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.

Posted By Toreador on 04/21/2007 9:32 AM
Nothing fun is cheap. 

Well, paper airplanes are cheap.

But I like WH, 40k, and Warmachine enough to make the (substantial) cost difference acceptable to me.

Posted By yakface on 04/20/2007 9:59 PM

 

Clearly GWs prices aren't based on inflation, they have simply kept way too far ahead of the inflation rate for that to be true.

While the rising costs of materials has, I'm sure, had some impact on their prices, the real reason is that GW has always stayed on the cutting edge of charging what they can get away with, and they will obviously continue to do so until they are unequivically proven incorrect in their business model.

The fact is, GW has stood the test of time while many other companies have passed into history, filed bankruptcy or were bought by larger entities and we cannot rule out that this has been possible because of the premium price they charge for their products.

You see, even if GW was to drop the prices of their product by 50% today, would gamers continually (and sustainably) start buying more than twice as much product (more than twice as much to cover the loss of profit per item)?

I for one, would not. And that, I think is the problem.

You see, in many ways it might appear like I am the perfect GW customer. I have been buying their products for 15+ years and I have enough disposable income that I currently am not bothered by GW's prices; if I want something, I buy it, simple as that.

The problem is, I already have all the codices, I already have several armies, and I already have a backlog of unpainted miniatures to get to before I even think about buying any more models.

So what does GW make off of me, a very loyal customer with a lot of disposable income? Well, I buy 40k codices and the occasional paint and/or brush. Maybe once every five years or so I might plunk down $300-$500 and buy a whole new army, but in general the actual money I spend on GW on a daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis doesn't come close to what I spend on things I care much less about.

The point of all this is that GW makes a game that once you are established in it, you don't really have to spend all that much money to keep playing. The very nature of how long it takes someone to paint an army can (and often does) limit how often a player can and will make purchases.

So do I begrudge GW for charging a premium for their products? Nope because it is exactly what I would do if were running the company.

Have they gone too high with their prices to the point where they will drive away too many players to stay in business? Perhaps, but only time will tell for sure.

 

Bravo!

Yakface hit the nail on the head. GW's products are not price sensitive. If they increase prices, profits go up... to a point. Once they hit that point, they'll stop increasing the price.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Posted By Deadshane1 on 04/20/2007 7:55 PM

This is for all the silly fools who thought that GW raised the price of models due to the rising costs of oil....

$22 dollar codeii, lemme guess, the price of trees went up?

'wonk, wonk, wonk!'

Actually, you still have to use oil to cut the tree down, load it on a truck, drive it to a mill, offload it, then power the turbines to get the electricty to the mill to start the process of turning it into wood pulp for the paper. So yes, the price of trees did go up, and oil as well.

 

'wonk'

Not sure to agree with Yak's comment. Well written and all, but even if I recognize myself in the situation he describes, not all gamers are created equal - or at least, not at the same time.

The thing is that Yakface's purchase habits won't help GW stay afloat. No matter what they charge (and believe me, there are prices even us post-students won't swallow) I think veterans just don't buy enough, in overall quantities, to sustain the whole thing.

However, for newcomers, it's even worse. I've met plenty of would-be players playing with count-as miniatures, or creating sub-par lists, not out of fluff of lack of tactical ability, but simply because purchasing the army they wanted would have costed them too much. They were just in the process of being priced out of the game. And for each of those struggling youngsters, how many others just decided to pass on the game?

GW's money is made on impulsive buy. They make their butter when someone walks in a store and gets a whole army at once, along with books and paint and all. Problem is, nowadays it costs a month's rent - for the parents of the new player.

To me, the "disposable income" theory on which GW has based its business simply has its limit. I've even believed that they've encountered it already, especially at the hands of a growing competition (why do they seem to care to their rules recently?). Their profits are so-so. Worse even, they won't correct their fatal course just by lowering some prices at a point in time. It will take much more than that to restore customer confidence - many of them forever lost to competition.

Hell, the situation reached a point GW does not want veterans to communicate with young players (like it occurred from time to time on their board) just because formers were scaring the latters. How long can you survive with luxury prices, shrinking market share and bad reputation?

