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.

pretre wrote:

The Mad Tanker wrote:I think a 20% drop would be fine, bring them back to pre-price hike levels. I remember buying a box of 20 guardsmen for $25, now it is 10 for $29!

This always comes up as an example of OMG Increases! I agree that GW prices have increased significantly since I started, but so have other things. Think back to other things you bought for entertainment in 1999 and how much they cost now; it is scary.

Good point, I guess it is more of the shock from the sudden jump compared to the slow increase that other entertainment items have had. It doesn't help either that I stopped for a bit toward the middle of 4th ed and just restated in the middle of 5th ed.

The Mad Tanker wrote:Good point, I guess it is more of the shock from the sudden jump compared to the slow increase that other entertainment items have had. It doesn't help either that I stopped for a bit toward the middle of 4th ed and just restated in the middle of 5th ed.

True. Missing time and coming back is rough.

Btw, Movie Theatres. /shudder

pretre wrote:

This always comes up as an example of OMG Increases! I agree that GW prices have increased significantly since I started, but so have other things. Think back to other things you bought for entertainment in 1999 and how much they cost now; it is scary.

The issue isn't that prices are rising, everything does that over time, it's that it's becoming more expensive in real terms relative to inflation and adjusted income than it was in previous years, and at a frighteningly fast rate. Looking at other hobbies I engage in, there's paintball, while more expensive than GW on the whole, has come way down in cost over the last few years, as have video games and computers *especially* compared to 10 years ago.

On the other hand my Space Marine collection has increase in value. If I sold it at current NIB prices I would turn a profit

The one thing that does irk me is that boxes that have sat on the shelves for years still get marked up. I went into a GW store and that had some old old boxed sets that were being sold for the modern equivilant's price tag. At least the Hobby Town I play at keeps the old price tag and puts on a sale sticker.

Vaktathi wrote:video games and computers *especially* compared to 10 years ago.

I paid a hell of a lot more for my PS3 than I did my PS1 (almost 3x, I think), although games are the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:On the other hand my Space Marine collection has increase in value. If I sold it at current NIB prices I would turn a profit

lol. Wouldn't we all. I actually had a difficult conversation with one of my friends about this topic recently. He asked me how much he could get for his SM collection (which is huge) and I had to tell him that he would be lucky to get 20-25% retail for his assembled/painted marines. Marines just don't keep value like other armies.

The one thing that does irk me is that boxes that have sat on the shelves for years still get marked up. I went into a GW store and that had some old old boxed sets that were being sold for the modern equivilant's price tag. At least the Hobby Town I play at keeps the old price tag and puts on a sale sticker.

This happens at every store you go to. Most stores have 'price changers' whose job it is to go around and update prices up and down for the exact same item.

At the end of the day, its an expensive hobby yet we are all stil buying it. If youre that bothered move to a cheaper wargame or find cheaper soloutiouns. I do think there prices are exsessive and could do with a decrease but yet we will still buy it at the same price

pretre wrote:
I paid a hell of a lot more for my PS3 than I did my PS1 (almost 3x, I think), although games are the same.

IIRC the PS1 retailed for $300 on US release, about $450 today, the PS3 also included a blue-ray player which was very difficult to find and were about as expensive by themselves at the time so comparing the two directly is rather difficult, but one will notice the other consoles debuted at significantly lower price points. Video games are, adjusted for inflation, about the same or cheaper in cost and a solid upper end gaming PC now will run you $~1000 if you stay away from gimmicky show junk, 10 years ago, it would run closer to $2500-3000 (not adjusted for inflation) especially when RAM was ~$1/megabyte.

Grey Templar wrote:On the other hand my Space Marine collection has increase in value. If I sold it at current NIB prices I would turn a profit

Given that the value on warhammer items plummets like a rock as soon as it's opened unless it's masterfully painted, anything near NIB pricing is probably a wee bit optimistic.

templarsandorks? wrote:At the end of the day, its an expensive hobby yet we are all stil buying it. If youre that bothered move to a cheaper wargame or find cheaper soloutiouns. I do think there prices are exsessive and could do with a decrease but yet we will still buy it at the same price

Normally I'd agree, but the issue is that I'm actually starting to see shifts to other games now with players whereas before it wasn't really evident. Instead of finishing off my Tyranids I've built up a huge amount of Firestorm Armada ships from different factions and a large (~20 model) Infinity Pan Oceania force for about the same cost, whereas a couple years ago I'd have likely finished off the Tyranids. To put it frankly, no we aren't still buying it at the same price anymore, which is worrying as I'd like to see 40k continue but it's becoming more and more evident that their pricing just isn't sustainable.

