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.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Twaddle. You charge what the market will bear. This absolutely standard practice in the free market. GW even have 'loss leaders' of a sort in the form of the Core Games.

Now, go have a look at GW's investor relations, tell me what their exact profit margin is, and tell me again with a straight face their prices are over inflated. Markup is a different thing altogether from Profit!

Commenting on someone's well explained and polite opinion as 'twaddle' shows yourself up as crass Herr Doctor...

It's like me calling anything you write apologist bs not worthy to wipe my hairy Cornish arse with.

Further I give slightly less than two loud farts about 'profit margin', if a multinational can't get it's house in order it needs to reconsider it's policies, not bury it's head further in the sand and raise the bloody prices yet again.

AGAIN, for those not quite 'getting it':

Warlord Games produces a boxed set of plastic multipart Celts (to the same level of quality as the GW products) @ £17 for 30 miniatures.
Comparable to these from GW would be plastic multipart Greatswords @ £25 for 10 miniatures.

It is overpriced, as a consumer I don't care about the overheads, the number of stores etc, the product it's self is expensive when compared to a similar product.

End Of.

I used to dislike plastics compared to metal models but I changed my mind.

Metal's preferred for character models but for rank and file, plastic's best.

Also, in regards to GW creating games where each model matters, they've already done that. Mordheim and Inquisitor.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Twaddle. You charge what the market will bear. This absolutely standard practice in the free market. GW even have 'loss leaders' of a sort in the form of the Core Games.

Now, go have a look at GW's investor relations, tell me what their exact profit margin is, and tell me again with a straight face their prices are over inflated. Markup is a different thing altogether from Profit!

Commenting on someone's well explained and polite opinion as 'twaddle' shows yourself up as crass Herr Doctor...

It's like me calling anything you write apologist bs not worthy to wipe my hairy Cornish arse with.

Further I give slightly less than two loud farts about 'profit margin', if a multinational can't get it's house in order it needs to reconsider it's policies, not bury it's head further in the sand and raise the bloody prices yet again.

AGAIN, for those not quite 'getting it':

Warlord Games produces a boxed set of plastic multipart Celts (to the same level of quality as the GW products) @ £17 for 30 miniatures.
Comparable to these from GW would be plastic multipart Greatswords @ £25 for 10 miniatures.

It is overpriced, as a consumer I don't care about the overheads, the number of stores etc, the product it's self is expensive when compared to a similar product.

End Of.

Seems you might be the one 'not getting it'.

How much does Warlord Games need to break even in a year? How much does GW need? Profit Margin means quite a lot when looking at such things.

But of course, I'm not ragging on GW mindlessly so I must be wrong.

Concerning the topic at hand, I have often wondered if I'd prefer plastic sisters to my current metal ones. I've heard lots of folks complain about the girls' "static poses" but I don't mind them at all. The detail is excellent and I appreciate not having to do more than stick their backpacks on. Although the usual debate is whether one has to paint their models or not, I'm much less enthusiastic about assembly (much less conversion *gasp) than painting--which to me is the rewarding part of the "hobby" side of things. But after seeing the Blood Claw/Grey Hunter kits, I'm beginning to think I might end up having a moment like Frozenwaste's with regard to his Wood Elves if there were to be plastic sisters (breath is not being held). Strangely enough, we're on opposite ends of the experience--I'm just getting into PP's stuff!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Twaddle. You charge what the market will bear. This absolutely standard practice in the free market. GW even have 'loss leaders' of a sort in the form of the Core Games.

Now, go have a look at GW's investor relations, tell me what their exact profit margin is, and tell me again with a straight face their prices are over inflated. Markup is a different thing altogether from Profit!

Commenting on someone's well explained and polite opinion as 'twaddle' shows yourself up as crass Herr Doctor...

It's like me calling anything you write apologist bs not worthy to wipe my hairy Cornish arse with.

Further I give slightly less than two loud farts about 'profit margin', if a multinational can't get it's house in order it needs to reconsider it's policies, not bury it's head further in the sand and raise the bloody prices yet again.

AGAIN, for those not quite 'getting it':

Warlord Games produces a boxed set of plastic multipart Celts (to the same level of quality as the GW products) @ £17 for 30 miniatures.
Comparable to these from GW would be plastic multipart Greatswords @ £25 for 10 miniatures.