This is the part that's disturbing. Sure, Yak (and I, and some others) are essentially completely price insensitive. But if the overall pool of people to play against is reduced, then I, at least, am more likely to pick a different game...one where I still have opponents.

- On the issue of veterans and company sustainability

When I worked for GW, it was explained many times to me by my managers to cater to the "veterans" and to harp New Releases hard. The Chicago Battlebunker (the benchmark for the midwest region) made the majority of its sales off of New Releases and sold predominantly to veterans. This was two years ago.

- for Toreador, the man without fault, (or rose colored glasses)

What are you Jesus or something? Maybe you can't stop staring at yourself in the mirror every morning and recording your voice on tape so you can hear yourself talk, but the rest of us don't care how awesome you think you are. You are not an authority on the subject of the good old days, and even if you were, your opinion still doesn't matter.

Posted By Janthkin on 04/21/2007 2:33 PM

And for each of those struggling youngsters, how many others just decided to pass on the game?

This is the part that's disturbing. Sure, Yak (and I, and some others) are essentially completely price insensitive. But if the overall pool of people to play against is reduced, then I, at least, am more likely to pick a different game...one where I still have opponents.

There lies the rub.

Just because YOU can afford it, doesnt mean the majority of opponents will. GW was able to reach a wide audience in the late ninties early 00's and it seems to stifle somewhat.

Warmachine seems to be a great game for the "Hobby flavor", and still not scare newbs away (though you could easily spend as much if not more on warmachine as you would GW), but the smaller scale means a bit less cash spent.

The games that wargamer hobbyists make fun of are good because of the reason Janthkin listed. Such things as Pirates!, "X" clix game, etc have a very decent following as well, so opponents arent hard to find.

Yak is right about pricing, but I dont see people buying the new releases off of the shelves like I did in '97 for GW. Even eldar sold less than expected in minneapolis.

GW hasnt touched U.S. prices for anything other than codecies and starters. Nothing very unreasonable. You will notice that was all the U.S. got bumped with, while others saw eldrad rise to $25.

I hope GW realizes that they have reached or exceeded their ceiling here in the states. If not, then we can expect to see some $25 eldrads this time next year.

I'll poke my head in here and say that I'm buying less and less. And it's because I can't afford it, not because the game is so much less fun. (Fantasy that is)

Posted By Zoned on 04/20/2007 8:27 AM

To Hellfury: Sorry, I could have swore you posted recently that you hadn't played 40k in years. I guess you made no such statement, then?

When I had read that (or thought I had read that,) I was just reminded of my buddies who had dropped out of the GW hobby, guys who loved to complain about every new thing GW did, but always pored over my latest WD or codex the second they came over. I always thought, man, we'd have so much more fun if we actually played the game then simply argued about the company.

BTW, I meant no insult when I wrote: "though he clearly loves to talk about it" I meant you actively discuss most aspects of the GW hobby, usually in a clear, insightful way (I like it when you scan in the actual rules in YMDC)

But if you do play regularly nowadays (I've definitely seen you posting about your WARMACHINE games,) I apologize, I made too broad of an assumption.

To nyarlathotep667: Sorry, I meant no personal attack in my statement - but I stand behind my remark -  I sift through most of Dakka's threads and you seem to frequent the ones that either show new models (from any company,) or discuss anything related to company policy (any company.)

I rarely (if ever,) see you discuss specifics about the game, going to tournaments/conventions,  army lists, leagues...etc. I could be wrong, as this is simply going off memory.

Again, if I assumed too much, and you do play/enjoy the game regularly, I'll admit that my statement was too broad, and I apologize. Good gaming! 

 

Maybe you had a bit of eye-shock. I assumed Hellfury's avatar on a
lark, and so maybe you read a post I made about not having played
Warhammer 40k in years. I've played Necromunda recently, but I
can't really get jazzed about assembling/painting an army for a game
I hardly play and fail to enjoy playing.

So to recap: I haven't played 40k in years and my avatar is the same
as Hellfury's (just hosted in a different place so that our skulls don't
sync up all the time)

 

I do so love the price arguements.

