Another GW price raise coming in february (?)

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.

**Railguns**

The guy might have just told you that to sell off more of his stock. A 40% discount sounds like a going out of business fire sale. It's especially believable considering GW's picked up the third world dictator-bug this year.

**Kanluwen**

Sid, the price changes on Battleforces/Battalions is actually from them moving away from trying to cram a semi-effective force into a $90 box, and moving more towards providing a plastic core of an army and then pricing it accordingly.

Just sayin'. They announced that ages ago, with the Ork Battleforce I believe it was.

**LunaHound**

If thats true , then whats the theory behind the latest IG battle force...

**Railguns**

Half a troops choice and a fast attack model you're going to want to replace as soon as you see the other options in the codex.

**Nurglitch**

Lunahound:

Of course people can afford those prices. People can always afford what they want. And I can assure you that any comparison between GW plastic models and platinum is laughable hyperbole. The fact is that some people are on a tighter budget than others.

GW is a relatively inexpensive hobby. Given how cheap the hobby is, the only explanation is that the people complaining about the prices must be either really tight-fisted, or live near the poverty line.

Heck, up to recently I was living below the poverty line. I scrimped and saved and traded, and managed to build two new Space Marine armies which I'm still expanding. And you know what? The GW prices are irrelevant to me because they were a damn-sight cheaper than just about anything else I enjoyed. GW provided me with a hobby I could enjoy when I was a poor student, and it provides me with a hobby I can enjoy as a relatively successful worker.

Price was irrelevant to me then, and price is irrelevant to me now.

We have a saying in my industry (financial services):

"Cost is only an issue in the absence of value."

**LunaHound**

Nurglitch wrote:
Price was irrelevant to me then, and price is irrelevant to me now.

We dont have the same view on price and its worth. I cannot debate with you over that because
i know we arnt the same.

**Nurglitch**

Lunahound:

I don't debate. However, if you'd like to discuss it, there's simple ways of discussing the relation of cost to value that are universal to everyone so we don't have to get bogged down in "my view vs your view" childishness.

**LunaHound**

Nurglitch wrote:Lunahound:
I don't debate. However, if you'd like to discuss it, there's simple ways of discussing the relation of cost to value that are universal to everyone so we don't have to get bogged down in "my view vs your view" childishness.

Yes discuss , my bad using the wrong word.
Alright , you would have to lead though and i'll do my best to reply .
Though i must say our discussion seem to have jumped in a weird time as im currently waiting for an answer regarding the battle force , especially the IG.
Which again the person has refused to respond yet again.

**Kanluwen**

LunaHound wrote:If thats true , then whats the theory behind the latest IG battle force...

Are you really going to tell me that a Command Squad, a Heavy Weapons Squad, and a pair of Infantry Squads isn't useful to a Guard player?

Yeah. Sentinels are suboptimal compared to the Valkyrie spam. But properly utilized, a pair of Armoured Sentinel squads with Autocannons/Plasma Cannons can wreak some serious havoc against a MC heavy army.

**Vindicator#9**

It doesnt surprise me at all even if it doesnt happen when OP said itll happen eventually anyway. Now with that being said i dont agree in fact i am quite irritated because i really enjoy the hobby and like models but wish they would pull their head out of their arse and see that people are tired of being screwed and like said before more independent tournies will be set up and let other companies models used in the owners armies.

**LunaHound**

Kanluwen wrote:
LunaHound wrote:If thats true , then whats the theory behind the latest IG battle force...

Are you really going to tell me that a Command Squad, a Heavy Weapons Squad, and a pair of Infantry Squads isn't useful to a Guard player?

Yeah. Sentinels are suboptimal compared to the Valkyrie spam. But properly utilized, a pair of Armoured Sentinel squads with Autocannons/Plasma Cannons can wreak some serious havoc against a MC heavy army.

By all means , that part i agree with you ( the whole *core part )
But there is something else about the IG force that is out of line ( hence i brought it up , or else sid already covered it )

Vindicator#9 wrote:It doesnt surprise me at all even if it doesnt happen when OP said itll happen eventually anyway. Now with that being said i dont agree in fact i am quite irritated because i really enjoy the hobby and like models but wish they would pull their head out of their arse and see that people are tired of being screwed and like said before more independent tournies will be set up and let other companies models used in the owners armies.

