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.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0> <TBODY> <TR> <TD class=afpostbody colSpan=2>

No ripping off? WTF?

A company reduces its unit production costs (and undoubtedly reduces the pdouction quality of the model too) by an enormous percentage yet passes none of those cost savings on to its customers?

And you figured in the cost of producing the mold how? Since GW is out many thousands of dollars from tooling up the capability to make that figure in plastic, I'd say that at this point they have increased, not reduced, costs in producing this model. Might be different after they sell several thousand of them. You also assume production quality is down, but we don't have the model yet to compare.

What planet are you on mate? How on earth is that *not* ripping off (for which read "taking unfair advantage of") its customers?

Philadelphis, USA. Two gaming stores I've run for 18 years. Many friends in the gaming industry, lots of which are involved in the production of models. Two degrees in math. This whole "ripping off" trend is tedious. Somehow making a profit is now "ripping people off". I've had people tell me I rip them off when I sell them a comic or game because I'm deliberately trying to profit off of their hobby. It's total BS, as I don't see how I'm supposed to stay in business if I sell things for no profit, and then still pay my employees and the landlord. Same thing applies here. GW produces a new mold, and has yet to sell a figure. You have total control over whether you buy the figure. Somehow you feel 'ripped off'.

Sure, no-one *has to* buy this stuff, but when they reduce the quality of a product and dramatically reduce the unit costs of it too but still keep the end price the same as it was for the old higher quality and higher cost model then IM (not so) HO GW have all the business ethics of a slug if they somehow don't think that's a con!

See above, they haven't reduced costs, you don't know about the quality. By 'business ethics', you mean they don't deserve to make a profit? Or they are only allowed a certain percentage? I hope you don't drive a vehicle, or drink beer. The mark up on gas and alcohol are many times the profit margin GW has on figures.

They may as well make all the kids who play in their stores wear big signs on their backs saying "kick me!"

Yep, those kids that get to go into their shops, and play games for free with really nice scenery, attend free painting and modeling classes, and use the place as a free clubhouse/babysitting service, man, are they stupid or what?

 

</TD></TR> <TR> <TD class=afpostattach colSpan=2></TD></TR> <TR> <TD class=afpostsig colSpan=2></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I enjoyed the rip off vs. overpriced argument on the previous generation of Dakka.

It's just plain linguistics, guys. Sure the dictionary may define it one way, but common usage and slang trumps that. I used to fight the idiocy of definition and semantic changes urged on by stupid kids in school, but it's practically useless. Eh, try telling person X or Y from background X or Y and they might just cut you if you look at them wrongly.

So yes, the best dictionary word here is overpriced. However, I'm sure most of you know that rip-off is the common word for both "rip off" (as in deceptive marketing) and overpriced.

 

Infantryman - I used to agree with you.  In fact, I agreed with you until I found out just what undercutting was.  Metal truly holds more detail since you get stupid "filler" with any plastics.  Check out the legs of the XV25s sometime.  With the metal version they could carve it nice and deep with undercuts but with plastic you see the codpiece extend right to the leg.  There's other examples elsewhere.  Anyway, I just wanted to remark about the old metal/plastic quality difference.   I still prefer plastic since it's easier to chop up the excess plastic than pin a bunch of crap with metal.

I agree with Mikhaila.

And to respond to Osbad, I'm another person who prefers plastic over metal inherently. Metal models are more annoying to assemble and paint, even before you get into converting. And they chip much more easily.

Its nither a rip off or over priced. Its THE price. This isn't communism, boys and girls, companies can decide what price they want to sell their goods at. If you don't like it, thats 100% acceptable. Do you even need one? If not, why do you care? And if you do, and you debate the price, go find another one for cheaper, k?



Welcome to reality.

Well, I would believe that the guys stating that the new Balrog is just as expensive as the metal Balrog, and even as expensive as the Monolith are from Britain, or at least buy their stuff from Britain. The Monolith may be priced differently in the U.S. but in Britain the price is actually the same, £35 for each single one of the three kits.

So, not to delve into any discussions whether or not GW's prices are right/fair/whatever, but I can understand a few raised eyebrows at the new Balrog being priced at the very same price as the Monolith, a significantly larger plastic set if I understand it correctly.

This is turning into an interesting discussion. I may as well state my own credntials as I feel where we are coming from intellectually seems to inform our feelings on this subject somewhat. I am a Economics honours graduate and Chartered Accountant and have worked as the FD of a Housing Association in the UK for some years now.

The kind of I have chosen to work in have been ones that for various reasons have been "ethical" in their motivation rather than purely "profit orientated" (i.e. making a profit has been necessary for survival, but making a *big* profit has come secondary to achieving other, social, aims.

Anyhow, that's the kind of environment I have chosen for myself, and it perhaps goes some way to explaining my feelings on this issue.