I saw a price arguement elsewhere, and the attacker pretty much conceded that other miniatures games figures cost the same, except for GW command models, and that GW should lower prices because you needed more figures to play.

I guess that also means people who buy luxury cars should get gas cheaper or SUV's should have a gas discount or something...

 

Posted By General Hobbs on 04/22/2007 6:58 PM
I saw a price arguement elsewhere, and the attacker pretty much conceded that other miniatures games figures cost the same, except for GW command models, and that GW should lower prices because you needed more figures to play.

I remember that the 'argument' was shot to pieces.

Nothing justifies the price increases GW has made. Why the same model can cost twice as much as it did a few years ago, or why a box for $35 can have it's contents halved but it's price reduced by a 3rd, cannot be justified.

BYE

Posted By General Hobbs on 04/22/2007 6:58 PM

I saw a price arguement elsewhere, and the attacker pretty much conceded that other miniatures games figures cost the same, except for GW command models, and that GW should lower prices because you needed more figures to play.

What are you smoking?

Look at the prices for Napoleonic or various ancient armies (using non-manufacturer specific rules like DBA).

It's entirely feasible to buy an entire army of several hundred miniatures (or more depending on the scale) for the price of 2 GW regiment/squad boxes.


If you like GW better because of the rules/models/fluff/availability, that's fine. Those are the reasons why most people here play. You can't argue that the price of GW miniatures is anything near comparable to the price/model of historical games (even including FoW).

Another thing to toss into the mix. The US Government has been doing much to devalue the Dollar against almost every foreign currency out there. This is done with the reasoning that foreign investment is good and helps the economy here. The problem is, this means less revenue for foreign companies that sell products in the USA. These companies either have to eat the loss (not likely) or find some way of regaining that revenue - usually by increasing prices.

I'm not saying that this is a factor in GW's reasoning or strategy and should the US Dollar strengthen I'll not be holding my breath for a price reduction.

I hate to point this out, but the US already pays less than the majority of the other regions:

Space Marine Tactical Squad

USA - $35 USD
UK - 18 GBP - $36.06 USD +3.0%
FRA- 25 EUR - $34.02 USD -2.8%
CAN- $45 CAD - $39.90 USD +14.0%
OZ - $50 AU- $41.77 USD +19.3%

Whee!

The disparity gets worse with the "battleforces" since US region dropped prices back down to $90 while they stayed the same or went up in other regions.  I also think it is funny that there is a 14% difference in price between two adjacent regions.  I guess GW thinks that we can't do math in Soviet Kanukistan

I have to agree about pricing as compared to some other wargame miniature companies. A few years ago, I got into some WWII miniature games that were in the 28mm range. I admit that I started playing after I saw Band of Brothers, so started an airborne unit, complete with supporting vehicles.

All told I have two full platoons of airborne (including carbines, rifles, tommy guns, bazookas, BAR's, .30 and .50 cal machineguns, command types and specialists like mine detectors and radio operators) all in white metal, 2 M4A3 Shermans, 2 M10 Tank Destroyers, and four M8 (I think) half tracks. All the vehicles are in resin.

I spent less than $200 on eight resin vehicles and approximately 80 metal troops. The metal troops averaged less than $2 apiece.

So, what exactly is it that GW is doing so wrong that their costs of production can justify charging 5 times as much, especially since they probably sell more volume than a niche WWII recreation game that doesn't have the marketing strength that GW has?

Sal

I see the issue from several points of view.
As an adult and a player I got hooked years ago, and frankly will probably be buying GW stuff whenever the shiney new stuff is pretty enough -- at least as long as the 40K community in my area hangs together.
But as a parent, it's a different story. When I consider buying stuff for my kids and nephews/nieces, it's just too expensive. My wife kind of quashed the idea -- and you know what? She's right. GW's prices just don't fit into our discretionary present/indulgence-for-the-kids budget.

Which means GW can continue to string me along. But the chain stops with me.
And that, in turn, brings me back to the idea that I will continue playing only "as long as the 40K community in my area hangs together." How long can that be, if parents aren't bringing new kids into the hobby?
Short term, demand may seem inelastic.
But long term, I really do think GW has reached, and crossed, a ceiling.

