something something something..."

Go look at what I posted. That has nothing to do with this discussion.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Because without some sort of structure, we just compare everything to a giant mountain made of diamonds and everything is cheap?

But there IS a structure. Most, if not all, of the comparisons I've seen involve hobbies and other "fun" expenses that normal non-billionaire people might actually have. When I'm comparing the cost of airplane rentals to the cost of 40k it's not because airplane rentals are the most expensive thing ever, it's because that's one of the things that is competing with 40k for my money.

This is a really poor argument and frankly I expect better from you, and I'd already addressed it in the post you quoted, you just decided not to include it in your response, so let me restate it.

Value has no bearing on price or one's ability to afford that price. It's a personal, subjective, judgement about whether the money paid provides an adequate return on whatever criteria have been applied to the purchase, which is, again, largely subjective.

So, feel free to try and compare playing 40K with anything you like, but unless you're going to propose some method of quantifying and objectifying a hugely subjective factor (the question of is it worth it?) then, as I said, it's a waste of time.

Or you can take the stance that drawing comparisons with fundamentally similar products is much more straightforward, albeit still unable to answer why someone may feel £200 odd for a Fellblade is worth it, whereas £25 or so for a Rhino isn't for others, the answer to that, as already mentioned in my post that you quoted and truncated, is simply down to a very personal judgement on ROI of both time and money.

40K starts to feel expensive if you're not enjoying playing the game as much as you used to.

 Azreal13 wrote:
40K starts to feel expensive if you're not enjoying playing the game as much as you used to.

Thread closed here?
If you love something VERY much, price is pretty much no object until you start shorting yourself on food and make poor lifestyle choices.
In this case the enjoyment gained with 40k product is not worth the money compared to other interests the money could be spent.
Yep, pretty darn subjective.
X-wing and Armada FEEL less expensive to me than 40k... am I wrong?
I get more fun per dollar out of those than 40k.

Regardless of the actual price, most other hobbies are immediately accessible. Books, puzzles, video games, movies, etc. etc. -- there's the one or two initial purchases and then you're able to dive right in. 40k/Miniature Wargaming, you got to buy the tiny little models (individually!), then the paints and brushes and glue (and perhaps primer and basing materials and sealers...), then the main rules and army-specific rules. Then you got to devote extra time and effort to figure out just what you got yourself into...

Another angle here is that other hobbies are sold in more places, so you can better look for deals if not find it for "free" (libraries, rental stores, etc.) -- compare to GW who won't let other online stores display prices!

 Azreal13 wrote:

So, feel free to try and compare playing 40K with anything you like, but unless you're going to propose some method of quantifying and objectifying a hugely subjective factor (the question of is it worth it?) then, as I said, it's a waste of time.

That's exactly how I look at it, though. 40k and almost every other brand of wargame or miniature is so affordable to adults earning a wage that relative to most other hobbies that the price hardly matters. Unless you're talking about exceptional pieces like Smaug, large Forge World models, or large resin boutique models (none of which are that common in wargaming or modelling), the hobby as a whole is something that will cost in the order of magnitude of a few hundred bucks yearly.

Only for a miniscule population will the miniature hobby ever cost a few thousand bucks every year, and for those people, they enjoy the hobby so much that cost becomes irrelevant.

If you take out the word "wargaming" or "40k" and simply ask, "Would you spend $500 a year on a hobby you enjoy and expect to spend anywhere from a hundred to several hours on a year on?"

My answer would be most certainly be YES, whether it was camping or Xbox or wargaming.

If I had to modify my answer and say that I was only going to spend 50 hours or 100 hours on the activity, however, I might want to spend less. In which case, I might play a PC game instead of invest in an Xbox, or buy a game like Malifaux or Infinity instead of 40k.

 Azreal13 wrote:

40K starts to feel expensive if you're not enjoying playing the game as much as you used to.

Again, taking out hobby or 40k, I think of it as: if I don't enjoy something or don't play it because of changes in the activity or my own priorities, I get less value out of it. At the end of the day though, I'll also spend less money on it, and if I really don't enjoy it, I won't spend any money on it. Therefore, while I get less value per dollar, I'm spending fewer dollars, or none at all. It doesn't diminish what I got out of it in the past, though.