Thats impossible unfortunately , GW know people will buy the price they charge , hence have no reason to not pull their head out of their arse.
Unless their statics show the high price are actually enough to effect with their profits , it'll keep on going . and going.
I mean even the resolute ones have tried ( the boycott thread ) didnt get too far ...

**alexwars1**

...Why?

Why would they raise the prices? Again? To make more money? What excellent logic! Drive off customers! Brilliant. I must remember that if I start a business.

Honestly, there is no real reason prices should go up. I already buy from a discount retailer (http://www.phoenixforge.com.au/ if anyone's interested), and if the prices go up, it may drive me to another game altogether.

**Kanluwen**

LunaHound wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
LunaHound wrote:If thats true , then whats the theory behind the latest IG battle force...

Are you really going to tell me that a Command Squad, a Heavy Weapons Squad, and a pair of Infantry Squads isn't useful to a Guard player?

Yeah. Sentinels are suboptimal compared to the Valkyrie spam. But properly utilized, a pair of Armoured Sentinel squads with Autocannons/Plasma Cannons can wreak some serious havoc against a MC heavy army.

By all means , that part i agree with you ( the whole *core part )
But there is something else about the IG force that is out of line ( hence i brought it up , or else sid already covered it )

Please be more specific.

Or are you talking about the fact that the IG battleforce is $95 versus the others priced at $90?

It's no real secret that the older battleforces are still under a lot of the old constrictions.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

alexwars1 wrote:...Why?

Why would they raise the prices? Again? To make more money? What excellent logic! Drive off customers! Brilliant. I must remember that if I start a business.

Honestly, there is no real reason prices should go up. I already buy from a discount retailer (http://www.phoenixforge.com.au/ if anyone's interested), and if the prices go up, it may drive me to another game altogether.

You do realize that this is in no way confirmed, whatsoever right?

**LunaHound**

It's no real secret that the older battleforces are still under a lot of the old constrictions.

Why do you think this is though?

**avantgarde**

Hey, everybody is being way to hard on GW on pricing. It's completely unfair, they've had some additional operating costs this last quarter. I mean lawyers aren't cheap and with all the C&D business they've had to pay extra for legal advice. I mean really it's the community's fault, if they would police themselves better and avoid infringing on GW's IP then this wouldn't be a problem.

**Kanluwen**

Because they haven't been updated...?

And because, if I had to guess, the contents of the Guard battleforces come out to $129 USD.
It's a $39 discount, moreso if you buy it from The Warstore or a shop that gives you a discount up front.

**LunaHound**

Kanluwen wrote:Because they haven't been updated...?

And because, if I had to guess, the contents of the Guard battleforces come out to $129 USD.
It's a $39 discount, moreso if you buy it from The Warstore or a shop that gives you a discount up front.

So basically you feel that the current $90 battle force / battalions are too good of a deal ,
and GW should raise them to new prices like IG and Skaven?

PS kanluwen , when do you think we can have a little chat in PM ? i have some extra semi OT / OT questions i always wanted to ask.

**Nurglitch**

Lunahound:

Okay, so let's call the price of a good the "cost", and how much you want it the "value". Now, the reason we're differentiating between these things is because you only have a finite amount of money and usually stuff is priced at a constant rate rather than as a percentage of your income. That means that a $5 good may be worth more to you than to me. That doesn't change the cost, but it does change the value so that you'll be more willing to fit the cost of the good in your budget. I'm pretty sure you're aware of all these notions.

Now, if I have a considerably larger budget, that $5 will be a much smaller portion of my budget regardless of its value to me. After all, some people buy stuff that would be considered expensive simply because they can afford it out of pocket - they're that rich that their pocket money is more than most people's net worth. The cost to me of that $5 good is proportionately less.

So we have three dimensions, if you will, of cost, value, and let's call it 'budget'. So long as the value is greater than the cost divided by the budget, I, as a consumer, will remain flexible regarding the cost.

Given this framework:

People who don't value the product more than the cost as a percentage of their budget shouldn't complain because this isn't a hobby that they value enough to participate. I like expensive scotch, but I don't complain that I can't fit a decent supply in my budget - I just don't value it enough to pay those prices, and I stick with a bottle every couple of months.

