All the discussions about GW Prices should be reading this.

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.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

flandarz wrote:
I don't think GW is a bad company. I just think charging 50+ dollars for a single "build and paint it yourself" plastic model is crazy. Right alongside the Nintendo Labo.

I would pay $50-$75 for a tank model, and over $100 for a big and nice tank model, like a Baneblade.

I would not pay more than $30-$35 for infantry models.

I did already know that GW does their manufacturing in Britain, and figured the price increases were to develop a war chest to protect them against Brexit. I don't really think it's complaint worthy; I find the cost of books to be more obnoxious.

**BrianDavion**

For example, a rule set that could allow customers to purchase fewer models

It's called Kill team. Also 40k can be played at smaller scales. nothing says you can't pull out A HQ,a troop unit, a fast attack unit a heavy support unit, roll em into a patrol detachment and play that. in fact I've always suspected GW intends that to be the starting place. Hence why start collecting boxes, (and know no fear) all just happen to be a patrol detachment.

And yeah GW doing their manafacturing ion the UK is pretty well known. TBH we have to expect some... price disruptions thanks to Brexit.

**stratigo**

Props to not skirting and breaking the law like all other companies. Man isn't that kind of fething depressing guys?

**Lemondish**

The Newman wrote:
GW keeping their entire manufacturing operation local in the UK does seem kinda nuts for a company doing £200 million a year.

Props to them for doing it, but it makes their inability to write clear concise rules that much more frustrating. I don't want to be angry at a company that I know has it's heart in the right place.

Sounds like that's on you, buddy

**Da-Rock**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So;

1. A Lot of assertions, no citations or valid demonstration of basis or foundation.

2. Link to "proof" of earnings statement was bugged and didn't go to anything I could tell, so I'm not saying anything about his "source" that he did provide.

3. His rational is self-justifying, or more simply, he's using his assertions as proof of his assertions. This is a logical fallacy.

4. Claims personal experience or makes himself out to be an expert. This requires proof, or it is an appeal to authority fallacy.

5. False Dichotomy. Either GW is motivated by greed, or it isn't. Logical fallacy. GW can be greedy, and not motivated by it.

6. Very interesting article otherwise. If true, color me surprised.

Could you please provide links and proof of all the spelling in your Forum statement? I would also like you to provide ten articles from accredited sources that back up your statements of logic and thought process. After you give me the big mental middle finger....just smile a little. :-)

**epronovost**

Nvs wrote:
For example, a rule set that could allow customers to purchase fewer models.

It's called Kill Team and it has been around for about two years. The rules are pretty good too. If you prefer, you can also play Necromunda. I heard it was pretty good and pretty cheap too.

**Red Marine**

epronovost wrote:
Nvs wrote:
For example, a rule set that could allow customers to purchase fewer models.

It's called Kill Team and it has been around for about two years. The rules are pretty good too. If you prefer, you can also play Necromunda. I heard it was pretty good and pretty cheap too.

Necromunda is absolutely not cheap. The 2 basic books needed for the game cost $110. No actual miniatures. No paints. No terrain. Not even dice. I actually believe that GWs senior management reserved parking spaces are platinum bunkers full of gold plated lamborghinis.

**Breton**

insaniak wrote:
G00fySmiley wrote:

Personally I would love to see GW open a few more factories but maybe in other market. Maybe one in NZ would give those down under a price break, and maybe on in the US or Canada to pay less for shipping around the world.

They used to have a foundry in the US producing metal models. It would be unlikely to be cost effective to have to double up all of the moulds to produce plastic in North America, though, and even less so for the volume of sales down under.

I think the LA Bunker and maybe one other on the East Coast made Forgeworld as well.

**TheFleshIsWeak**

To me at least, the article doesn't even make sense.

It talks about GW not taking out loans for its investments because "We have enough money to fund all this stuff safely..."

If they have enough money for it, then why do they need to increase prices?

Naturally, there's more scaremongering about Brexit. I guess Brexit was also somehow to blame for all the other times GW raised its prices.

Elbows wrote:
Stux,

What the other poster is pointing out though is that "justifying cost" is something that is often completely irrelevant to the consumer. I tend to agree. However, the second someone mentions that they don't find X value in Y product, people stream out of the woodwork trying to tell them why they "should" value Y product. The same argument comes up with the single-character package prices. "They sell less, so they charge more" is dragged out endlessly. As a consumer...I don't care. The end result is still too high of a price tag for the value that I'm getting from the purchase. The same argument can be made about million dollar wristwatches. I fully understand they made five of some model, and they're handmade, bla bla bla....still personally don't value that watch enough to accept it as a reasonable price tag, etc.

