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.

Why don't we just try computing the prices of army lists instead of individual boxes?

Although for some reason, I can't access the GW website (it says site temporarily unavailable) to use the prices. Weird.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you are comparing the cost of participation in the hobby, which means the cost of armies rather than specific individual kits, then it is fair enough to compare a metal model from 10 years ago with the plastic replacement now.

For example, Tau used to have metal Pathfinders sold in blister packs. These have been replaced with a plastic box set. Pathfinders are an important unit in the Tau codex, and are widely used. Thus, if they have got cheaper it should be taken into account in pricing the army as a whole.

In actuality, some Tau units are as cheap or cheaper now, taking inflation into account, as 7-8 years ago, but others have gone up so much that the cost of a realistic army is much more than it used to be.

I totally agree, whoever I am trying to counterpoint the pages and pages of arguments that inevitably ensue when someone presents their analysis and almost always it boils down to the methodology chosen being open to interpretation. If we really and seriously wish to make an objective assessment of prices and whether they have risen or not that is unambiguous and inarguable, then really the only way to do it is like for like comparison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 heartserenade wrote:
Why don't we just try computing the prices of army lists instead of individual boxes?

Although for some reason, I can't access the GW website (it says site temporarily unavailable) to use the prices. Weird.

The inherent problem with comparing lists is that they change from edition to edition both in terms of unit usefulness and in terms of point costs so will inevitably introduce some form of bias or skew to the results. But it is a valuable exercise in getting a general 'feel' for how prices have trended over the time span.

Plus it was already done, just using the same units from one period and comparing it to now. The price was always higher. Always. Irrefutably higher.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Plus it was already done, just using the same units from one period and comparing it to now. The price was always higher. Always. Irrefutably higher.

Yes. Exactly. That is what baffles me. I mean, GW has always been expensive - I remember saving up for a metal Gargant for Epic when I was 11 or 12 and thinking it was bloody expensive even then. I would have thought that saying GW is expensive and has risen in price would be one of the few things not open to argument or interpretation really....

If people want to look into this in detail, here is a suggested methodology.

1. Pick a realistic army, with units in all the force slots. Ideally, you should use your own army. This can include options you don't use every day.
2. Ignore changes to materials or kit upgrades. You have to "buy" the models offered by GW at the time of purchase.
3. Start at any initial year X and compare with the 2013 prices. Price everything in your local currency. If you can't find the price in your start year, use the next earliest price you can find.
4. Remember to strip out sales tax or VAT from the retail prices, and remember that tax rates may have changed. (E.g. , the UK rate of VAT was 17.5%, dropped to 15% for a couple of years, then went up to 20%.)
5. When you have calculated a year X cost and a year 2012 cost, you can compare the effect of inflation on the year X cost.
6. The inflation calculator dates will be taken as year X to 2012, which is the latest year for which figures are available.
7. Use the inflation calculator of your own country's central bank to see the effect of inflation.
8. Having calculated a year X price, a year 2013 price and the year X inflated price, you can compare the inflated price to the current price.
9. If there have been significant upgrades in kits they should be mentioned. For instance the current £30 Broadside is a much better kit than the original £12 version, and can account for part of the increase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The other thing is we should also compare the rate of price increase of non-GW figures.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Where are you getting that from, because IG Cadians look a hell of a lot more expensive today then they did a couple of years ago?

Plastic Guardsmen (Cadians/Catachans), Sisters of Battle, and all three basic Tyranid units (Hormagaunts, Termagants, and Genestealers) went up in price since August 2004. Every other Troops unit either varies based on options taken or went down in price once you adjust for inflation. Some don't even need to be adjusted-- Gretchin, all four basic Dæmon kits (Bloodletters, Dæmonettes, Plaguebearers, and Pink Horrors), Wyches, both varieties of Grey Knight (power or Terminator armor), and Necron Immortals all went down in price since August 2004 without adjusting for inflation-- that's what happens when you convert from metal to plastic.

Note that Games Workshop only has one more line with Troops to convert from metal to plastic-- Sisters. It's conceivable that the next Eldar codex will have plastic Aspect Warriors in the Troops slot, but by no means guaranteed (aside from Dire Avengers).