People who value the product more than the cost as a percentage of their budget will continue to buy the product and be indifferent to price increases. That's me, by the way.

People who value the product but can't meet the cost as a percentage of their budget must be working on really tight budgets because GW aren't selling cars or motorcycles or even video-games. I value the product more than a percentage of my budget because it's such a small percentage of my budget. I could afford it even when it constituted a much larger percentage of my budget. And so I'm confused with people complaining about the price increases if they're still interested in playing. If the prices are too much, then people calmly throw in the towel and move on.

It's like love and hate, I think. Regardless of the cognitive content that makes an emotion love or hate, there's a strong feeling. The fact that people are taking the time to complain suggests to me that they still care enough that v > c/b.

The fact is that GW doesn't hate us. GW loves us: we keep them afloat because we feel strongly enough about their hobby to keep paying. Gamers are nick-named "Grognards" because they'll grumble at anything, because they like grumbling. If it wasn't prices, it would be something else (like the rules, or the models, or the other games, or whatever).

The time to start considering what's going on will be when, instead of complaining, or posting messages, people just sell off their stuff, stop posting on forums, and move onto pastures that they actually value more ("greener"

.

What do you think, Lunahound?

**LunaHound**

Nurglitch wrote:Lunahound:

Okay, so let's call the price of a good the "cost", and how much you want it the "value". Now, the reason we're differentiating between these things is because you only have a finite amount of money and usually stuff is priced at a constant rate rather than as a percentage of your income. That means that a $5 good may be worth more to you than to me. That doesn't change the cost, but it does change the value so that you'll be more willing to fit the cost of the good in your budget. I'm pretty sure you're aware of all these notions.

Now, if I have a considerably larger budget, that $5 will be a much smaller portion of my budget regardless of its value to me. After all, some people buy stuff that would be considered expensive simply because they can afford it out of pocket - they're that rich that their pocket money is more than most people's net worth. The cost to me of that $5 good is proportionately less.

This is true to some people , but it is 100% not true for the type like me , like i said im stingy , i care not if its $1 difference or $100. For me , if something isnt worth its value
then i have to laugh at companies justifying it . ( which is what im actually talking about in this thread . i know perfectly well GW is company for profit not for charity .
I just dont like how naive they take their customers for.

So we have three dimensions, if you will, of cost, value, and let's call it 'budget'. So long as the value is greater than the cost divided by the budget, I, as a consumer, will remain flexible regarding the cost.

Given this framework:

People who don't value the product more than the cost as a percentage of their budget shouldn't complain because this isn't a hobby that they value enough to participate. I like expensive scotch, but I don't complain that I can't fit a decent supply in my budget - I just don't value it enough to pay those prices, and I stick with a bottle every couple of months.

People who value the product more than the cost as a percentage of their budget will continue to buy the product and be indifferent to price increases. That's me, by the way.
Yes , i know different people have different tastes in how they fancy what to buy.

People who value the product but can't meet the cost as a percentage of their budget must be working on really tight budgets because GW aren't selling cars or motorcycles or even video-games. I value the product more than a percentage of my budget because it's such a small percentage of my budget. I could afford it even when it constituted a much larger percentage of my budget. And so I'm confused with people complaining about the price increases if they're still interested in playing. If the prices are too much, then people calmly throw in the towel and move on.

It's like love and hate, I think. Regardless of the cognitive content that makes an emotion love or hate, there's a strong feeling. The fact that people are taking the time to complain suggests to me that they still care enough that v > c/b. Yes i agree , like i have said in other threads " hmm this seems like an abusive relationship thread "

The fact is that GW doesn't hate us. GW loves us: we keep them afloat because we feel strongly enough about their hobby to keep paying. Gamers are nick-named "Grognards" because they'll grumble at anything, because they like grumbling. If it wasn't prices, it would be something else (like the rules, or the models, or the other games, or whatever).
I dont think they love or hate us. We are just numbers and figures in their business plans and formulas.

The time to start considering what's going on will be when, instead of complaining, or posting messages, people just sell off their stuff, stop posting on forums, and move onto pastures that they actually value more ("greener".
I dont particularly hate GW , i know there are greener pastures but , it is quite a suitable product when i have O.C buys.