I do vote with my wallet, as I think plenty of people do. What gets tiresome is people trying to justify a price as if that should change how I value the product. I value the product solely on the product's merits itself. If there are two competing products which are identical then I'm likely to consider the source. There has to be an overwhelming good or an overwhelming bad for me to solely ban/endorse a product because of the company's actions. That's not very common.

PS: And none of this has anything to do with entitlement...another overused internet buzz-word to people not buying something. I 100% respect any company/entity to sell whatever they want at whatever price. When people get butt hurt because I don't endorse a price tag people start throwing around the entitled nonsense (mainly because they can't logically argue or present themselves as adults - see also users of: troll, incel, hater, etc.).

But either way, this basically sums up my feelings on the matter.

Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about GW's investments. All I care about is the end price of its miniatures.

**SickSix**

Sorry but there is really no justification for raising prices beyond inflation on 30 year old plastic kits (Cadians).

And it doesn't matter what their motivation is when their product is no longer considered worth the asking price.

Sane consumers aren't going to keep overpaying for plastic soldiers out of some sense of virtue because 'GW does it right'. LOL

**tneva82**

G00fySmiley wrote:
It is great they are making things in the UK and self financing their own factories with money on hand vs loans. that is great... for the company. It is certainly a thing some consumers may value (I fall into this category of good job GW), but others simply will not care and just buy from whatever is the cheapest and IP law be damned.

I have seen so many players buying chinacast/russian cast models that are literal remolds from GW sprue and identical (other than costing like 30% of what GW charges) At the end of the day no matter how well a company treats their employees, runs their business or is good for the community... a markup to $50 on $0.25 worth of plastic in a $0.10 box is hard to stomach.

Personally I would love to see GW open a few more factories but maybe in other market. Maybe one in NZ would give those down under a price break, and maybe on in the US or Canada to pay less for shipping around the world.

Of course at the end of day gw can't compete in price with copycats. That is lost war the day it starts. Gw lower their prices, recaster does too. Gw hits point of loss on sales first

**ScarletRose**

tneva82 wrote:
G00fySmiley wrote:
It is great they are making things in the UK and self financing their own factories with money on hand vs loans. that is great... for the company. It is certainly a thing some consumers may value (I fall into this category of good job GW), but others simply will not care and just buy from whatever is the cheapest and IP law be damned.

I have seen so many players buying chinacast/russian cast models that are literal remolds from GW sprue and identical (other than costing like 30% of what GW charges) At the end of the day no matter how well a company treats their employees, runs their business or is good for the community... a markup to $50 on $0.25 worth of plastic in a $0.10 box is hard to stomach.

Personally I would love to see GW open a few more factories but maybe in other market. Maybe one in NZ would give those down under a price break, and maybe on in the US or Canada to pay less for shipping around the world.

Of course at the end of day gw can't compete in price with copycats. That is lost war the day it starts. Gw lower their prices, recaster does too. Gw hits point of loss on sales first

Except as we've seen in other industries (namely music) if you drop the price point to something most consumers are willing to pay you can still make a profit and reduce piracy.

GW for all it's faults makes good miniatures and unless I've really missed something no pirates have their own polystyrene injection mold set up, so if my choice was $20 for plastic and $10 for resin I'd sure pick the plastic because it's still in my price range and it's the better material to work with. Even if the pirates dropped it to $5 I'd still pay more for the better product. But that gets harder and harder to justify the higher the price (and the higher price disparity) gets.

**ccs**

flandarz wrote:
It also bears mentioning that GW holds a virtual monopoly on wargaming. Like it or not, the vast majority of wargames played are 40k, so if you want to get into wargaming, you really only have one viable choice. Therefore, GW can "afford" to have higher prices. For most people, they'll be the only option around, unless they want to deal with a lack of opponents.

Hmm, no. GW is certainly big, well known, & widely available. But you're wrong on that whole monopoly/only viable choice thing.
Now it might be true that GW is the only game in town where ever you're at or with whomever you're gaming with....

**TheFleshIsWeak**

tneva82 wrote:
Of course at the end of day gw can't compete in price with copycats.

No, but it could at least refrain from pricing many people out of buying the real thing.

**Stux**

SickSix wrote:
Sorry but there is really no justification for raising prices beyond inflation on 30 year old plastic kits (Cadians).

And it doesn't matter what their motivation is when their product is no longer considered worth the asking price.

