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.

infinite_array wrote:
This thread has no right to exist. This isn't a legitimate comparison.

It does and is. The difference is the OP is asking about the absolute value of the items in questions while you're throwing in their relative values in the armies. Someone who is simply buying the models to paint for instance (those people do exist!) doesn't care about anything you listed regarding how many points they are or whether you need to field them in groups of 6 in a lotus formation. There are even people that buy minis from various companies to use with their own rules or a third party product. They only care about the size, look, and detail of the models.

Sergeant Horse wrote:are you seriously saying Infinity is crystal clear and unambiguous? wow, maybe its better translated where you are.

Never looked at an infinity book, so my comments can only be taken regarding GWP comparisons. From what I understand of that game system, though, you're looking at entire 'armies' of about 10 models. It's never going to cost as much as GW.

bolo wrote:

Surtur wrote:I think fully kitted they're ~500 points and damn hard to kill, hurt even worse on the charge.

So that takes them up to being only 20% of an army. And still vulnerable to a one-spell 'sudden death' moment. And still $66.00 more expensive than the Destors.

500pts is a sizeable chunk if you are playing 2000 points. Also, 2000 points is more closely equal to about 40-50 points of warmachine. By that calculation then, they are quite equal if not a little bit in the Blood Knights favor.

warboss wrote:

infinite_array wrote:
This thread has no right to exist. This isn't a legitimate comparison.

It does and is. The difference is the OP is asking about the absolute value of the items in questions while you're throwing in their relative values in the armies. Someone who is simply buying the models to paint for instance (those people do exist!) doesn't care about anything you listed regarding how many points they are or whether you need to field them in groups of 6 in a lotus formation. They only care about the size, look, and detail of the models.

but isnt that how we measure value?

I mean if were going by absolute value like material cost and such theyd both be overpriced lumps of metal.

If you analyze the question a bit further youll realize the question just becomes even more moot because everyone has different ideas of "worth" and "value"

if youre going on why GW gets bashed for price increases, im just goin to repeat myself. GW has just pissed more people. period.

People complain about PP prices too. Just not as many GW complainers

Bakerofish wrote:
but isnt that how we measure value?

I mean if were going by absolute value like material cost and such theyd both be overpriced lumps of metal.

If you analyze the question a bit further youll realize the question just becomes even more moot because everyone has different ideas of "worth" and "value"

if youre going on why GW gets bashed for price increases, im just goin to repeat myself. GW has just pissed more people. period.

People complain about PP prices too. Just not as many GW complainers

Yes, it is how *SOME* people measure value. I'm just pointing out that Mr. Absolutist who doesn't believe that the thread has a right to exist because someone dares to disagree with his personal opinion is wrong. I fully expect some people to see much more value in one of the choices in the poll while others think the opposite. Some people may see equal value or see both as equally overpriced. That's the point of a poll, to find the general opinion (and that's all they are). As for PP complainers, they're a newer company relative to GW played by alot of grass-is-always-greener ex-GW players (not their only demographic but definitely one of them). Give them another 5-10 years and they'll have a bunch more ex-players of their own games complaining. Losing players is a natural process of any hobby company; it's only the rate that they can control to an extent.

Bakerofish wrote:

augustus5 wrote: and they tend to say "Bro" more often than GW fans.(at least they aren't stooping so low as to say "brah")

I found it hilarious how you found the above statement worth adding to your argument. Complete with a Macho Man avatar at that!

that just says volumes right there

It's ironic isn't it.

About as ironic as feeling good about paying $100 for five lumps of PP metal while laughing at the thought of paying $90 for five lumps of GW metal.

Really all we have here is ten overpriced metal lumps.

badly thought out poll though

Id add in a "both" "none" and "neutral" if the guy really wants to get a better answer

cuz im personally voting neutral

Well, going simply by the price sheet on Warstore, GW stuff is amply stocked whereas PP models are almost universally out of stock or waiting on backorder.

So in the truest sense of value, i.e. what the consuming public is willing to pay, PP is much further from its price threshold than GW.

augustus5 wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:

augustus5 wrote: and they tend to say "Bro" more often than GW fans.(at least they aren't stooping so low as to say "brah")

I found it hilarious how you found the above statement worth adding to your argument. Complete with a Macho Man avatar at that!

that just says volumes right there

It's ironic isn't it.

About as ironic as feeling good about paying $100 for five lumps of PP metal while laughing at the though of paying $90 for five lumps of GW metal.

Really all we have here is ten overpriced metal lumps.

no its not ironic. if i told you what it was id get a warning. I apologize if my sarcasm didnt transmit clearly

sourclams wrote:Well, going simply by the price sheet on Warstore, GW stuff is amply stocked whereas PP models are almost universally out of stock or waiting on backorder.