 Kingsley wrote:

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Where are you getting that from, because IG Cadians look a hell of a lot more expensive today then they did a couple of years ago?

Plastic Guardsmen (Cadians/Catachans), Sisters of Battle, and all three basic Tyranid units (Hormagaunts, Termagants, and Genestealers) went up in price since August 2004. Every other Troops unit either varies based on options taken or went down in price once you adjust for inflation. Some don't even need to be adjusted-- Gretchin, all four basic Dæmon kits (Bloodletters, Dæmonettes, Plaguebearers, and Pink Horrors), Wyches, both varieties of Grey Knight (power or Terminator armor), and Necron Immortals all went down in price since August 2004 without adjusting for inflation-- that's what happens when you convert from metal to plastic.

Lord of the Rings stuff all went up in price/less stuff in the box as well.

What about the standard Orc boys for fantasy?

Warriors and Marauders of Chaos were both £18 when I last bought a box of each about 5-6 years ago - each set is £20 currently.

Undead zombies - was £18, now £20.50.

Tyranid Warriors are now £28.50 - they certainly didn;t cost that much a couple of years ago.

To say that GW haven't raised standard troop prices in 8 years is clearly not true.

 Kingsley wrote:

Plastic Guardsmen (Cadians/Catachans), Sisters of Battle, and all three basic Tyranid units (Hormagaunts, Termagants, and Genestealers) went up in price since August 2004. Every other Troops unit either varies based on options taken or went down in price once you adjust for inflation. Some don't even need to be adjusted-- Gretchin, all four basic Dæmon kits (Bloodletters, Dæmonettes, Plaguebearers, and Pink Horrors), Wyches, both varieties of Grey Knight (power or Terminator armor), and Necron Immortals all went down in price since August 2004 without adjusting for inflation-- that's what happens when you convert from metal to plastic.

Then the product hasn't gone down in price. They replaced the product with another that was cheaper.

The tragedy of all of this is that no matter what time frame you choose, most troops have not gone up that much. Looking 10 years back shows more increases than Kingsley finds due to the big price jump of 2004, but the prices had been stable for many years prior to that.

Where prices have skyrocketed (IG aside) has mostly been in the metals/finecast, tanks, monsters, flyers, and the like.

There is a good point buried in the insanity here, in that people seem convinced that GW has been a price increasing machine. And I was one of them. Looking at the actual prices, the time involved, and the inflation involved (roughly 20% between 2004 and 2012, and 25% between 2002 and 2012), paints a more nuanced picture.

Meaning, regardless of squabbling over time, improvement in kits, material switches, or whatever, the actual price increase of a lot of stuff has been surprisingly (to me at least), low.

That's cold comfort to anybody that collects armies in metal, of course.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
To say that GW haven't raised standard troop prices in 8 years is clearly not true.

GW has raised their standard Troop prices. But generally speaking they haven't done so above inflation, and updates to kits often make acquiring the units you want less expensive. Here's the complete analysis if you want it.

Polonius wrote:The tragedy of all of this is that no matter what time frame you choose, most troops have not gone up that much. Looking 10 years back shows more increases than Kingsley finds due to the big price jump of 2004, but the prices had been stable for many years prior to that.

Where prices have skyrocketed (IG aside) has mostly been in the metals/finecast, tanks, monsters, flyers, and the like.

There is a good point buried in the insanity here, in that people seem convinced that GW has been a price increasing machine. And I was one of them. Looking at the actual prices, the time involved, and the inflation involved (roughly 20% between 2004 and 2012, and 25% between 2002 and 2012), paints a more nuanced picture.

Meaning, regardless of squabbling over time, improvement in kits, material switches, or whatever, the actual price increase of a lot of stuff has been surprisingly (to me at least), low.

That's cold comfort to anybody that collects armies in metal, of course.