What do you think, Lunahound?

I understand what you are trying to say , and im very impressed + honored you typed such a detailed paragraph ( im serious that you felt that im worth such effort )
Unfortunately atm i can only think of something very basic to reply >< ( but its also true )

Im stingy.

**Kanluwen**

LunaHound wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:Because they haven't been updated...?

And because, if I had to guess, the contents of the Guard battleforces come out to $129 USD.
It's a $39 discount, moreso if you buy it from The Warstore or a shop that gives you a discount up front.

So basically you feel that the current $90 battle force / battalions are too good of a deal ,
and GW should raise them to new prices like IG and Skaven?

PS kanluwen , when do you think we can have a little chat in PM ? i have some extra semi OT / OT questions i always wanted to ask.

Take a good long look at what you replied to, Luna.
Not once did I say that it was "too good of a deal".
There's a 29.20% discount inherent in the pricing(95 being 69.80% of 129, rounded to 70 for convenience and brings it to a 30% discount).
If I had to take a guess, we'll see that in all the other battleforces/battalions as they get updated.

**Nurglitch**

Lunahound:

Fair enough. But the problem with so succinct a reply is that I still don't know whether you're just not that into the hobby, or you just don't have that much of a budget. I mean, could you buy more GW stuff? After all, thanks to the current dollar parity the Warstore is grotesquely cheap with its American prices, discount, and lack of HST. Plus adroit bitz-trading and some forethought will make it even cheaper (trade useless bits back into the Warstore to get useful bits).

**LunaHound**

Nurglitch wrote:Lunahound:

Fair enough. But the problem with so succinct a reply is that I still don't know whether you're just not that into the hobby, or you just don't have that much of a budget. I mean, could you buy more GW stuff? After all, thanks to the current dollar parity the Warstore is grotesquely cheap with its American prices, discount, and lack of HST. Plus adroit bitz-trading and some forethought will make it even cheaper (trade useless bits back into the Warstore to get useful bits).

Hold on , im going to finish replying to that paragraph from you earlier k?
I tried multi quoting but i just dunno how to do it , so i'll edit my replies in red .
*edit done , its in red now.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
Take a good long look at what you replied to, Luna.
Not once did I say that it was "too good of a deal".

K, then what do you call or "feel" about the action of the price change for the battle forces?

**Kanluwen**

What price change for the battleforces?

The fact that the Imperial Guard and Tyranid ones both have a roughly $36-$39 USD discount(and that's not including the fact that the Tyranid one has roughly a half sprue each of Hormagaunts and Gaunts in them that are unaccounted for, pricewise) involved?

They're setting a rough price point while moving away from "This HAS to fit into a $90 USD box. That's all the options they should get" to a "This battleforce will be a great starting point for smaller games" approach.
What do you expect them to do? Go through every battleforce and set them to be EXACTLY $36-$39(roughly a ballparked 28-30% discount) off the list price of all the items?

They won't do that, at least until they actually redo the battleforces to all contain roughly the same thing:

For 40k:
It looks like they're aiming towards
1x Vehicle/Transport(or heavier critters, in the case of Tyranids)
2x Troops
1x Elite or HQ.

**LunaHound**

Kanluwen wrote:They're setting a rough price point while moving away from "This HAS to fit into a $90 USD box. That's all the options they should get" to a "This battleforce will be a great starting point for smaller games" approach.
What do you expect them to do? Go through every battleforce and set them to be EXACTLY $36-$39(roughly a ballparked 28-30% discount) off the list price of all the items?

See, this is where we differ.
I expect them to just cram it in , even if the value ends up over the $36-$39 range , to $45-$50 if they have to.
Its easy , and they have done so in the previous battalions.
And which also , the source of my confusion. If this isnt a good deal to you , then where are you drawing the lines to what you feel
is the right amount for battle force 's content to be discounted as.

**Sidstyler**

Is the discount really almost $40? Admittedly I haven't taken the time to add up the contents of the new IG and Tyranid boxes, but I remember the Ork box was rather pitiful.

**Kanluwen**

The Guard boxes are $39 and the Tyranid one comes out to $36.