Reducing 20% would be better for us, and wouldn't hurt GW sales too much. They sell a truckload of stuff to me around Christmas. Plus that and all the other buyers, i think they'll make do.

It's less a case of reducing their prices and more a case of having a universal pricing structure. If a box of Tactical Marines cost the same the world over things would be a lot better.

If Lego can do it, so can GW.

even if they dropped prices by 25% they still wouldn't be the same as the prices 5-10 years ago. I know inflation and all that comes into play but it's still a big ask to continue to rise prices at any excuse and never to lower prices!!

Vaktathi wrote:

pretre wrote:
I paid a hell of a lot more for my PS3 than I did my PS1 (almost 3x, I think), although games are the same.

IIRC the PS1 retailed for $300 on US release, about $450 today, the PS3 also included a blue-ray player which was very difficult to find and were about as expensive by themselves at the time so comparing the two directly is rather difficult, but one will notice the other consoles debuted at significantly lower price points. Video games are, adjusted for inflation, about the same or cheaper in cost and a solid upper end gaming PC now will run you $~1000 if you stay away from gimmicky show junk, 10 years ago, it would run closer to $2500-3000 (not adjusted for inflation) especially when RAM was ~$1/megabyte.

Grey Templar wrote:On the other hand my Space Marine collection has increase in value. If I sold it at current NIB prices I would turn a profit

Given that the value on warhammer items plummets like a rock as soon as it's opened unless it's masterfully painted, anything near NIB pricing is probably a wee bit optimistic.

templarsandorks? wrote:At the end of the day, its an expensive hobby yet we are all stil buying it. If youre that bothered move to a cheaper wargame or find cheaper soloutiouns. I do think there prices are exsessive and could do with a decrease but yet we will still buy it at the same price

Normally I'd agree, but the issue is that I'm actually starting to see shifts to other games now with players whereas before it wasn't really evident. Instead of finishing off my Tyranids I've built up a huge amount of Firestorm Armada ships from different factions and a large (~20 model) Infinity Pan Oceania force for about the same cost, whereas a couple years ago I'd have likely finished off the Tyranids. To put it frankly, no we aren't still buying it at the same price anymore, which is worrying as I'd like to see 40k continue but it's becoming more and more evident that their pricing just isn't sustainable.

I would like to introduce you to a friend of mine called Moore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law for the technology stuff. It really isn't fair to compare minatures that are not having radical technological advancements to computers in pricing.

Heck i would be happy if they would just have a price freeze like the cable conpanies.

As much as anyone would like for GW to lower their prices, it'd kill GW to do so. The constant price increases (and other cost-cutting actions) have been to cover the fact that they've lost a substantial amount of sales in the past 10 years.

HiddenPower wrote:Heck i would be happy if they would just have a price freeze like the cable conpanies.

Oh you!

Cost of cable has gone up signficantly over the last 10-20 years. Basic cable? $25 in '95. $52 in 2009. Over 100% gain, even just in the 10 year period of 1999 to 2009. (FCC data) Cable companies are right there with GW for price increases. (And this doesn't include fee data or non-basic cable.)

1995 to 2009, 135% increase in price, 77% increase in channels, 18% increase in cost per channel.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-284A1.doc

Heck, even the oft cited 20 Guardsmen for $25 vs 10 for $29 is only a 132% increase. Cable companies make even GW look reasonable.

infinite_array wrote:As much as anyone would like for GW to lower their prices, it'd kill GW to do so. The constant price increases (and other cost-cutting actions) have been to cover the fact that they've lost a substantial amount of sales in the past 10 years.