Agreed on all points there. I believe that GW's pricing strategy is to keep basic (not necessarily Troops) infantry kits relatively inexpensive, while charging large amounts for characters and "centerpiece units" (tanks other than basic transports, big monsters or flyers, etc.) For instance, with the latest Tau release, Pathfinders-- a core infantry unit-- got a new kit that is vastly cheaper than the old Pathfinders and comes with more options and bitz, while Crisis Suits-- another core infantry (albeit Jet Pack Infantry) component of the army-- were reboxed at a lower per-model cost. However, the new Riptide suit costs 85 USD.

Yes.

For example the Crisis suit cost £8.51 (ex.VAT) in 2005 and costs £11.11 today (bundle box, ex.VAT) which is only 30.5% price increase. If it had gone up according to the rate of inflation it would cost £10.76 (ex.VAT) so in fact it has gone up hardly at all.

However if you compare the current price of a full Tau army with the price in 2004-6, it is 59% more expensive in actual £££, and 26% more expansive in adjusted for inflation £££.

On the plus side, the metal Stealth suits and Pathfinders have been replaced with plastic kits, and there is a new Broadside kit to replace the old mixed media version.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
To say that GW haven't raised standard troop prices in 8 years is clearly not true.

It is, as a colleague used to say, "true but not correct."

But actually look at some of the data:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/180/518949.page#5486423

I took those prices from the 2004-2005 big catalogue, which means they are pre-2004 price jump. I did those prices flat, meaning I did not include inflation. Increase the initial price of any kit by ~20-25% for inflation, and you'll see that while some troops jumped a lot, many did not.

I think it's incorrect to say that troop prices haven't gone up, but it's correct to say that many troops have only gone up at the pace of inflation. Alas, a few outliers really pull the average up. So, yes, the average GW troop is more expensive, regardless of inflation, than 10 years ago. But generally not by as much as people think.

SBG wrote:
The game is so expensive and it seems like GW wants to drive business away... but the game itself is a blast. I don't regret the 2k I've spent on it at all, but entertainment money to me is a write off anyhow and I have hours of enjoyment from modelling and painting alone. Thats the best part of the hobby to me! Other manufacturers have some bloody nice sculpts too, though...

If I may leap in, I'd say this is probably the opinion I have of the whole thing. Sure, things are expensive and GW seem set on ruling the miniature world with an iron fist, but I still love the hobby and the modelling itself.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Tyranid Warriors are now £28.50 - they certainly didn;t cost that much a couple of years ago.

To say that GW haven't raised standard troop prices in 8 years is clearly not true.

To be fair, Tyranid Warriors have only been Troop choices as of the 5th edition codex. Prior to that, they were Elite and/or HQ, with wings moving them to Fast Attack.

Without meaning to cause a riot here, why are people so fixated on the 2004 price rise? I know it was a big one - I don't think anyone is claiming it isn't - but if you are going to claim that GW are constantly increasing prices way above inflation each year isn't it better to view the "normal" increase rather than the 1 time "Big" increase?

Hell the increase was nearly 10 years ago, I can't think of any other product where people would say "10 Years ago there was a massive price jump, so prices are always jumping massively". In many ways I think Kingsleys example that doesn't include this is MORE representative of how GW opertate now.

Also, why does it matter that the models switched from Metal to Plastic if you're viewing the cost as an army? Seriously, if the idea is just to get something to play with what does it matter to you, the customer, that the company is using a material that costs them less? Particularly when the general opinion (and I'm not saying this is something everyone agrees with) is that the new material is actually better (comparing metal to plastic here, not Finecast which is a whole other matter).

If Ford (and I'm probably showing a dreadful lack of cars here - do they still make the Kia?) started to make cars tomorrow from a brand new material that is not only better (which for a car I guess would be lighter/stronger?) but cost them less, does that suddenly mean that the car is no longer a Kia? Ofcause it doesn't and I fail to see why an army changeing from metal to plastic suddenly means it is no longer the same army.

Stranger83 wrote:
Without meaning to cause a riot here, why are people so fixated on the 2004 price rise? I know it was a big one - I don't think anyone is claiming it isn't - but if you are going to claim that GW are constantly increasing prices way above inflation each year isn't it better to view the "normal" increase rather than the 1 time "Big" increase?

that's a solid point, up until the point where you start counting from right after the price rise. Meaning, I think it's fine to start it then, but only if prefaced with the acknowledgement that it was right after a major price prise.