I haven't gone through and looked at the rest, but I'd imagine the discounts are really fluctuating wildly.

**LunaHound**

Kanluwen wrote:The Guard boxes are $39 and the Tyranid one comes out to $36.

I haven't gone through and looked at the rest, but I'd imagine the discounts are really fluctuating wildly.

Is that price before or after they turned the box of 20 into box of 10s + *lowered the price.

**Kanluwen**

LunaHound wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:They're setting a rough price point while moving away from "This HAS to fit into a $90 USD box. That's all the options they should get" to a "This battleforce will be a great starting point for smaller games" approach.
What do you expect them to do? Go through every battleforce and set them to be EXACTLY $36-$39(roughly a ballparked 28-30% discount) off the list price of all the items?

See, this is where we differ.
I expect them to just cram it in , even if the value ends up over the $36-$39 range , to $45-$50 if they have to.
Its easy , and they have done so in the previous battalions.
And which also , the source of my confusion. If this isnt a good deal to you , then where are you drawing the lines to what you feel
is the right amount for battle force 's content to be discounted as.

They're a company out to make a profit. They're not going to just cram in the most popular models everyone would want for an army into a box that passes on a $45-$50 savings.

Take the new Tyranid box for example. If Carnifexes were still in there, in place of say...Genestealers and Termagaunts:
How many battleforces do you think would sell?
How many Carnifex kits would end up being sold also?

I can partially understand why they're doing it the way they are. They're putting at least one unit that people wouldn't normally take(Guard battleforces with Sentinels, for example) in there, and hoping that people will at least try them out with an open mind rather than going for powergaming builds nonstop.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:The Guard boxes are $39 and the Tyranid one comes out to $36.

I haven't gone through and looked at the rest, but I'd imagine the discounts are really fluctuating wildly.

Is that price before or after they turned the box of 20 into box of 10s + *lowered the price.

That is the price of everything as it stands, currently.

Like I said in the post you quoted earlier, there are 4 of each Gaunt variant that are also included but not accounted for in the pricing discount.

Do the math yourself if you want.

**LunaHound**

Kanluwen wrote:
They're a company out to make a profit. They're not going to just cram in the most popular models everyone would want for an army into a box that passes on a $45-$50 savings.
Even profit companies still give good offers as a "redeeming" action , or else without it , everyone will easily say they are out to suck us dry. Good deals makes good company image.
Take the new Tyranid box for example. If Carnifexes were still in there, in place of say...Genestealers and Termagaunts:
How many battleforces do you think would sell? Tons
How many Carnifex kits would end up being sold also? Tons , especially the 1-3 squadron.
You see carnifex kit as a loss if everyone wants one , gets theirs in the battle force .
I see carnifex as a buffer for the whole deal . I dont like termagaunts , i dont like gene stealers ,
but the price is right + carnifex is a good buffer = me is sold.

I can partially understand why they're doing it the way they are. They're putting at least one unit that people wouldn't normally take(Guard battleforces with Sentinels, for example) in there, and hoping that people will at least try them out with an open mind rather than going for powergaming builds nonstop.

By all means i understand why they do it , that doesnt mean i have to like it.

That is the price of everything as it stands, currently.

Like I said in the post you quoted earlier, there are 4 of each Gaunt variant that are also included but not accounted for in the pricing discount.

Do the math yourself if you want.

Again you are missing my point. Im saying the amount we "saved" in the battle force is actually not all that , because how they messes with the larger squad boxes and split them by half.
Forgive me for not knowing this word in english , but GW frustrates me because their pricing tactic is like
"price weaving" ( if the literal translation doesnt make sense , just ignore this sentence )

**Agamemnon2**

Nurglitch wrote:It's like love and hate, I think. Regardless of the cognitive content that makes an emotion love or hate, there's a strong feeling. The fact that people are taking the time to complain suggests to me that they still care enough that v > c/b.

I think that's at least partially a fallacy. It takes almost nothing from me to complain on the internet, and also you assume I do it because I care about GW, Which might or might not be true, but it's by no means the only possible reason. What if I just like to ferment an air of discontent on this forum, or do it as a personal affront to my counterparts on the other side of the argument?