There are dozens of reason that GW has lost sales over the past decade, but steadily raising prices to maintain a steady profit margin is among the most major reasons. Sure, prices for materials has risen, but not 40% in the last ten years. Well, except tin. Which is why pewter is gone. For some reason, Finecast is supposed to be cheaper, but I don't see it.

infinite_array wrote:As much as anyone would like for GW to lower their prices, it'd kill GW to do so. The constant price increases (and other cost-cutting actions) have been to cover the fact that they've lost a substantial amount of sales in the past 10 years.

So you are not linking the constantly increasing prices to the constantly declining sales?

I know myself and a number of others have quit buying from GW in the last year because of the price rises (and also some of their other actions). There are other people who quit playing the year before, and the year before that, etc. People are leaving in small but significant numbers to other games, and existing players who remain with GW are buying less product (even if they are spending the same amount because of the price increases).

A significant and sustained price decrease and guarantee that prices will not raise stupidly may well bring significantly more people [back] into the hobby, increasing sales numbers and spreading the game out further.

It's too late for GW to lower their prices. Led by their CEO (a major shareholder), they've they've already paid out massive dividends to their shareholders. They don't have the sales volume or the cash reserves to lower their prices.

I'd like to see a 20 percent price drop across the board, but I don't think it would help to truely grow thier customer base with new gamers. Those with the GW bug are going to continue to buy and a 4 dollar toy soldier is not much different than a 5 dollar toy soldier to someone who'se not already interested the hobby.

pretre wrote:

Veteran Sergeant wrote:I was good friends with my FLGS owner many years ago. He had a rep from GW bitch at him when he was trying to become listed as "Chapter Approved" because he sold his models for 20% off MSRP. The guy told him that even if he sold twice as much product, he's be losing money discounting it at 20%.

You're mixing up two different things here. The GW rep was saying that the FLGS owner would be losing money at 20% discount. Depending on the price he was obtaining goods from GW for, this very well could be true. This is MUCH different than GW dropping prices 20%.

No, I'm really not. The FLGS owner was trying to keep a straight face telling this story. He was already selling it at 20% off MSRP, so he was obviously making a profit off of it. But his volume was much higher than all the other stores in the area. So he was making less money per item sold, but selling far more items than his competitors, thus making more money.

Reading back through some of the responses, you'll find me in complete agreement when I say their business model doesn't make sense. It prices out new players too easily, and it discourages additional purchases not due to a lack of funds, but a lack of value. I remember a buddy of mine asked me why a Thunderhawk from Forgeworld was worth so much money. My reply was "It isn't."

Hmm. That answer is very misleading. FW does great business and the number of TH that they have sold could probably back that up. In your opinion, it isn't worth the money, that doesn't mean that they don't sell and that people don't want them. In my opinion, FW is pretty pricey for somethings and I wouldn't buy them, but that doesn't mean that they don't make bank.

GW's value is that you can go anywhere in the country/world and play a GW game pretty easily. No other miniature game has that value to a player. Are you paying a premium for that brand recognition? Yes, you are.

runmymouth wrote:
I would like to introduce you to a friend of mine called Moore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law for the technology stuff. It really isn't fair to compare minatures that are not having radical technological advancements to computers in pricing.

I'm familiar with Moore's law, however it applies to computational capabilities available at the same price point, what we've seen is that price point actually decrease on average for greater and greater performacne. A fair caveat to add, but it doesn't explain away the point. However, even taking the hardware out of the equation, if you look at software, especially video games, development teams have exploded from being 5-20 people with a 5 digit budget working weeks or months, to literally hundreds of people and seven digit budgets with development times measured in years, and the cost of your average video game remains roughly $40-60 just as it was ten years ago.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:No, I'm really not. The FLGS owner was trying to keep a straight face telling this story. He was already selling it at 20% off MSRP, so he was obviously making a profit off of it. But his volume was much higher than all the other stores in the area. So he was making less money per item sold, but selling far more items than his competitors, thus making more money.

That is still different than GW dropping prices 20%. He is retail; GW is the manufacturer.

Your business sense is questionable. The question being posed isn't whether or not they are making money, but whether or not they could make more money doing it in a way that benefits both consumer and merchant.