But this wasn't an obscenely huge jump. It may have been the most comprehensive, but it's similar to later price increases. And one reason to start with that increase is because it came after a relatively stable time in prices. It was the start of "annual price reviews" as we know them now. So yes, if you're interested in the effect of the "price rise era," knocking off the first price rise is improper.

But... what I think would be interesting is to see how far back the early 2004 price went, to give context to the jump.

Stranger83 wrote:
Without meaning to cause a riot here, why are people so fixated on the 2004 price rise? I know it was a big one - I don't think anyone is claiming it isn't - but if you are going to claim that GW are constantly increasing prices way above inflation each year isn't it better to view the "normal" increase rather than the 1 time "Big" increase?

...
...
...
.

I did not know there was a huge price rise in 2004.

I have calculated army inflation from 2004 because that is when I bought the 4th edition rules and 3rd edition Tau codex and started to make a Tau army, buying the units in 2005.

My army therefore is a good indicator of the rate of price increases from 2005 to 2012. It's a fairly typical army with a fair selection of unit types, that has been updated in 2006 with the new codex and can be updated again now.

When you look at it, my Tau inflation calculation is based on the post-2004 prices, which means a chunk of inflation has been ignored.

Inflation from 2004 to today is 24.3%

A Land Raider cost $50 in 2004 and $74.25 today, which is 48.5% higher or 24% higher than inflation for the exact same model.

A Leman Russ cost $40 in 2004 and $49.50 today, which is 24% higher and is basically following inflation.

A CSM Predator cost $40 in 2004 and $57.75 today which is 45% higher or 21% higher than inflation for the exact same model.

Lastly, lets look at the rulebook, something that is needed to play the game. It cost $50 in 2004 and now cost $74.25. That's a 48% increase in price, or 24% over inflation, for basically the same product. I have both rulebooks and they are fairly similar. Talk about extortion.

I can pick up the Warmachine rule book for $30 in softcover and would suspect it would be $40 to $45 for hardcover. I can also order it online from a multitude of stores.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:
Without meaning to cause a riot here, why are people so fixated on the 2004 price rise? I know it was a big one - I don't think anyone is claiming it isn't - but if you are going to claim that GW are constantly increasing prices way above inflation each year isn't it better to view the "normal" increase rather than the 1 time "Big" increase?

...
...
...
.

I did not know there was a huge price rise in 2004.

I have calculated army inflation from 2004 because that is when I bought the 4th edition rules and 3rd edition Tau codex and started to make a Tau army, buying the units in 2005.

My army therefore is a good indicator of the rate of price increases from 2005 to 2012. It's a fairly typical army with a fair selection of unit types, that has been updated in 2006 with the new codex and can be updated again now.

When you look at it, my Tau inflation calculation is based on the post-2004 prices, which means a chunk of inflation has been ignored.

Yeah, I'm not saying that things have not increased beyond inflation, just that I don't see the exclusion of the 2004 increase as that big a deal as long as you state when you are calculating from (which in fairness Kingsley does), I'd be more concerned if you didn't include the 2012 increase personally than not including the 2004 one.

2004 was a big increase because, if my memory serves me correctly (and it may not), it was essentially a double increase (i.e. they increased prices once then did the "annual increase" almost straight after) - this gave it a much higher increase % than the more normal (and I use the word only in the GW sense, an annual increase is not "normal") annual increase.

The point I was trying to make is that people were slating him for not including the 2004 increase when in actual fact the 2004 one is abnormal. I suppose you could do the 2004 one taking just the "normal" annual increase and not the proceeding "one-off" increase to get an idea of how much they have increased above inflation, if you are trying to see how the annual increase has effected prices, but it's probably much easier to just ignore the 2004 results (I haven't seen the price list tables so cannot comment on how much detail they hold).