It is overpriced, as a consumer I don't care about the overheads, the number of stores etc, the product it's self is expensive when compared to a similar product.

End Of.

Seems you might be the one 'not getting it'.

How much does Warlord Games need to break even in a year? How much does GW need? Profit Margin means quite a lot when looking at such things.

But of course, I'm not ragging on GW mindlessly so I must be wrong.

Either way, this can be argued about until we are blue in the face. Bottom line is, we all have a different opinion of what minis are 'worth' to us as consumers. Now don't get me wrong, I think GW are doing what any company would do in their position; they have a huge market share and they are using that to their advantage - that is simple, fundamental capitalism. The point is that they walk the tightrope between pricing models at what the market can bear, what people are prepared to pay and between alienating their existing customers. GW have been doing this for years; when I was a lad my friends and I thought that GW stuff was expensive. Did we complain? Yes, but we still bought because we buy into the games systems. It always boils down to simple facts - as a consumer you decide whether the price is of value to yourself and you vote with your feet accordingly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:Concerning to the topic at hand, I have often wondered if I'd prefer plastic sisters to my current metal ones. I've heard lots of folks complain about the girls' "static poses" but I don't mind them at all. The detail is excellent and I appreciate not having to do more than stick their backpacks on. Although the usual debate is whether one has to paint their models or not, I'm much less enthusiastic about assembly (much less conversion *gasp) than painting--which to me is the rewarding part of the "hobby" side of things. But after seeing the Blood Claw/Grey Hunter kits, I'm beginning to think I might end up having a moment like Frozenwaste's with regard to his Wood Elves if there were to be plastic sisters (breath is not being held). Strangely enough, we're on opposite ends of the experience--I'm just getting into PP's stuff!

Purely from a modelling standpoint, I prefer plastic because it is easier to glue (without dealing in the frustration of pieces not sticking, or gluing fingers together - ref nid gargoyles) plus it allows a greater scope and flexibility in poses and dynamism IMO.

I look at the value (is that the same as worth? Not an economist) of my models thusly.

Total up the cost of gathering, building and painting my army. IDeally this should include your 40k Rulebook as well as any expansions you might use. So, for my Tyranids, thats, erm, 3 Hive Guard (£36) 2 Trygon Kits (£60) 3 Carnifex (£75) 1 Hive Tyrant (£30) 3 Ravener Kits (£81) 1 Gargoyle Box (£17.50) 1 Venomthrope (£12) 1 Deathleaper (£15) 1 Blister Spore Mines (£10) 1 Pyrovore (£20) and one Battleforce (£60). Add in the 8 Paints I'll need to do the force (£2.25 each, or £20 I think) plus 2 bottles plastic glue and one superglue (£12) assorted brushes (say £20 again to make sure I cover it) Tyranid Codex, Planetstrike, Apocalypse, Reload and Cities of Death and the Rulebook. That's £538ish to get my army on the board.

Then I project the amount of time in a single non-calendar year (so 52 weeks from the start of my army) I will spend doing something to the army, be it assembling, painting, gaming, converting etc. So I reckon I can get an easy 5 hours a week out of this particular army, providing I game once or twice a week (highly probable for myself).

Next, I divide the money spent by the time spent gives me an hourly cost of £2.06 per hour. Which in my book, is pretty good value. That's not even a pint, and a pint last me about half an hour.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Twaddle. You charge what the market will bear. This absolutely standard practice in the free market. GW even have 'loss leaders' of a sort in the form of the Core Games.

Now, go have a look at GW's investor relations, tell me what their exact profit margin is, and tell me again with a straight face their prices are over inflated. Markup is a different thing altogether from Profit!

Commenting on someone's well explained and polite opinion as 'twaddle' shows yourself up as crass Herr Doctor...

It's like me calling anything you write apologist bs not worthy to wipe my hairy Cornish arse with.

Further I give slightly less than two loud farts about 'profit margin', if a multinational can't get it's house in order it needs to reconsider it's policies, not bury it's head further in the sand and raise the bloody prices yet again.