No, really the questions is "[Poll] How do you think should GW change their price?" Thanks for questioning my business sense though! Keep it classy, Veteran Sergeant!

Maybe the biggest problem is that GW is trying to be both Manufacturer AND Retailer. and then end up competing with their own Retailers. Then they end up fixing the prices and having strict limits on 3rd party sales/deals.

If GW didn't try to control the market, but instead adjusted to it. If a retailer has a sale on your product, you don't call them and say "No Sales!!!", you have a sale yourself to make you look more attractive. And it really doesn't matter at the end of the day because either way you make money from the sales because its all your product.

GW needs to cut down their Retail business and focus on manufacturing. That is how they will make money. Keep some retail open, and ensure that you have competitive prices relative to your other retailers.

Grey Templar wrote:GW needs to cut down their Retail business and focus on manufacturing. That is how they will make money. Keep some retail open, and ensure that you have competitive prices relative to your other retailers.

I like this idea. Switch your retail force into a demo / event force so that you are continuing to generate new players / 'community'.

I didn't say the thread's question. The question I had posed that you were disagreeing with.

And how would there be a difference between GW dropping their MSRP by 20% (which would come with an assumed 20% reduction in retailer cost)? If the retailers are selling greater than 20% more product at those price points, then GW stands to sell them more product, and very reasonably assume to do more business direct. I mean, this isn't a very complicated business concept, but you're arguing against it.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:And how would there be a difference between GW dropping their MSRP by 20% (which would come with an assumed 20% reduction in retailer cost)?

We have no guarantee that GW doesn't lower MSRP while keeping wholesale the same. This would allow them to continue to have a competitive advantage over FLGS, which seems like something they would do. It would also stop the arms race that would continue if they dropped price currently (i.e. they drop price, FLGS discounts further off of that price, etc)

If the retailers are selling greater than 20% more product at those price points, then GW stands to sell them more product, and very reasonably assume to do more business direct. I mean, this isn't a very complicated business concept, but you're arguing against it.

No, I'm arguing against your statement that MSRP reduction is the same thing as retailers reducing price. It isn't.

Either way, nothing in your post bears any relevance to what I said in my original one. Whether or not GW screws their wholesale clients over or not doesn't change the fact that the retailers selling the product at a lower price were selling more product at an increased total profit.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Either way, nothing in your post bears any relevance to what I said in my original one. Whether or not GW screws their wholesale clients over or not doesn't change the fact that the retailers selling the product at a lower price were selling more product at an increased total profit.

You have the shortest memory of any poster. Let me go back and re-quote what you said.

First GT said the following. Clearly talking about GW dropping prices 20%

Grey Templar wrote:The business major in me is saying a 20% drop would increase their sales astronomically while still maintaining a massive profit margin.

Then you said the following. Clearly talking about a FLGS owner discounting 20%

Veteran Sergeant wrote:I was good friends with my FLGS owner many years ago. He had a rep from GW bitch at him when he was trying to become listed as "Chapter Approved" because he sold his models for 20% off MSRP. The guy told him that even if he sold twice as much product, he's be losing money discounting it at 20%.

Then I said the following. Clearly saying that you were mixing up GW reducing prices and a FLGS owner discounting.

pretre wrote:You're mixing up two different things here. The GW rep was saying that the FLGS owner would be losing money at 20% discount. Depending on the price he was obtaining goods from GW for, this very well could be true. This is MUCH different than GW dropping prices 20%.

Then you missed the point:

Veteran Sergeant wrote:No, I'm really not. The FLGS owner was trying to keep a straight face telling this story. He was already selling it at 20% off MSRP, so he was obviously making a profit off of it. But his volume was much higher than all the other stores in the area. So he was making less money per item sold, but selling far more items than his competitors, thus making more money.

I tried to bring you back to the point that you were missing.

pretre wrote:That is still different than GW dropping prices 20%. He is retail; GW is the manufacturer.

And then you kind of come back to it

Veteran Sergeant wrote:And how would there be a difference between GW dropping their MSRP by 20% (which would come with an assumed 20% reduction in retailer cost)? If the retailers are selling greater than 20% more product at those price points, then GW stands to sell them more product, and very reasonably assume to do more business direct. I mean, this isn't a very complicated business concept, but you're arguing against it.