Mikhaila's background in operating comics/gaming stores goes somewhat towards explaining his. Maybe others in the debate have more behind their opinions than is apparant from first sight.

At the back of my opinion that £35 for a plastic Balrog is a "rip-off"/"overprice" is the feeling that I feel it is somehow immoral to make customers pay more than they need to. I appreciate that this is a free market economy and it is totally legitimate for GW to price their wares at whatever point the market will bear. I also appreciate that as a free customer I can stick my fingers up at them and buy cheaper substitutes elsewhere. What all the "it's not a rip-off it's just business" proponents seem to miss is my point that while GW are at liberty to charge £100 for the thing if they want, pricing things at levels that appear to this customer as excessively high makes this customer feel irritated and that the product is not value for money (and perhaps that is a better definition of what we are talking about than the term rip-off: At £35 to me the metal Balrog felt expensive (I got mine half price from a closing down sale though - so at £20 for the old boxed set I didn't feel ripped off at all ), but justifiable, but somehow to me £35 for a plastic edition just feels like in no way "value for money". And that makes me sad at all sorts of levels.

Now, as to the specifics of the economics of manufacture. I was at GD in 2003 when I saw a display about the (then) new plastic Bretonnians which put the tooling costs and design of a plastic sprue at £100,000. Clearly the pricing decision needs to at least cover this cost, and the unit cost of the thing is dependent on the expected level of sales - so at a price of £35 and (for the sake of simplicity) assuming that overheads, selling costs etc. take up 65% of revenue (I think I saw that figure somewhere on GW's investor pages but don't quote me on that... ) then GW will need to sell something like 8,000 of them to break even on the originations costs. However, when you consider that the Marginal Cost of Manufacture of a plastic model is around 3p (slight exaggeration, but you catch my drift), compared to metal where the moulds are much cheaper (but don't last as long) but the metal for the model is much more expensive (say around a fiver for the amount in a Balrog?) and the point is that at the volumes GW anticipate selling then the overall unit costs of a plastic Balrog *are* lower than a metal one, but there is a greater level of risk (i.e. if they sell less than the 8,000 then they are left with egg on their faces to the tune of unrecovered originations costs of up to £100,000 or rather less with all this much-vaunted new CAD machinery - i.e. the plastic Balrog is just a scan of the metal one so no real sculpting costs).

So,

See above, they haven't reduced costs,

erm, yes they have!

you don't know about the quality

No I don't but I have bought a heckuva load of GW plastics over the years and the *only* reason I have done so is that at a 67% discount (say, plastic LotR Orcs at 62.5p each over metal equivalents at £2 each) they represent value for money. If they were the same price as the metals they wouldn't (to me) and I wouldn't have touched them with someone else's! Now, of course the new plastic Balrog may be a wonderful new standard for them, but from the pictures of the sprues I have seen on the Interweb it looks just like an exact copy of the metal one. Given plastic's propensity to lose definition where the steel mold can't do "undercuts", while I can't rule out the possibility that the model may be just as well-defined as a metal one, I don't expect it to be at all.

I'm not blowing smoke on this issue, it is based on logical deductions, good research and a lot of experience.

And my conclusion is rational, and remains that from my point of view I fail to see how a plastic model of the thing can provide the same level of "utility" (see I can remember my Economics stuff still ) or "value for money" as a metal one can. My issue is not whether £35 is a fair price for a Balrog, but that given the metal one is sold for the same price I am amazed how anyone with any discernment at all would be willing to pay it for a plastic one - of lesser (and I am accepting of the point that some may like plastic for conversion and other reasons) quality.

Phew. That's a long one!

Much simpler to say "Cor! That's a rip-off!"

And on a tangent:

Yep, those kids that get to go into their shops, and play games for free with really nice scenery, attend free painting and modeling classes, and use the place as a free clubhouse/babysitting service, man, are they stupid or what?

Well, maybe they aren't stupid, but what does that say about those who are prepared to pay prices for models that *include* an uplift to cover the costs of that activity.  I have only played in a store (well a Battle Bunker) really a couple of times and to be frank it wasn't my cup of tea.  Why should I therefore be forced to pay a supplement on the model just to allow others that privelege?  Justifying high costs of the models as paying for services that are unwanted and unasked for is GW being silly in my view.  I would personally prefer it if they operated a "membershipe" system so that those availing themselves of in-store gaming  paid for it on a usage basis.  But even that is somewhat naive.  If these in-store activities aren't paying for themselves then GW have no business operating them.  Online campaigns and the like are obviously promotional activities and should be justified by increased sales, not by a surcharge.  Justifying them in that way is just wrong!  Either the prices are "cost plus" (i.e. reflect all the costs involved) or are "market based" (i.e. sell for what the market will bear).  Using the argument that "well we have overheads" is copping out - if they aren't prepared to drop prices for the lower materials costs then they shouldn't inflate them for the costs of operating stores.  If GW are truly operating a business model that creates a cost card for the Balrog this way then they are a lot more naive than I would expect of a multinational PLC!

