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.

-Loki- wrote:

Fafnir wrote:One of my favourite models of all time. I haven't gotten around to painting mine yet (well, after stripping her after an unsatisfactory job) just because of how difficult, and down right intimidating she is.

The model's name is "Kujaku Hime," in case you're wondering.

And additionally, if you're interested in the game, she's actually pretty good.

Even if I don't start playing, I'll be buying a few of them just to paint. Yuki is a stunning model as well.

I picked up Griever to paint a while back, and he's still in the box - I've no idea if he is any good in-game, but he's a cracking sculpt.

I remember somebody posting a while back saying that it was (following price rises) nearly similar costs to do a Forgeworld army compared to a normal GW store army lol. That is funny lol

Absolutionis wrote:What country are you in, because those certainly are not American Dollar prices, and thus not very comparable to the $10USD Infinity and Anima Tactica miniatures.

The Canadian flag beside his name suggests he's from Canada

And they do appear to still be reasonably comparable. On a quick google, a Canadian store I found selling Infinity is selling single figures for under a dollar more than the US price. By contrast, GW's Canadian prices are around 30% higher than US.

Are wargame miniature customers the only ones that constantly complain about prices? Or do Ferrari also get loads of people on their forums complaining they are too expensive?

Even when I look back at collecting Star Wars Miniatures I don't recall such complaints about the prices, and they were way more expensive than 40K. I just checked eBay and the asking price for Boba Fett Bounty Hunter is still £45 ($70). How is that price justified against the earlier example of the Ork Big Mek £14.50? Sure, Boba Fett Bounty Hunter is a decent mini, but is it that much better?

No, it's not. It's about the target market and market saturation. The Star Wars minis get high asking prices due to the collectable nature of the figures. Games Workshop aim at the high end middle class market. Another company can produce a good looking model for less, but are they are targeting the same market? Maybe they are after the market that cannot afford Games Workshop and are prepared to take the cut in profit for sales. Just look at the retail costs of CDs compared to production; £15 for a CD, but some shops sell them for £8, obviously trading huge mark up for sales.

And you also have to look at the infrastructure. You could probably order a thousand Big Meks and get them delivered the same week. Pretty miniature or not many smaller companies cannot do that?

But to answer the question, I would generally say yes, better quality does justify high prices. Which is why I see Games Workshop prices as reasonable.

Ugavine wrote:Even when I look back at collecting Star Wars Miniatures I don't recall such complaints about the prices, and they were way more expensive than 40K. I just checked eBay and the asking price for Boba Fett Bounty Hunter is still £45 ($70).

For one, people fairly often complained about the high price of certain rare singles. For two, you can't really compare the secondary singles market prices to the actual retail cost of another company's minis.

Wizards didn't get as many complaints about booster prices (particularly once they shifted to 40-piece sets), because the boosters were (aside from here in Oz) priced fairly reasonably.

Do better GW models justify higher GW prices?

Short Answer: No.
Long Answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Sometimes, a model is updated with more detail. The cost of the new model should rise with increased production costs, then lower as the costs go down. Something that is expensive because it is expensive to produce should decline in cost over time as productions costs go down. Sony originally sold the PS3 at a loss, but now is not.

GW needs to figure out ways to cut costs without sacrificing quality. And after 20 years, you'd think they'd have many ways to keep the price down while still maintaining a decent profit and excellent quality.

Interesting insights all around folks.

For the record, by "Higher" I meant "Higher with inflation taken into account". I understand that in the last few decades everything has gone up in price, it's just that GW seems to go up faster than most everything else.

I voted " Definitely No". There are alot of luxury items that have improved in quality and yet have increased only roughly equivalent with inflation over the years. The one I point most often to is LEGO. Like GW, It's a premium toy/hobby product, that is often called "expensive" and the bulk of it's sales are targeted at the middle class and up buyer.

Using the last couple decades as an example, since 1980 LEGO sets have increased in number, intricacy and design. The difference is that GW has more than doubled in price, where as relative to inflation LEGO is actually slightly cheaper than it was in 1980.

Ugavine wrote:Are wargame miniature customers the only ones that constantly complain about prices? Or do Ferrari also get loads of people on their forums complaining they are too expensive?