Sane consumers aren't going to keep overpaying for plastic soldiers out of some sense of virtue because 'GW does it right'. LOL

Genuine question - have they actually raised the price above inflation? If you track from when the kit was released and the price it was then.

**Arbitrator**

ccs wrote:
flandarz wrote:
It also bears mentioning that GW holds a virtual monopoly on wargaming. Like it or not, the vast majority of wargames played are 40k, so if you want to get into wargaming, you really only have one viable choice. Therefore, GW can "afford" to have higher prices. For most people, they'll be the only option around, unless they want to deal with a lack of opponents.

Hmm, no. GW is certainly big, well known, & widely available. But you're wrong on that whole monopoly/only viable choice thing.
Now it might be true that GW is the only game in town where ever you're at or with whomever you're gaming with....

It depends on where you live. In the UK at least, it's a real problem when there's barely a fifteen minute drive between another GW store. Maintaining a major highstreet presence like that means 99% of people get into wargaming via 40k and tend to stick with it.

Gaming clubs do exist, but they're not nearly as prevalent as LFGS in the US and other countries, which means GW has near total market saturation here. That improved a bit during 7th when a number of people were desperate to get into something other than GW products, but it didn't last with 8th just because 95% of people's mates wanted an excuse to go back to the 40k collections they'd been building for a decade or so.

**Overread**

GW are pretty much the market dominant company for fantasy and sci-fi wargames. You can take your warhammer army to practically ANY local game store or club and almost guarantee yourself a game or at least that locals are playing it.

No other company is half as strong, though Privateer Press got closer but they've fallen apart in some regions and lost their hold as of late with some of their changes. Shutting down of their Press Ganger system has hit them hard in that respect.

Other firms are exceptionally hit and miss at the local level. Sure there's far more variety out there now than there ever was, but there's also more variation club to club. Infinity, Dropfleet, Mantic, etc... There's a host of companies which are well known and of a good size, but still hit and miss

**quickfuze**

If you're going to cite negative market influencers (brexit, tarrifs, etc) as causation to price increase, that's fine. So that means when those conditions reverse to favorable market conditions, GW lowers their prices right? What's that.... Crickets? Yes GW will never lower prices and will simply make the inflated price the new benchmark, and they do this for any reason they can think of, whether actual or just possible predicted conditions. That's why you Gdub white knights can go ahead and keep the shareholders happy and I'll enjoy the same hobby at 1/3 the price.

**flandarz**

ccs wrote:
flandarz wrote:
It also bears mentioning that GW holds a virtual monopoly on wargaming. Like it or not, the vast majority of wargames played are 40k, so if you want to get into wargaming, you really only have one viable choice. Therefore, GW can "afford" to have higher prices. For most people, they'll be the only option around, unless they want to deal with a lack of opponents.

Hmm, no. GW is certainly big, well known, & widely available. But you're wrong on that whole monopoly/only viable choice thing.
Now it might be true that GW is the only game in town where ever you're at or with whomever you're gaming with....

A virtual monopoly isn't quite the same as an actual monopoly. What I'm saying is that most wargaming IS done via GW products. Doesn't matter where you live, you're 10 times more likely to find an opponent if you're playing 40k than anything else. That gives GW what amounts to a monopoly on the market. You could spend hundreds of dollars on a different wargame and maybe never find an opponent, or you could devote that same money towards 40k and pretty consistently find an opponent anytime you want to play.

And, to be fair, GW isn't the only one who holds this kind of monopoly on a hobby. WotC also has one on Tabletop gaming. Steam has one for PC gaming. Yes, there ARE alternatives out there. But the popularity and saturation of GW, WotC, and Steam makes using anything else kind of a waste of money, unless you got friends you can convince to play with you.

**BrianDavion**

WotC also has one on Tabletop gaming

... Only if you're a 12 year old kid who thinks CCGs = table top gaming. WOTC also produces D&D yes, but they are VERY much being challanged by Pathfinder these days

**flandarz**

Considering Pathfinder is basically exactly 3.5 D&D, that's not saying much. And it is STILL easier to find a group for D&D than it is for Pathfinder. To me, challenging D&D would require that there be at least 1 Pathfinder game to every 2 D&D games. But I'd be willing to bet it's closer to 1 to 10, if not higher.

**Stux**

BrianDavion wrote:
WotC also has one on Tabletop gaming

... Only if you're a 12 year old kid who thinks CCGs = table top gaming. WOTC also produces D&D yes, but they are VERY much being challanged by Pathfinder these days

5e turned things around. I dunno, maybe things are different in your area, but everyone I know is playing 5e D&D now instead of PF.