So in the truest sense of value, i.e. what the consuming public is willing to pay, PP is much further from its price threshold than GW.

GW may just be better at keeping up with demand...

sourclams wrote:Well, going simply by the price sheet on Warstore, GW stuff is amply stocked whereas PP models are almost universally out of stock or waiting on backorder.

So in the truest sense of value, i.e. what the consuming public is willing to pay, PP is much further from its price threshold than GW.

Wrong. If you are assuming that PP stuff is flying off of the shelves at breakneck speeds you're wrong. PP is having major issues with production and have been for sometime now. I wish them the best of luck with getting their together but GW is simply able to meet demand of it's consumers, while PP is still trying to grow to meet their consumer's demand.

Bakerofish wrote:no its not ironic. if i told you what it was id get a warning. I apologize if my sarcasm didnt transmit clearly

I do find it ironic that so many people feel good about paying $100 for five lumps of PP metal while laughing at the thought of paying $90 for five lumps of GW metal. Maybe if you didn't spend so much on PP models you'd have some moeny left over to buy some punctuation.

@nuggz

theyve been producing minis for decades. they better damn well should be able to keep up with demand

still sucks PP is struggling with this issue though

Bakerofish wrote:@nuggz

theyve been producing minis for decades. they better damn well should be able to keep up with demand

still sucks PP is struggling with this issue though

All businesses should pray for such a problem.

sourclams wrote:Well, going simply by the price sheet on Warstore, GW stuff is amply stocked whereas PP models are almost universally out of stock or waiting on backorder.

So in the truest sense of value, i.e. what the consuming public is willing to pay, PP is much further from its price threshold than GW.

While I agree that they're definitely growing as a game, you may want to PM mikhalia about their out of stock status. According to him, they devote a significant proportion of their summer production to stocking their own supplies especially in regard to popular and/or new releases for sale directly by them at GenCon (since they make more % profit there just like GW does through their own stores compared with FLGS).

augustus5 wrote:I do find it ironic that so many people feel good about paying $100 for five lumps of PP metal while laughing at the thought of paying $90 for five lumps of GW metal. Maybe if you didn't spend so much on PP models you'd have some moeny left over to buy some punctuation.

Just trying to compare models by raw material count ignores the fact that the material is having work done (read: value added) to the material itself. The only time 200grams of pewter is going to cost as much as 200grams of pewter is when a large company that can turn that pewter into something valuable (Like wargame miniatures) is buying it from a supplier.

So instead of saying they should be equivalent due to roughly equivalent materials, which is a profoundly ignorant argument, born of an almost complete lack of economics knowledge, you have to turn to the differences between the two companies (ie. both the quantitative differences between both game systems, including model count, and the qualitative differences such as perceived value and ease of locating opponents) to attempt to actually establish context, which you seem to ignore out of some bizarre need to remain ignorant.

augustus5 wrote:I do find it ironic that so many people feel good about paying $100 for five lumps of PP metal while laughing at the thought of paying $90 for five lumps of GW metal. Maybe if you didn't spend so much on PP models you'd have some moeny left over to buy some punctuation.

I wouldn't worry about my punctuation "bro". I'm off to spend my "moeny" on PP models.

The poll is largely inconsequential, its really a conversation starter, its point was to show that the difference in prices between companies isn't so different. I could substitute any GW item for them, Steam Tank (57.75, Land Raider ($66), Stormvermin (45) etc, and many PP items, New Bane Thralls ($80 for a ten man unit without the attachment), Any Battle Engine ($85).

My point is this, and it extends beyond GW/PP. The price increase in many cases brings it in line with other companies. For ex, you pay about $40 for Infinity Zalyut Zonds, thats $20 for each remote, you pay $17-$18 for a Uncharted Seas Battleship, which is majority resin, Flames of War, your regularly paying $70-$80 for a boxset. Its actually NOT more expensive model per model than other companies. Now many people will reply about buying at discounts, well thats great for you, its not relevant to the discussion.

As regards having to buying MORE models. This is literally down to game size. Sure Infinity will cost you $150 to get a 300 point army...and never cost another penny IF YOU STOP THERE. The difference is, an Infinity game is about 20-30 minutes a game, and GW game is usually over 2 hours of playtime. So you might need a bigger army, it also makes for more time spent in entertainment, theres only so many times you will reset and replay the same Infinity force in a day.

In the end, it seems people just want to be let know WHY things are happening. However, as a PLC, you will be able to find alot of the info already, and also as a PLC there is no one person giving orders, but a board that is probably fractured on views. SO, if you MUST complain, write a well worded REQUEST to know why, and understnad you probably will not receive a reply, and if you do, it will be a direct to their public statements which should show ample reasoning. You don't have to like it, but you can aim your ire in the right direction.