Even when I look back at collecting Star Wars Miniatures I don't recall such complaints about the prices, and they were way more expensive than 40K. I just checked eBay and the asking price for Boba Fett Bounty Hunter is still £45 ($70). How is that price justified against the earlier example of the Ork Big Mek £14.50? Sure, Boba Fett Bounty Hunter is a decent mini, but is it that much better?

No, it's not. It's about the target market and market saturation. The Star Wars minis get high asking prices due to the collectable nature of the figures. Games Workshop aim at the high end middle class market. Another company can produce a good looking model for less, but are they are targeting the same market? Maybe they are after the market that cannot afford Games Workshop and are prepared to take the cut in profit for sales. Just look at the retail costs of CDs compared to production; £15 for a CD, but some shops sell them for £8, obviously trading huge mark up for sales.

And you also have to look at the infrastructure. You could probably order a thousand Big Meks and get them delivered the same week. Pretty miniature or not many smaller companies cannot do that?

But to answer the question, I would generally say yes, better quality does justify high prices. Which is why I see Games Workshop prices as reasonable.

One problem with that agruement is. One is about collection in that there are very few of them. Its basically comparing Magic The Gathering to Warhammer Fantasy.
They are completely different. Boba Fett is a super unquie which means more boxes you have to go through more booster packs. I remember that Mage Knights wasn't that expensive, it was 10$ per a blister.

I firmly believe GW price miniatures on a "willingness to pay" basis i.e. the same principle that enables Nike to sell a t-shirt worth £1 for £20 purely because it has their logo on it.

Flashman wrote:I firmly believe GW price miniatures on a "willingness to pay" basis i.e. the same principle that enables Nike to sell a t-shirt worth £1 for £20 purely because it has their logo on it.

I think you've said in a sentence what I was trying to say but babbled on about for half a page

Flashman wrote:I firmly believe GW price miniatures on a "willingness to pay" basis i.e. the same principle that enables Nike to sell a t-shirt worth £1 for £20 purely because it has their logo on it.

There certainly is a 'brandname' mentality to some of their customers, probably the younger ones but there are older purists too. That's why some will get snobbish if you use non-GW figures in a game or actually claim it's not allowed, and also think that all GW hobby products are superior.

McNinja wrote:Sony originally sold the PS3 at a loss, but now is not.

Poor example. Progress of technology makes the PS3 cheaper (pretty cutting edge at release, couple of years later it's old tech and can be produced at a fraction of the price)

The cost of making a mini doesn't decline over time. If they sold way more than forecast then maybe the price should come down but that would mean that stuff that sells slower than expected should increase.

Do better models justify higher prices?

Perhaps to a degree. But to the extent GW have hiked things? No. Because sometimes they're hiking them without even changing them. The amount of boxes that have gone from £20 20-man units to £15 10-man units is diabolical. Halving a box's contents and only knocking 25% off is diabolical, especially when in said new army book those particular units have gotten even cheaper and thus you need more.

If you're an existing veteran customer you survive. If you're new or wanting to start a new army then you're getting hosed.

And some of the things that are being released for more aren't new at all but quite simply ancient. Hello Necromancers.

The Skink command group is another example. Currently you'd pay £8 for a standard and musician. You used to pay £5 and get them, the champion and 2 normal skinks. Then it went to £5 and then £6 for just the command group.

They're not new sculpts and inflation isn't that high.

Ugavine wrote:Are wargame miniature customers the only ones that constantly complain about prices? Or do Ferrari also get loads of people on their forums complaining they are too expensive?

Even when I look back at collecting Star Wars Miniatures I don't recall such complaints about the prices, and they were way more expensive than 40K. I just checked eBay and the asking price for Boba Fett Bounty Hunter is still £45 ($70). How is that price justified against the earlier example of the Ork Big Mek £14.50? Sure, Boba Fett Bounty Hunter is a decent mini, but is it that much better?

No, it's not. It's about the target market and market saturation. The Star Wars minis get high asking prices due to the collectable nature of the figures. Games Workshop aim at the high end middle class market. Another company can produce a good looking model for less, but are they are targeting the same market? Maybe they are after the market that cannot afford Games Workshop and are prepared to take the cut in profit for sales. Just look at the retail costs of CDs compared to production; £15 for a CD, but some shops sell them for £8, obviously trading huge mark up for sales.