So even on things that I don't really partake in anymore, I won't be upset that I spent money on it in the past, as long as I got my value out of it already in the past. Taking camping as an example, I don't do any camping anymore, and I just have camping gear gathering dust. But I'm not mad that I bought a $300 tent or sleeping bags, or propane burner. When I look at models and wargames, I've gotten a TON of time and joy out of money I've spent. I mean, tens of thousands of hours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rootbeard wrote:
Regardless of the actual price, most other hobbies are immediately accessible. Books, puzzles, video games, movies, etc. etc. -- there's the one or two initial purchases and then you're able to dive right in. 40k/Miniature Wargaming, you got to buy the tiny little models (individually!), then the paints and brushes and glue (and perhaps primer and basing materials and sealers...), then the main rules and army-specific rules. Then you got to devote extra time and effort to figure out just what you got yourself into...

It depends on what you want out of a hobby. If you're expecting to buy some stuff and jump into a game, 40k is probably a terrible hobby. On the other hand, if you want to spend hundreds of hours planning and modelling armies and you want to play some games with them, 40k is probably going to be an awesome hobby.

All the time and effort in figuring out what I want and in modelling the army just the way I want it is the major attraction to the hobby for me.

In the same way, there are people on the forum who legitimately don't like games like 40k because their army will, by design, never be complete (at least, not for more than a few years at most). On the other hand, this is again one the things that make me happy -- the armies are basically something I can work on and grow as long as the hobby amuses me.

40k is more than just playing. If someony is only interested in playing the game on a competive level then 40k is probably overprized and don't deliver what u'd exxpect from competive playing.

If the time of assembling and painting the models is considered as a part of the hobby just for the sake of enjoying this activities then 40k becomes cheaper because then ist not only the gametime itself that adds to the value.

Other people also add story writing and more to their hobby. which also enriches the experience.

All these points i mentioned have! to be in mind to answer the OP question. Simply stating " it fells so because it is" is a dumb way of answering this question. It gest even so far that it doen't provide the answer at all.
Just because something is expensive doesn't mean its recognized that way. As long as anyone i willing to pay the prize and thinkt " yes its worth that amount of money" it doesn't feel expensive.

I could buy any crapp for just 5credits and would feel cheated because what i expected to get is much less than the experience i have. on the other side if i get something thats very good in any way then said 5 credits would be a great investment.

The same pattern applies to 40k and the question that is found in the OP.

So one of the reasons 40k FEELS so expensive is that a lot of people focus their interest on the game itself. as 40k is at best a medicore game rule wise and has massive ballance issues between its armies its clear that the prices GW throw at its customers seem to be to expensive. In addition the rjule books are not cheap and have a short live time.

X-Wing for example delivers Models that are ready to play and its also much cheaper credit wise. this makes a much better ratio money/time investmenr per game experience.
But is also lacks a lot of the stuff that belongs to 40k,


So it comes down to what any one expects from 40k as a hobby. Its more than just playing. Depending on the focus each one has it can feel to expensive or not. there is no right or wrong there. The only important thing is to recognize the difference between a dumb numbers contest on wich hobby/ system is the best and the Feelings and subjective value an individual gives to each hobby/ system.

 kronk wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:


InB4, "Something something something, but they're not Space Marines so they don't my aesthetic, something something something..."

Go look at what I posted. That has nothing to do with this discussion.

I wasn't referring to you. If you've been on Dakka long enough you'll know exactly which individual(s) that comment is directed at.

I wouldn't call watching films a hobby, it's an entertainment or a pastime.

If you seriously watch a lot of films and write criticism of them, perhaps it's becoming a hobby.

If you make films it definitely becomes a hobby.

To answer OP's question for me:

I have no one to regularly play 40k against

I don't want to pay a lot of money for rules that suck when I already play games with free rules that don't suck

I get most of my 40k second hand because its massively cheaper and I like to trade, but the time it takes to scrape away someone's poor workmanship massively detracts from the fun of building and painting my own brand new kits

Star Wars is a much more entry level nerd IP and the premier miniatures games for Star Wars (namely X-wing) are much easier to learn and teach as well as being easily competitive at higher levels and priced as to facilitate frequent updates of new ships that change the meta but don't break the bank

And finally, something I noticed with Infinity and Maelstrom's Edge that is missing from 40k: character. If I want to play a combined arms, company or battalion level battle, with faceless mooks, I'll play something at a different, smaller scale, like Dropzone Commander, Epic40k or Flames of War. I play 28mm games because each dude is a hero (or villain) all to himself. I should feel like I'm building a close knit squad with nicknames and personal lives rather than fielding 10 ranks of space marines. The line is blurred a little bit with horde armies, but the principle is that if I spend $50 on 10 space marines that cost 5% of my army allowance and they get blown off the field before they do anything, all that time and effort I put into making them characterful and unique is a waste of time. I may as well literally or figuratively production line paint them and put them all on a single base to make moving and removing them easier, and then, I might as well just be playing 15mm or less