OK I had this puppy in my grubby mits last night.  Everything expected of the model is true - ie it is a typical GW multi-part plastic kit - no better or worse.  The detail on the torso and legs is much less relief than the metal version, but essentially it is otherwise exactly the same - just with a bit more fun around the base ("flat" flames, detailed base).

What struck even the over-enthusiastic "Tigger" who proudly displayed the item was just how little you were getting for your money - just two small sprues and the wings.  Compare it to the new plastic Giant.  For £10 (29%) less you are getting a whole load more modelling for your money!  And they can't blame that £10 on the licence because even New Line aren't that greedy!

Nope, however you look at this thing £35 just ain't value for money, and therefore under the Osbad Personal Dictionary Definition (TM)  this constitutes a RIP OFF!

"At the back of my opinion that £35 for a plastic Balrog is a "rip-off"/"overprice" is the feeling that I feel it is somehow immoral to make customers pay more than they need to. I appreciate that this is a free market economy and it is totally legitimate for GW to price their wares at whatever point the market will bear."

It would be immoral for a company to charge you $100 an liter for water (assuming you couldn't get water anywhere else).  Its not immoral for a GAME company to charge you whatever they please for a LUXURY item.  Let's be real here, GW, or any hobby, is a LUXURY.  You either can afford it, or you can't.  You decide to purchase something, or you don't. 

Complaining that GW doesn't charge what the consumer 'needs to pay' is just ridiculous.  If GW were a non-profit outfit, I'd be right there with you.

I'd love for my hobby to be buying Lamborghinis, heck, I'd even settle for Ferraris, or maybe vintage WWII airplanes.  However, I can't afford those hobbies... what a rip-off, that Lamborghini sells their cars for that much!  They should only charge what drivers 'need' to pay.  I mean, it can't cost $200,000 to make a car, can it? 

I am just as frustrated at prices, which is why I've not bought a thing from them in some time.  Besides, they probably priced the Balrog that way in anticipation of raising the price of the monolith  

 

"I'd love for my hobby to be buying Lamborghinis, heck, I'd even settle for Ferraris, or maybe vintage WWII airplanes. However, I can't afford those hobbies... what a rip-off, that Lamborghini sells their cars for that much! They should only charge what drivers 'need' to pay. I mean, it can't cost $200,000 to make a car, can it?"

To be honest I think the "luxury" goods market is pretty immoral full stop. And even more immoral than the companies that peddle the goods, are the unthinking fools that pay vastly inflated sums for trival trash.

Yeah, I'd love (but can't afford) a Ferrari as well, but I'd much rather the £100k went to do something really useful such as helping provide water to rural villages in India!

Part of the reason I dislike (and don't pay) high prices for wargames tat is that I find it unjustifiable to spend a lot of money on something so trivial. A thoroughly selfish act to be honest.

Yeah we all need a bit of fun in out lives but when companies drive up the prices so that they consume significant amounts of money, then the immorality of their greed is only matched by the immorality of those that think conspicuous consumption is a good thing...

Bottom line, I like toy soldiers and am quite prepared to pay reasonable prices for stuff in order to reward the artistry of the creators of the products.   I am NOT prepared  to pay through the nose for those products though and anyone expecting me to is in my view greedy, and behaving unethically. 

Of course that's a naive viewpoint, and I am aware most normal companies are legally obliged to make as big a profit as they can.  Personally though I find it distasteful to see a company satisfying its shareholders by wringing as much money as possible for as little product as possible from the 12 year-olds who will likely by this product (or more likely their parents).  Heck, this is so over priced in the UK it makes the Warhammer Giant seem like a veritable bargain!

Whether such practice makes good business sense, is of course a whole other debate!

But those wings would be just great for a winged hive tyrant,

The FW resin wings for a winged Hive Tyrant are even better! Now, if only they would actually give us decent customer service and make them available ....

Personally, I think the Balrog wings are a little too long for the current Hive Tyrant.

Can't agree with you on that. In fact, something the size of the current HT would basically need wings the size of Pittsburgh to take off. (Actually, I think there's no way it could fly with wings, period. a fun alternative is to give your flying HT a bio-jump pack.)

The Balrog wings look great on the HT, 2.0. The resin wings from the FW model look perfect, as they are Tyranid limbs, but it's basically crazy to use them from the resin kit -- whacked-out expensive.

I don't like the dragon wings for a HT -- they're kind of goofy looking, very "old GW." (Cough Trish Morrison cough.)

I saw it in my local store last week. Its very similar to the metal kit, only have have model flames to add to the the sculpted base and the option of an open left hand or a whip.

All in all, not bad - if the price is right.