And you also have to look at the infrastructure. You could probably order a thousand Big Meks and get them delivered the same week. Pretty miniature or not many smaller companies cannot do that?

But to answer the question, I would generally say yes, better quality does justify high prices. Which is why I see Games Workshop prices as reasonable.

If GW actually made the best miniatures on the market, you might have a point, but since currently they are actually in the middle of the pack, or even bellow it, you shouldn't be comparing GW to Ferrari, you should compare it with a Lada painted red and sold at the price of a Ferrari...

DarkStarSabre wrote:Do better models justify higher prices?

Perhaps to a degree. But to the extent GW have hiked things?...
... Halving a box's contents and only knocking 25% off is diabolical, especially when in said new army book those particular units have gotten even cheaper and thus you need more...

They're not new sculpts and inflation isn't that high.

I think thiscombination is one of the more off-putting things about the price raises. It's not just an inflation raise, or even a little-more-than-inflation raise, it's a large raise that is paired with a reduction in product without a product improvement.

Using IG troops box as an example. What other product has, over an 8 year span...
-Halved the amount of product in the box.
-Increased the box price by about 50% (doubling the price per item)
-All without improving the product.
?

My thoughts are model price should be set at what the market can bear. GW's prices have increased beyond what I can justify as value, especially considering that I no longer play their games. Higher prices based on quality within the band of "acceptable pricing" based on market demand is justifiable, however, the term quality is highly subjective.

I think that the perception that GW models are "better" models also needs to be examined. Fafnir put up Eldrad as an example of GW's single character pricing. Eldrad was a new sculpt in Warhammer 40k SECOND EDITION. Back in 1995, the Eldar range was state of the art, with quality well beyond that of its competitors. Considering that models 17 years old (Eldrad, Eldar Warlocks, Eldar Jetbikes and the Avatar) are still in production, and with the exception of the Jetbikes, still fit in well with the new "more detailed" models just shows how ahead of their time they were. I have nothing but utter respect for Jes Goodwin.

That was 17 years ago. In that time, other manufacturers have been catching up. There was a time when GW was in a golden age of sculpting, with Goodwin, Nelson and Diaz on staff. The Perry's - while they didn't put out stunning centerpiece models sculpted historical/fantasy rank and file with lots of character. These days, GW has fallen into the trap of replacing character with bling, and providing detail added for the sake of detail. Posing is pedestrian. Their new Finecast process is such that it actually obliterates their highly touted detail as moulds deteriorate. 'Eavy Metal peaked in the early 2000's. Boxart paintjobs have become noticably sloppy.

While much improved, PP's offerings are far too inconsistent to be considered high quality taken collectively as a range, and as such, I view them to be overpriced on a pure modelling standpoint. I am willing to overlook this due to the strength of PP's core ruleset, an issue that I can not overlook in GW's offerings as the rulesets are NOTORIOUSLY weak. Wyrd's styling does nothing for me. IMHO, they have a way to go to strike into the big leagues.

Miniatures that would sell me on a game based on sculpt quality alone:

INFINITY

Miniatures of high quality that are cheap enough to justify buying one-offs for painting projects:

Reaper / Reaper Dark Heaven - Reaper has come a long way in their quality. A lot of their sculpts show that you CAN do more with less. Less detail, more natural posing. Pricing is often at 50% less that GW on a per hero basis. IMHO, quality is now VERY comprable.
Dark Age
Sodapop Miniatures
Anima Tactics

My memory is foggy, but IRRC, the Avatar was $20 when I first started the hobby. He's now $46.50 in FINECAST, for the exact same sculpt. The only difference is that he's packed with a round 40mm base rather than a square one. GW's competition is stepping up the pressure, and GW's stuck repackaging its old triumphs and trying to sell them at a premium.

Ah yes, Finecast, the supposedly cheaper material. Despite the new Finecast models, nothing has gone down in price.

GW is in it solely for the money, and they have no clue how to maximize profits other than "raise prices and hope sales don't fall more."

Anyone who tries to justify GWs prices is kidding themselves. Granted, the more money you have, the less of a problem it is, but for those of us who really do like the game and models and don't have the same disposable income it gets harder and harder to continue liking what GW puts out when it costs so damn much.