Barfolomew wrote:
Inflation from 2004 to today is 24.3%

A Land Raider cost $50 in 2004 and $74.25 today, which is 48.5% higher or 24% higher than inflation for the exact same model.

A Leman Russ cost $40 in 2004 and $49.50 today, which is 24% higher and is basically following inflation.

A CSM Predator cost $40 in 2004 and $57.75 today which is 45% higher or 21% higher than inflation for the exact same model.

Lastly, lets look at the rulebook, something that is needed to play the game. It cost $50 in 2004 and now cost $74.25. That's a 48% increase in price, or 24% over inflation, for basically the same product. I have both rulebooks and they are fairly similar. Talk about extortion.

I can pick up the Warmachine rule book for $30 in softcover and would suspect it would be $40 to $45 for hardcover. I can also order it online from a multitude of stores.

Stranger83 wrote:
The point I was trying to make is that people were slating him for not including the 2004 increase when in actual fact the 2004 one is abnormal. I suppose you could do the 2004 one taking just the "normal" annual increase and not the proceeding "one-off" increase to get an idea of how much they have increased above inflation, if you are trying to see how the annual increase has effected prices, but it's probably much easier to just ignore the 2004 results (I haven't seen the price list tables so cannot comment on how much detail they hold).

You have to set some form of actual basis for the debate. Most people when they talk about the price hikes - they refer to prior to the first big price hikes of FY2004. The August number remained in place from the summer of 2004 through to the next price hike in the spring of 2006 (when things like Tactical Marines went from $30 per box to $35 per box). That price stayed in place until the current price which happened the year before last if my memory is correct (pretty sure those were the troop hikes).

By using a date right after a price hike to calculate if something is inline with inflation is not very helpful - you could go back all the way to the late 1990s when the boxed set was $25 and say "Look - almost no increase as a percentage year over year" - but that is because those prices were stable for much longer periods of time. Since people question the prices in relation to the period where price hikes have been happening...it is best to look at the prices that get hiked. The increase in 2004 was unusual in that they hiked everything at once - but they didn't by any means stop increasing everything. The more recent ones have staggered the increases instead so that it isn't noticed immediately. Since the 2004 increase, troops in general have had 2 increases. They should be due for a third significant increase this year if the pattern holds.

Also, since everything in GW is in relation to their FY period (July to June) then when you refer to things - the FY is more important than the calendar year. Right now - from August of last year to now...prices on a lot of things have been stable. Does that mean there wasn't a price hike last year? No. Does that mean we shouldn't expect a price hike this year? No. GW will no doubt roll out higher prices on a lot of things this year in a month or two and it will only be a few hundred different SKUs of their whole catalog. As a percentage of the catalog - the increase might only be 4 or 5% as a lot of supporters like to point out when the price hike happens. But last year, a different set of SKUs were jacked up and the year before that it was a different set of SKUs.

What I took away from the whole thing was; Price increases are inevitable during good economies and bad. Other companies are not as widely played as GW and can be just as expensive. However, game company X does not treat me with the same disrespect as GW tried to

Interesting Academic discussion regarding Historical price rises / drops .

To me , what is more relevant is my perception of prices now though of course one does remember what that model / unit / Codex / rulebook used to cost and this may affect a willingness to swallow the rise .

The ratmen theme is probably ripped off from The Borribles, an English childrens book published in 1976 which features the "Rumbles" a ratman-like race which itself is based on the "Wombles" an eco friendly ratman-like race from an earlier TV animation series.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If people want to look into this in detail, here is a suggested methodology.

1. Pick a realistic army, with units in all the force slots. Ideally, you should use your own army. This can include options you don't use every day.
2. Ignore changes to materials or kit upgrades. You have to "buy" the models offered by GW at the time of purchase.
3. Start at any initial year X and compare with the 2013 prices. Price everything in your local currency. If you can't find the price in your start year, use the next earliest price you can find.
4. Remember to strip out sales tax or VAT from the retail prices, and remember that tax rates may have changed. (E.g. , the UK rate of VAT was 17.5%, dropped to 15% for a couple of years, then went up to 20%.)
5. When you have calculated a year X cost and a year 2012 cost, you can compare the effect of inflation on the year X cost.
6. The inflation calculator dates will be taken as year X to 2012, which is the latest year for which figures are available.
7. Use the inflation calculator of your own country's central bank to see the effect of inflation.
8. Having calculated a year X price, a year 2013 price and the year X inflated price, you can compare the inflated price to the current price.
9. If there have been significant upgrades in kits they should be mentioned. For instance the current £30 Broadside is a much better kit than the original £12 version, and can account for part of the increase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The other thing is we should also compare the rate of price increase of non-GW figures.