AGAIN, for those not quite 'getting it':

Warlord Games produces a boxed set of plastic multipart Celts (to the same level of quality as the GW products) @ £17 for 30 miniatures.
Comparable to these from GW would be plastic multipart Greatswords @ £25 for 10 miniatures.

It is overpriced, as a consumer I don't care about the overheads, the number of stores etc, the product it's self is expensive when compared to a similar product.

End Of.

Seems you might be the one 'not getting it'.

How much does Warlord Games need to break even in a year? How much does GW need? Profit Margin means quite a lot when looking at such things.

But of course, I'm not ragging on GW mindlessly so I must be wrong.

The questioning of price as a consumer is not 'mindless ragging'. Climb down from the pulpit for long enough to realise people are entitled on a discussion board about wargaming to debate and question the practises of the businesses they buy from or that are also engaged in the hobby. Feth me you do make it an uphill slog man.

So, overheads. For the stores? If the shop fronts are what is making GW figures so expensive... CLOSE THEM DOWN. Let's go back to the FLGS, let those shops reopen and return. We'll see games tables and so on brought back with them.

We don't need the GW stores if we have indy stores.

So, then what else is part of the 'overhead'? Because stores aren't needed and the removal of them can result in Indy stores that will cater to a wider range of games.

You're right about all those points, filbert. But sisters come in two pieces: (1) their backpacks and (2) everything else. There's no flexibility at all in poses and there's hardly anything to worry about with glue. The tradeoff I'd have to make is less time doing something I don't particularly like (assembly) for the chance to have a (potentially, probably) cooler looking army.

MGS, MDG, anyone else: Sorry I brought it up, lads! My point in changing HBMC's quote was to point out (1) this is a "GW is doing something right for once" thread so "no need to be a Gloomy Gus this time" and (2) to reflect the actual wording of the GW annual report regarding plastic (they use the word "worth," as a term of art, for a reason and that reason is not to confuse consumers into buying at any old price). If you want to talk about how GW should reduce it's costs, let's have a thread for it. I'll take some of that action.

Value is most definitely not the same as worth, at least not in the context used in this thread I would humbly suggest. The example above given by MDG is a good breakdown of cost over time as an expression of the monetary 'cost' of something. That is value to you; ie how much something costs you as money and time and an estimation of whether you agree or disagree that it is good value.

Worth is something more intangible in that it factors in the cost of something as well as sentimental and personal value. So, for example, I can buy some minis and paint them up and use them and that worth to me is now much more than the original face value cost.

When I, as a consumer, make a judgement call on whether to buy something, I am considering both the cost of something, the time I will devote to using said product and that equals whether it is of 'worth' to me. But anyway, as I mentioned before, worth is such an arbitrary concept and differs from person to person.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:You're right about all those points, filbert. But sisters come in two pieces: (1) their backpacks and (2) everything else. There's no flexibility at all in poses and there's hardly anything to worry about with glue. The tradeoff I'd have to make is less time doing something I don't particularly like (assembly) for the chance to have a (potentially, probably) cooler looking army.

MGS, MDG, anyone else: Sorry I brought it up, lads! My point in changing HBMC's quote was to point out (1) this is a "GW is doing something right for once" thread so "no need to be a Gloomy Gus this time" and (2) to reflect the actual wording of the GW annual report regarding plastic (they use the word "worth," as a term of art, for a reason and that reason is not to confuse consumers into buying at any old price). If you want to talk about how GW should reduce it's costs, let's have a thread for it. I'll take some of that action.

I agree, some metal kits are extremely simple to assemble and that is a good thing for some people. In my case, I take a perverse pleasure out of assembly and quite enjoy putting stuff together - some metal kits are great and some are just plain horrible. Come to think of it, the worst ones in my experience have been the plastic / metal hybrids when nothing wants to glue together and you end up holding minis together and blowing like a demented chimp trying to get it to set.

As for the debate over pricing, well opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one - everyone has a view on what GW should and shouldnt do and this board will never reach a consensus. I welcome reasoned, healthy debate however. And at least it shows we are all passionate about a hobby we love and enjoy - and that's a good thing.

The Fail Police are calling-several inmates appear to have escaped. For the good of humanity I am closing this thread. What could have been a good discussion (and there were some nice posts) was brought down before it could take flight. Such is life in the junglelike savannah of intranet boards.