I'm not a whiner. I do love the game and the hobby. Still play, still buy.
But I'm concerned. Really.

And everyone has an opinion WhiteDragon, and we all state it on Dakka freely. To make a discussion it takes more than one side.

Now get off my lawn.

The money spent doesn't really concern me. I spend much more on stupider stuff. Hell, just calculating what I spend eating out in a month is depressing.

People spend what they are willing. The biggest issue with GW in our part of the woods are the rules. WM took over primarily because everyone could play out a game with any army and had a chance of winning. Too many armies in 40k can't do this. There are too many lists that can't even compete well even in a fun game. There are too many holes in the rules, and they aren't FAQ'd in a timely manner. Still too many ambiguities.

We still buy things here and there when warranted, but we play less and have had to house rule a lot of things to create more balanced play. But overall there are fewer vets playing. Without the vets playing the newer kids don't see the cool toys as much at the shop and aren't buying as much. Saturday night used to be 40k night, but now instead of that it is Wow and some WM.

Prices are really secondary to fun play. People will do what they can to play a game if it is fun. But there really isn't much fun in it anymore for many of the people, vets and newbies alike. It's a downward spiral. GW has a lot to do in a short time to bring people back in or they are going to move on. Sales at our shop for 40k is down to 1/3 what it used to be. It's not because of the models (because they have been releasing some very nice stuff), or much about the prices. It is because people don't play the game as much anymore. It's the problem we have always had with Confrontation. The people didn't like the game all that much, but they loved the figs. There were pretty expensive figs to just to buy and paint, but people had bunches of them. Yet I never saw anyone else play a game.

Posted By Toreador on 04/23/2007 9:50 AM

Prices are really secondary to fun play. People will do what they can to play a game if it is fun.

I totally agree what you say about veterans and their cool toys, but price is a barrier to those entering the hobby.  In a vaccum, someone looking at guys playing Warhammer and guys playing Warmachine - assuming comparable interest, might be swayed to go the Warmachine way only because:

1.  You can buy a starter kit with your army of choice and prime remix for $5cdn more than the 40k base rulebook (or battle for McCragge, if you fancy SM or Tyranids).
2.  You can build a competitive army for the price of a battleforce and a codex.
3.  You can buy pretty much every option within a faction (or three 500 point armies) for the price of a tournament sized 40k army.

Kids will sooner spend their alowance on a warjack or solo (or -insert instant gratification here- ) that they can afford rather than save up to buy that Monolith they've been itching to use...

Fun is part of the equation for sure, but so is value.

I do agree. Both sides feed off of each other.

Yep, and value is why we haven't been getting a lot of people into WM either. They have been playing a lot of 750 and 1000pt games, and that is quite a bit of money. WM just seems cheaper.

You know, really looking around, there isn't much at all cheap anymore. I was goofing around last weekend just looking for a new game, and I couldn't justify getting into anything. I couldn't get into many games without plopping down at least $50. Which seems to be the price point for a lot of video games.

Torreador:  Well, WM is model / model roughly on par with GW in terms of pricing.  I do not deny that.  GW's product structure has a fairly steep "start up" cost.  Once the systems get going, addons are about the same price...

Keep in mind I am deliberately ignoring E-bay and secondary markets, and looking at this from a FLGS atmosphere point of view.

40k Startup Cost (CAD dollars)
$75 - Rulebook/McCragge
$130 - Battleforce of choice
$30 - Codex of choice
$20 - HQ model of choice - since most battleforces are not playable out of the box
--------
$255

Granted, I give you that following armies once the rulebook has been purchased only have a startup of $180.

Warmachine/Hordes Startup Cost
$60 - Starterbox
$25 - Prime Remix - optional
--------
$60/$85

So... 40k has a 2-4.25x more expensive startup cost.

What about % of 500 point (WM) / 1000 point (40k) readiness?

A battleforce + HQ usually nets around 500 points.  So you're half way there.  A WM/Hordes starter is around 300 points, so you're a bit past half... so reasonable parity, considering that both starter "kits" as it stands, contains stuff that you may not use.