Also, so far, I've been called a troll, an apologist, an imbecile, and a few other names here. Its replies like some of the above that make a person wonder why they even bother to try have a discussion sometimes. Its fine to disagree with my view, but try to keep it civil when you rebuke mine, and also, try to understand it for what it actually is. Its not apologist talk, its an aim for a calm discussion to get to the root issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MikeMcSomething wrote:

augustus5 wrote:I do find it ironic that so many people feel good about paying $100 for five lumps of PP metal while laughing at the thought of paying $90 for five lumps of GW metal. Maybe if you didn't spend so much on PP models you'd have some moeny left over to buy some punctuation.

Just trying to compare models by raw material count ignores the fact that the material is having work done (read: value added) to the material itself. The only time 200grams of pewter is going to cost as much as 200grams of pewter is when a large company that can turn that pewter into something valuable (Like wargame miniatures) is buying it from a supplier.

So instead of saying they should be equivalent due to roughly equivalent materials, which is a profoundly ignorant argument, born of an almost complete lack of economics knowledge, you have to turn to the differences between the two companies (ie. both the quantitative differences between both game systems, including model count, and the qualitative differences such as perceived value and ease of locating opponents) to attempt to actually establish context, which you seem to ignore out of some bizarre need to remain ignorant.

I don't understand your argument. Both models will have work done, both will need to be shipped, both need to pay designers, modellers, rules makers, packaging, etc. The difference that gets pointed out that you only use one squad of Destors........but you only need one squad of Blood Knights, you can run a second if you want to, but you CAN run a second unit of destors if you really wanted to as well....so that fact doesn't really stand up. That there is mainly game mechanics taking effect. (Also, I can't imagine a person buying another box of BK to get the 5th guy (IF YOU WANT HIM as the MIN unit is 4) when you can buy an individual blister. Should game mechanics be a reason to charge out the nose for either unit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EDIT

I'd also like it noted that I am a big fan of both GW and PP, their retailer support is fantastic.

MikeMcSomething wrote:

augustus5 wrote:I do find it ironic that so many people feel good about paying $100 for five lumps of PP metal while laughing at the thought of paying $90 for five lumps of GW metal. Maybe if you didn't spend so much on PP models you'd have some moeny left over to buy some punctuation.

Just trying to compare models by raw material count ignores the fact that the material is having work done (read: value added) to the material itself. The only time 200grams of pewter is going to cost as much as 200grams of pewter is when a large company that can turn that pewter into something valuable (Like wargame miniatures) is buying it from a supplier.

So instead of saying they should be equivalent due to roughly equivalent materials, which is a profoundly ignorant argument, born of an almost complete lack of economics knowledge, you have to turn to the differences between the two companies (ie. both the quantitative differences between both game systems, including model count, and the qualitative differences such as perceived value and ease of locating opponents) to attempt to actually establish context, which you seem to ignore out of some bizarre need to remain ignorant.

I completely disagree. A game's system or the number of models required to play said game have no bearing on the cost to produce and ship a model. Your failure to see that is profoundly ignorant or shows an almost complete lack of economics knowledge.

There could be an argument made as to the quality of sculpt, but both the Blood Knights and Destors are mediocre sculpts at best and neither represent the higher end of sculpting from either company.

Augustus5 wrote:A game's system doesn't have any bearing on the cost to produce and ship a model.

Can you point to exact spot on this page where I said that exact thing? To my knowledge, such as pot doesn't exist, so if you could find it for me that would be great. Thanks!

So instead of saying they should be equivalent due to roughly equivalent materials, which is a profoundly ignorant argument, born of an almost complete lack of economics knowledge, you have to turn to the differences between the two companies (ie. both the quantitative differences between both game systems, including model count, and the qualitative differences such as perceived value and ease of locating opponents) to attempt to actually establish context, which you seem to ignore out of some bizarre need to remain ignorant.

I didn't know that anybody still thought GW metals were that unusually priced anymore.

Metal minis are expensive across the board.

It's the increasing cost of plastic, coupled with endless talk of increased effeciency, that really upsets most people about GW. Their metals are competitive with many other companies, with some exceptions.

augustus5 wrote:

So instead of saying they should be equivalent due to roughly equivalent materials, which is a profoundly ignorant argument, born of an almost complete lack of economics knowledge, you have to turn to the differences between the two companies (ie. both the quantitative differences between both game systems, including model count, and the qualitative differences such as perceived value and ease of locating opponents) to attempt to actually establish context, which you seem to ignore out of some bizarre need to remain ignorant.

See, I asked you to find where I said having a different game system makes a given chunk of metal cost more to refine (ie this game was produced under the WH fantasy banner and therefore incurs an extra 20% of costs), and instead of finding that, you found a section of a post I made where I indicated that two different companies will add differing amounts of "Value" to a given material so expecting the end product to cost the same (or for a given company to put the same amount of ''work'' into every given gram of material as another company) makes any attempts at using bulk weight before processing as any sort of barometer for the price of a model patently absurd.