**Togusa**

BrianDavion wrote:
WotC also has one on Tabletop gaming

... Only if you're a 12 year old kid who thinks CCGs = table top gaming. WOTC also produces D&D yes, but they are VERY much being challanged by Pathfinder these days

People still play Pathfinder?

It's a mess of a freaking system compared to how smooth and streamlined 5E is.

**Saturmorn Carvilli**

Togusa wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
WotC also has one on Tabletop gaming

... Only if you're a 12 year old kid who thinks CCGs = table top gaming. WOTC also produces D&D yes, but they are VERY much being challanged by Pathfinder these days

People still play Pathfinder?

It's a mess of a freaking system compared to how smooth and streamlined 5E is.

That was largely my impression as well. The only reason Pathfinder gained the foothold they have is because it was more D&D than D&D 4th edition. The impression I got of 5th edition was it really returned to its roots while still have more modern streamlined rules that make the old 3rd/3.5 D&D rules look mighty rickety. I am sure that Pathfinder is still the second most popular RPG, but like whatever is 2nd to Warhammer, it is fair distance away now. Being that is basically an OGL of 3rd edition D&D, I don't see it picking up the steam it once had so long as WOTC don't try and new Coke their system again.

**MrMoustaffa**

I'd buy the price increase if this wasn't the best theyve been since Lord of the Rings. I'm sorry but you can't tell me GW has had record earnings and sales and then say "oh trust me guys, price increases are totally necessary!" Especially not when companies like Tamiya, Bandai, or even direct competition like Warlord can make a similar quality kit for far cheaper.

That goes double for kits where the molds long paid themselves off. I want to see someone argue the Cadian shock troops deserved a price increase with a straight face. I can get literally 4x the models in plastic at that price that are higher quality with more options, or even jump over to resin boutique models in some countries. If you were trying to argue something like skitarii needed a price increase that's one thing, those are gorgeous models, very complex, and relatively new. That's understandable. But don't tell me a kit that's been around over 10 years needs it, especially when said kit used to over double the models for less than that price.

**Breton**

Stux wrote:
SickSix wrote:
Sorry but there is really no justification for raising prices beyond inflation on 30 year old plastic kits (Cadians).

And it doesn't matter what their motivation is when their product is no longer considered worth the asking price.

Sane consumers aren't going to keep overpaying for plastic soldiers out of some sense of virtue because 'GW does it right'. LOL

Genuine question - have they actually raised the price above inflation? If you track from when the kit was released and the price it was then.

The ones I checked? Not so much. Some were more, some were less, most if not all were pretty close, and given the 6 year or so gap GW seems to like for price increases would be between this increase and the last on plus I had to try and remember what I was paying 20+ years ago... https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ is free to use if you have a better memory. 25.00 1993 Dollars are 44.32 2019 Dollars. $35 is $62.08 Going the other direction, The $100.00 Repulsor today would have been $56.41 The $80 Repulsor would have been $45.13 The $65 Redemptor would have been $36.67

I found this guy who did this a few years ago - https://hubcap-reloaded.livejournal.com/379050.html with WD prices - a year 2000 WD priced the Land Raider at 30 British Pounds. The exchange rate in 2000 was 1.45 to 1.5 - making the land raider 43.50 to 45.00 (probably $45) $45 in 2000 is 66.94 today.
The Tactical box jumped from 12 pounds (17.50 probably a $20.00 box) in 2000 to 23 pounds in 2012 (33.35 which could be why I remember $35 Tactical Marines) $20 2000 dollars are 29.75 today. $35 2012 dollars are $39.05 today.

**Togusa**

MrMoustaffa wrote:
I'd buy the price increase if this wasn't the best theyve been since Lord of the Rings. I'm sorry but you can't tell me GW has had record earnings and sales and then say "oh trust me guys, price increases are totally necessary!" Especially not when companies like Tamiya, Bandai, or even direct competition like Warlord can make a similar quality kit for far cheaper.

That goes double for kits where the molds long paid themselves off. I want to see someone argue the Cadian shock troops deserved a price increase with a straight face. I can get literally 4x the models in plastic at that price that are higher quality with more options, or even jump over to resin boutique models in some countries. If you were trying to argue something like skitarii needed a price increase that's one thing, those are gorgeous models, very complex, and relatively new. That's understandable. But don't tell me a kit that's been around over 10 years needs it, especially when said kit used to over double the models for less than that price.