So I advise you how it is different

pretre wrote:We have no guarantee that GW doesn't lower MSRP while keeping wholesale the same. This would allow them to continue to have a competitive advantage over FLGS, which seems like something they would do. It would also stop the arms race that would continue if they dropped price currently (i.e. they drop price, FLGS discounts further off of that price, etc)

And then you just say 'Nuh-uh, that's not what I was saying' when it clearly was from the above quotes

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Either way, nothing in your post bears any relevance to what I said in my original one. Whether or not GW screws their wholesale clients over or not doesn't change the fact that the retailers selling the product at a lower price were selling more product at an increased total profit.

So yeah, keep up with what you already said.

In 1988, a box of 30 marines cost #10 ($18 in 1988 USD's), or, $0.60 per marine. In 2011 USDs that comes to $33.50 thanks to the US Federal Reserve, which means that if we paid the same relative price for the miniatures when the game came out, we would now pay $1.16 per marine

In 2011, a box of 10 marines costs $37.25, or $3.75 per marine.

The question is if you think that these marines



Are three times better looking than these marines:



Which I would easily argue that they are.

Also to note that during the same time period, the price of a movie ticket (in real dollars) has nearly doubled, and so has the price of a gallon of gas.

Those things have doubled in real price over the last 30 years, and you've gotten the exact same product. GW's prices have tripled instead of doubled, but you're getting something better now than you once did.

I find whenever people start to complain about money, the best antidote is history...

One will notice the trouble the movie industry proclaims themselves to be in from Piracy, the economic issues stemming from increased gas costs, etc. Being a youth oriented game where your costs are rising when alternatives costs are constant or decreasing as income does likewise is not a good thing.

I belive they should make the game accessible to everyone (and yes before you ask I am a socialist)

they need to make money, and evey year they announce massive profit (even though it has fallen recently, through either the econamy or bad business, but thats another discussion)

however it would be nice if they made it affoardable to everyone, not just the middle classes and up.

Example: the model railway company Hornby have super detailed, brilliant smooth running trains that can go for as much as £200. They also have a line where the mdoel train is less detailed, it's running gear isn't as good, but instead of costing £200 it costs £60.

I'm fed up of all the rubbish GW try to shove on their models, most of their new models look a mess due to the detail they shov on them with no thought whatsoever.

Take the detail off, the models will look better, it will also make the models cheaper to make (less design costs and plastic/metal/resin cost) and pass the difference onto the public.

Make the game affoadable for eveyone, and undercut the competion into the bargin.

Ailaros wrote: In 1988, a box of 30 marines cost #10 ($18 in 1988 USD's), or, $0.60 per marine. In 2011 USDs that comes to $33.50 thanks to the US Federal Reserve, which means that if we paid the same relative price for the miniatures when the game came out, we would now pay $1.16 per marine
In 2011, a box of 10 marines costs $37.25, or $3.75 per marine.
The question is if you think that these marines

Spoiler:

Are three times better looking than these marines:

Spoiler:

Which I would easily argue that they are.

Better, maybe. 3 time better, no way.

Also, asthetic improvement is not always justification for a raised price. In a competative capitalist market, competition is supposed to drive cost down and quality up. GW doesn't get a pass from me just because their products have improved over the years.

More on that....

Ailaros wrote:Also to note that during the same time period, the price of a movie ticket (in real dollars) has nearly doubled, and so has the price of a gallon of gas.
Those things have doubled in real price over the last 30 years, and you've gotten the exact same product. GW's prices have tripled instead of doubled, but you're getting something better now than you once did.

Gas, being an unchanging comodity is not a good example, however I would argue that movies have gotten drastically better technically(as for plots...). Compare the budgets and special effects of today to the budgets and special effects of 25 years ago.
Much better effects and much, much higher budgets, and yet the cost has only doubled. Further, consider a premium toy product like LEGO which has actually decreased in price compared to 25 years ago despite massively increasing their range of sets and products.

"History" is not a definitive argument that GW product should be able to tripple in price, when one observes that movies have only doubled and LEGO has dropped in price!