(If the above was too complicated for you - you said that I said something, I asked you to find it, and you did not find it, you found something different, I will repeat, you completely failed to find what I asked you to)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:I didn't know that anybody still thought GW metals were that unusually priced anymore.

Metal minis are expensive across the board.

It's the increasing cost of plastic, coupled with endless talk of increased effeciency, that really upsets most people about GW. Their metals are competitive with many other companies, with some exceptions.

Really, the argument is the same as with plastic. People are expecting GW plastic stuff to cost the same as (insert whoever you want here)'s plastic stuff, because a given box of plastic/resin/metal/whatever weighs the same as a given box shipped to GW. The only reason this really makes me raise an eyebrow is that even capuchin monkeys have been shown to understand product differentiation in a lab setting, so I would imagine the average Dakka poster would at least be capable of dimly clawing at an understanding of the concept.

Cost per Unit, not what we pay be what the company pay. I'm going to get a better deal printing up 1,000,000 units then 100,000 unit. Until they both start showing this cost to us, we can't be sure what the better deal is. Of course, I can guess witch one (GW or PP) prints atleast 10x-100x as much as the other company.

MikeMcSomething wrote:

Polonius wrote:I didn't know that anybody still thought GW metals were that unusually priced anymore.

Metal minis are expensive across the board.

It's the increasing cost of plastic, coupled with endless talk of increased effeciency, that really upsets most people about GW. Their metals are competitive with many other companies, with some exceptions.

Really, the argument is the same as with plastic. People are expecting GW plastic stuff to cost the same as (insert whoever you want here)'s plastic stuff, because a given box of plastic/resin/metal/whatever weighs the same as a given box shipped to GW. The only reason this really makes me raise an eyebrow is that even capuchin monkeys have been shown to understand product differentiation in a lab setting, so I would imagine the average Dakka poster would at least be capable of dimly clawing at an understanding of the concept.

I don't think people expect anything, or at least reasonable people.

For the record, I have little beef with GW. I think they sell a luxury good that I can afford at the price they ask. When I stop enjoying it enough to justify the cost, I quit. Until then, I don't complain about prices.

But, and this is the but, I'm not talking about GW plastics vs. Tamiya or Mantic plastics. I'm saying that when GW makes a process more effecient (like CAD modelling), but than raises the cost of plastics (for which materials is a very small cost), it is less intuitive than the similar rise in metals.

at least the Blood Knights are good models.

Worglock wrote:at least the Blood Knights are good models.

Ba-Zing!

augustus5 wrote:It astounds me the number of people here who passionately defend Warmachine's or Infinity's price of their models simply because you need fewer of them to play the game. I could care less about the total cost to play a game. Total entry cost into a game will ultimately decide whether or not I play that game, but will have no effect on whether I feel that the price of the models is worth it in comparison to similar models. PP, for example, charges just as much and in many cases more per model than GW, yet GW is a villan and PP is the grand alternative that is the hero of the hobbyist. What a load of !

Again
that is not what I am seeing on this thread

Am I missing something (apart from marbles, I already realise they went AWOL)

If it matters not to you how much the total cost of the game is, all well and good. That is your perogative.
However it is a consideration for others which is equally fine.
It is horses for courses.

The real issue here is NOT monetary value .
But percieved value for money.

I know that I am a gamer, and that well defined rules and great gamepaly makes me REALY happy .Then I percive I get MORE value for money from buying a units for this type of game.

Where as buyng a unit for a game that is used as a poor marketing tool, that will probably have units invalidated or devalued in the future to encourage more sales.Will conversly make me feel I will get far less value for money from this type of purchase.

Collectors will just buy the minatures that apeal to thier asthetic requirments.And the asthetic element is the main deciding factor for them.

Value for money is a personal judgement .It involves the long term enjoyment and use of the item, often in comparision to other similar products.

I personaly wouldnt pay that much for my minatures.(Mantic produce models in my vfm range. )

they are both too overpriced!

I don't think it's valid to compare "one lump of metal" to another in isolation....those lumps of metal form a bigger picture.

If you play a game that requires 5 miniatures, and another game that requires 105 miniatures (and I'm talking effective game play here!) then the cost of the miniatures is relative.

Both PP and GW design their own games. It's clear that GW has designed it's game to sell as many lumps of metal as possible, requiring each player to lay down $100s in order to play an effective force...PP hasn't gone down this road.

So while you can state that PP has the same "issues" as GW on an individual model basis, I think that statement ignores the bigger picture....

Now, if these were companies producing generic miniatures for use with other rulesets, then yeah, they're both bang out of range.....but that's not the case.