I think there is a big difference here though. Tamiya, and Bandai have a much more broad audience, that is to say they appeal to people who may have no interest in table top gaming. Especially if you add in something like Revel or Tamiya which have broad appeal. The old kits getting price increases as far as I can tell have been pretty minor. We're talking about +5$ for guardsmen, seems a bit silly for someone to get upset about. I would guess the older kits aren't selling, especially when compared with newer kits.

The only think stopping me from buying a guard army is the fact that neither regiment I like has models in plastic. If they did, I'd go full in on a new army this fall.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ScarletRose wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
G00fySmiley wrote:
It is great they are making things in the UK and self financing their own factories with money on hand vs loans. that is great... for the company. It is certainly a thing some consumers may value (I fall into this category of good job GW), but others simply will not care and just buy from whatever is the cheapest and IP law be damned.

I have seen so many players buying chinacast/russian cast models that are literal remolds from GW sprue and identical (other than costing like 30% of what GW charges) At the end of the day no matter how well a company treats their employees, runs their business or is good for the community... a markup to $50 on $0.25 worth of plastic in a $0.10 box is hard to stomach.

Personally I would love to see GW open a few more factories but maybe in other market. Maybe one in NZ would give those down under a price break, and maybe on in the US or Canada to pay less for shipping around the world.

Of course at the end of day gw can't compete in price with copycats. That is lost war the day it starts. Gw lower their prices, recaster does too. Gw hits point of loss on sales first

Except as we've seen in other industries (namely music) if you drop the price point to something most consumers are willing to pay you can still make a profit and reduce piracy.

GW for all it's faults makes good miniatures and unless I've really missed something no pirates have their own polystyrene injection mold set up, so if my choice was $20 for plastic and $10 for resin I'd sure pick the plastic because it's still in my price range and it's the better material to work with. Even if the pirates dropped it to $5 I'd still pay more for the better product. But that gets harder and harder to justify the higher the price (and the higher price disparity) gets.

I feel the same way, but with very few financial obligations, I have the time and money to spend on my hobby. It might be different for someone living on a more fixed budget. There is also a great feeling that comes from supporting the company though, buying the official kits and working on them. I think it just feels....nice?

**Jidmah**

Thanks for providing the link.

I still hate them for charging so much for all the beautiful models I want though.

**YeOldSaltPotato**

I was kinda hoping they'd wait till after brexit settled to figure this one out, but at the rate it's going I understand settling on the 'well feth me, may as well make money while we wait' side.

That said, I can only take this discussion so seriously when the sponsored article over on the front page is rent to own miniatures. There's wasting money on luxury plastics, and then there's throwing it out the window completely.

**Wunzlez**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So;

1. A Lot of assertions, no citations or valid demonstration of basis or foundation.

2. Link to "proof" of earnings statement was bugged and didn't go to anything I could tell, so I'm not saying anything about his "source" that he did provide.

3. His rational is self-justifying, or more simply, he's using his assertions as proof of his assertions. This is a logical fallacy.

4. Claims personal experience or makes himself out to be an expert. This requires proof, or it is an appeal to authority fallacy.

5. False Dichotomy. Either GW is motivated by greed, or it isn't. Logical fallacy. GW can be greedy, and not motivated by it.

6. Very interesting article otherwise. If true, color me surprised.

I agree with most of this, even though the 'article' says some decent things about the company, which would be nice if proven true.

However, and this is me nitpicking here and maybe I'm an idiot who doesn't understand logical fallacies, but wouldn't being greedy, by definition, be your motivation? As in the overt consumption or acquisition of something (somewhat) pathologically driving your behaviour?

I can't visualise being greedy, which is doled out by a value judgement of another's behaviour on an indeterminate spectrum between "what I find acceptable" to "what I don't find acceptable", being applied and yet not being someone's motivation, I mean..that's the point of using the term to describe someone's behaviour.
Also in terms of the writer's point about being motivated by greed, it seems the argument is that they could do a lot more (as a business) if they were as cynically motivated by the greed of acquiring more wealth as is often stated by critics of the company.

In that sense it's a very valid argument...if true.

Of course, if you are talking about a vague, degree, of greed where people's behaviour is inconsistent and they may be motivated by different drives at different moments, of course I agree. But that also kind of works in the company's favour as well, being as it's made up of these inconsistent human beings, it would then be fair to view the entity they are part of in light of this, normal, but often irritating, inconsistency in behaviour. Otherwise one is being very intellectually dishonest.

Which I suppose comes back to the essential point of that reddit post: That they aren't as cynically motivated by greed as is sometimes assumed.