It is hard to convince parents to buy any more than $150 at a time... and even harder to tell them that the $150 doesn't get them anything usable without buying more stuff.  Let's face it, a rulebook, a codex and a squad of gaunts doesn't give a brand new Tyranid player anything close to playable.  The 40k/Fantasy starter kits are a step in the right direction, but unless you play the "featured" armies, they're not terribly helpful to the beginner...

As a veteran wargamer, I find it hard to recommend 40k / Fantasy over WM / Hordes to kids / parents on a budget, mostly because of this investment... (especially since kids these days have such short attention spans!)

Posted By Taoofss on 04/16/2007 8:44 PM
People still buy codex/rule books? I though most people dl them for BT. BTW the DA book is out on BT also.

wow, either yo have some big brass ones or you head is full of rocks.. take the copyright infringement crap offline.. 

 

can someone just delete any reply to and including this guys reference?

I was wondering why your prices were so high. Candian or something there

I still recommend the starter boxes of WHFB and 40k. They are good buys for a pair of kids, and give you a lot to play with. You don't really need to play with more than that.

I can't really recommend any of these games to anyone on a budget.

Posted By keezus on 04/23/2007 9:02 AM

Space Marine Tactical Squad
USA - $35 USD
UK - 18 GBP - $36.06 USD +3.0%
FRA- 25 EUR - $34.02 USD -2.8%
CAN- $45 CAD - $39.90 USD +14.0%
OZ - $50 AU- $41.77 USD +19.3%

Which makes it pretty clear why our group just put a AUD$1500 order through the US store. The stuff would've cost us over AUD$2000 had we bought it here. When it's US$1 for AUD$1.20, it's a good time to buy.

BYE

Posted By keezus on 04/23/2007 9:02 AM

USA - $35 USD
UK - 18 GBP - $36.06 USD +3.0%
FRA- 25 EUR - $34.02 USD -2.8%
CAN- $45 CAD - $39.90 USD +14.0%
OZ - $50 AU- $41.77 USD +19.3%

Seems a little funny to me that the country with the top stores in earnings also have the lowest prices.  A little lower, but lower nonetheless.  I don't have the list in front of me, but I know that a few of those Paris shops are always in the top 10 and one shop is always 1 or 2 on the list.

 

Kotrin, Tinfoil, et al. -- I know that I'm not necessarily the typical GW gamer and I understand that to many (especially potential new GW gamers) price is a huge issue. The question is, have GW's prices reached the level where they kill the influx of new gamers to the point where the community actually disintegrates? I certainly haven't seen it yet, but the reality may indeed be around the corner.

Also, whenever I say to myself:  "how can kids these days afford to play GW", I turn around and see kids with a PS3 or Xbox 360 and I realize that kids these days seem to have access to way more money than I did at that age.

 

I also want to mention that I think Warmachine is in the 'golden age' that new games go through. However, eventually all miniature games reach a saturation point where the core audience has purchased all of the miniatures they need to play the game and their purchases dip considerably.

At this point, a company only really has 6 choices to keep the established gamers buying more product:

1) Keep introducing new units for existing factions.

2) Keep introducing new factions to the game.

3) Change the relative strengths of existing units thereby necessitating the purchase of previously useless units. This can be done either by releasing a completey new set of core rules or by altering the units' individual rules.

4) Re-design models for existing factions that get players to replace their models solely for aesthetic reasons.

5) Change the core rules (or release expansions) that allow players to use more models at once.

6) Release an entirely new type of game.

 

GW has had used all six of these techniques to keep their business alive over the years, but all six have some serious negative consequences.

Using # 1 & 2 can and will eventually overwhelm any game system. At some point adding more units or factions to the game means the company will have to abandon existing factions. Doing this naturally alienates players who have collected those factions that get eliminated. Also adding more and more units to each faction eventually means some units in the faction have to be eliminated or consolidated in order to keep the rules and miniature line manageable.

#3 breeds resentment as players' existing units decrease in relative usefulness compared to the units that are changed to be more powerful/usefull.

#4 is the technique that irks the fewest players, but also is the least effective (from a business sense) as any player who doesn't think the re-designed models are sufficiently 'cooler' won't bother buying new versions of them.

#5 Is what GW did with 40k with 2nd and 3rd edition. The big problem with this change is that it makes the start-up costs for new players so much higher (as they now need more models to play the basic game).