Yes, and then you have to do the same calculation every year between year X and year Y and plot them on a graph to get a realistic idea of increases, as if you pick a year X which was just after a price increase and a year Y that was just before a price increase, you will be underestimating the reality of the price differences relative to inflation. If you pick a year X just before a large price increase, then a year Y just after a large price increase, you will over estimated the price rise relative to inflation.

I personally feel to get a whole picture of the GW pricing you have to go back even further than 2004. If you go all the way back to 2nd edition, it paints a different picture. I don't have the time to go through the numbers, but I feel if you did, you'd find 2nd -> 3rd the price of an "average" army jumped, as the game design changed to encourage more models. Simultaneously though, many kits went metal -> plastic, but often with a quality decrease and given you now needed more models to field an average army, I don't think the price of an army really decreased. Over the coming years, it wouldn't surprise me if the cost of collecting an army dropped down as that's when many core units that were previously metal went to plastic, but I would be surprised if it got back to 2nd edition levels. From there (that's probably about 2003-2004) the price has been rising with a few more metal -> plastic conversions which may keep the cost of certain armies from increasing too much, but armies that were already mostly plastic in 2003-2004 would have increased the most.

That's my feeling at least, I don't have the time right now to try and find exact numbers and definitely don't have the time to test it for various armies which would be required to paint an accurate picture.

You then plot the graphs you get from that alongside graphs of revenue, profit, overall market growth and an inflation curve and you would be able to do quite a comprehensive analysis of GW's changing position and how attitudes toward GW have shifted over the years and the effect on their revenue and then see how poorly GW are managing that revenue by the profit.

So.... anyone have a spare day or two to do all that? Cheers.

KK recommended I put this here:


Keeper of the Flame

[Avatar]

1 Article Edit
Gallery Votes: 4
Posts: 4958

Joined: 08/18/2009 02:30:45 PM
Location: Lake Forest, California, South Orange County
Online
Filter Thread


Breaking off from the CHS thread, a discussion about sales volume for GW spanning the last 6 years.

While these numbers focus on one specific unit, it is arguably one of(if not THE) top selling units GW makes.

Sales numbers for Space Marines Tactical Squad:

2006 $255,117; 2007 $273,814; 2008 $247,810; 2009 $192,011; 2010 $106,278; 2011 $84,834; 2012 $60,698

Ignoring the single major drop in sales from '09-'10, we still see steady drops of 14-20%, with an average of 21.3% per year since the peak amount of $273k

From 2007-2012 here are the drops:
14% '07-'08, 22% '08-'09, 44.7$ '09-'10, 20.7% '10-'11, 28.5% '11-'12.

Price per unit in 2007 at it's peak was $35. Current price for 2012 is $37.25, a 6.4% increase.

Based on those numbers, if 100% of the units where wholesale, 2007 volume was roughly 12,000, and 2012 was roughly 2500, 20.8% of it's former sales volume.

These numbers of course are for the United States only.

Thoughts?


GW has done nothing in the last few years other than cut costs and raise prices. New releases are more and more expensive, and now we're seeing single units that cost as much as battleforce boxes.

 Aerethan wrote:


Breaking off from the CHS thread, a discussion about sales volume for GW spanning the last 6 years.

While these numbers focus on one specific unit, it is arguably one of(if not THE) top selling units GW makes.

Sales numbers for Space Marines Tactical Squad:

2006 $255,117; 2007 $273,814; 2008 $247,810; 2009 $192,011; 2010 $106,278; 2011 $84,834; 2012 $60,698

Ignoring the single major drop in sales from '09-'10, we still see steady drops of 14-20%, with an average of 21.3% per year since the peak amount of $273k

From 2007-2012 here are the drops:
14% '07-'08, 22% '08-'09, 44.7$ '09-'10, 20.7% '10-'11, 28.5% '11-'12.

Price per unit in 2007 at it's peak was $35. Current price for 2012 is $37.25, a 6.4% increase.

Based on those numbers, if 100% of the units where wholesale, 2007 volume was roughly 12,000, and 2012 was roughly 2500, 20.8% of it's former sales volume.

These numbers of course are for the United States only.

Thoughts?


GW has done nothing in the last few years other than cut costs and raise prices. New releases are more and more expensive, and now we're seeing single units that cost as much as battleforce boxes.

Ain't no way those numbers are good but there are some mitigating factors. During that time GW created several new products (DA vets, Space Wolf grey hunters and most of all starter sets) that compete directly with the Tac marine box. An addition tac marines can be resold on the secondary market, so GW is also competing with tac marines they made 5, 6, 10 years ago that are now being resold.

Still does not make the numbers good, but there are external factors at play. Do they explain a fall from $270k to $60k? I doubt it.

If we have it, a chart of sales on the same codex over a few editions would be very interesting. It seems that's the only apples to apples sales we might have.

That is interesting. The most recent SM codex was released in 2008. It stands to reason that more people start an army when the codex is new.

Okay, so they're selling fewer units of the basic troop for one army, and it's tapered off over the lifespan of the codex. Maybe that's their expected results? As Kid_Kyoto says, newer alternate marine codexes don't really benefit from the base tactical squad, as they now all have their own base kits.

I'd be interested to see similar unit sales comparisons for core choices for other armies.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:


Breaking off from the CHS thread, a discussion about sales volume for GW spanning the last 6 years.

While these numbers focus on one specific unit, it is arguably one of(if not THE) top selling units GW makes.

Sales numbers for Space Marines Tactical Squad:

2006 $255,117; 2007 $273,814; 2008 $247,810; 2009 $192,011; 2010 $106,278; 2011 $84,834; 2012 $60,698

Ignoring the single major drop in sales from '09-'10, we still see steady drops of 14-20%, with an average of 21.3% per year since the peak amount of $273k

From 2007-2012 here are the drops:
14% '07-'08, 22% '08-'09, 44.7$ '09-'10, 20.7% '10-'11, 28.5% '11-'12.

Price per unit in 2007 at it's peak was $35. Current price for 2012 is $37.25, a 6.4% increase.

Based on those numbers, if 100% of the units where wholesale, 2007 volume was roughly 12,000, and 2012 was roughly 2500, 20.8% of it's former sales volume.

These numbers of course are for the United States only.

Thoughts?


GW has done nothing in the last few years other than cut costs and raise prices. New releases are more and more expensive, and now we're seeing single units that cost as much as battleforce boxes.

Ain't no way those numbers are good but there are some mitigating factors. During that time GW created several new products (DA vets, Space Wolf grey hunters and most of all starter sets) that compete directly with the Tac marine box. An addition tac marines can be resold on the secondary market, so GW is also competing with tac marines they made 5, 6, 10 years ago that are now being resold.

Still does not make the numbers good, but there are external factors at play. Do they explain a fall from $270k to $60k? I doubt it.

If we have it, a chart of sales on the same codex over a few editions would be very interesting. It seems that's the only apples to apples sales we might have.

Those numbers are directly from GW in their CHS lawsuit. They were submitted as evidence, and if they are way off, then GW perjured themselves to the court.

That same report does have a few codices listed in it across the same time span of 2006-2012.

 Aerethan wrote:

Those numbers are directly from GW in their CHS lawsuit. They were submitted as evidence, and if they are way off, then GW perjured themselves to the court.

That same report does have a few codices listed in it across the same time span of 2006-2012.

Oh yeah I know. I had to follow you through 3 threads till I found one where we're allowed to talk about it

I'll take a look at the report for codexi.