#6 has a couple of problems. First, if the new game isn't a hit, the company will be stuck with a financial failure dragging down their 'main' game. Second, if the company stops releasing new things for their original game (they consider it 'done') many players don't want to be involved with a game that doesn't have constant updates.

 

Warmachine hasn't reached the saturation point yet and they won't for many years. However at some point there will be too many factions and units to add anymore and most of the core audience will already own most of the miniatures they want to play the game.

At that point PP will have to start making some of the tough decisions that GW has made in the 20+ years they've been in the business.

 

On the subject of start up costs:

WARMACHINE is definitely cheaper, but GW has the edge in that it has deeper market penetration and is generally better supported. Obviously, one of the mark ups that affect GW's prices is the overheads they pay for their extensive Retail chain - something most table top wargame companies don't have.

A parent can buy a starter box for 40k/WHFB and be reassured that a) the store will take the time to teach their kid how to paint and play and b) the store will provide a place to meet other kids who play as well and c) the store will provide a bunch of events that their kid can enjoy. Privateer Press has to rely on FLGS (some good, some bad,) to do that support for them.

Hell, I was at my FLGS the other day, trying out my new Cygnar versus a buddy of mine. A kid was building his Menoth models and watching us play. He asked me after if I could teach him, since the store owner couldn't make time do to so.

On the subject of veterans:

I bought my 500pt Cygnar army in one shot, without plumping for the Cygnar starter (didn't want Stryker or the Lancer,) and I was pleasantly surprised when it all came to a little over a GW Battleforce. But after building it all and playing a few games, I realized I missed someting that 40k provided - scale! I thought it was funny that my tournament sized force was less than 20 models, I missed fielding 60 odd figures and 3-4 support vehicles. WARMACHINE plays better at the skirmish level it was designed for, but despite all it's rule flaws, 40k play better at the company level it was designed for. So while GW games are more expensive, you've got more cool models to show for it too. And besides, who really stops their WARMACHINE faction at 500pts...I'm already thinking of changing my caster to Siege and my Ironclad to a Defender...

Zoned

Actually, that's why I was looking into other games that involved vehicles
and such. I want a game with scale but I still love having all the rules
options that you have in War/Hordes.

Yak, you are right but forgot at least 3 other possibilities (none of them exclusive)

7) improve "side orders": sell brushes, paint, modelling stuff and scenery. Other market players try this now, and GW is entering the scenery sale at a slow pace. I really think it's a huge demand awaiting.

8) expand the gaming base: advertise, sell in newer retail chains, etc. Who ever carved in stone that wargaming had to stay forever a "niche" market?

9) cut costs. Some people don't like this labour cost comparison, but I fail to understand why it's morally superior to pay higher a guy in England than another one in India for the same result. Apart from their printed stuff, GW has always been producing everything in high-wages countries, and I don't see this as a requirement. Even if it was for customs reasons in the EU, there are plenty of countries in the east of Europe where wages can't compare with UK and who are part of the EU anyway.

And finally, there's always the prepainted path, but it requires a paradigm shift for elitist game publishers so it might not happen soon.

Kotrin:

On #8: I would argue that as long as the hobby requires time and skill to assemble and paint the miniatures it can never escape the niche market. There are only so many people who would be willing to spend X amount of hours cleaning and painting models to play a game even if they thought the game was cool enough to play.

On #9: I could ramble on about why I believe it is morally and ethically superior to pay your workers a fair wage but ultimately that's a whole other (big) topic. Suffice to say, I'm one of those people who thoroughly applauds GW for sticking with English labour and will gladly eat the increased price for that business practice.


And you mention the pre-painted route and I've been thinking a lot about that recently. It occured to me that the primary thing (as I mentioned before) keeping me from spending a heck of a lot more on GW products is simply because of how long it takes me to paint them.

If GW were to go the pre-painted route and then slash their prices I think they would do huge, huge business. For example, if I could go buy an army today and put it on the table and play with it tommorrow I would probably drop like 2 grand immediately. I'd love to suddenly have a Tau, Dark Eldar and sisters of battle army to play with.