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.

pixelpusher wrote:

Can't really compare Tamiya or Dragon kits to GW.

Why not?

They are polystyrene model kits for hobbyists.

The design and production method is the same.

pixelpusher wrote:

Can't really compare Tamiya or Dragon kits to GW.
In this case I define expensive as "more expensive than regular 2-slide plastic injection moulds".

Why? You cant just make that statment without some sort of facts to back them up. Why cant one make the comparison? As others point out they use more complicated methods then GW, but the prices arent nearly as high in my quick glances at some kits.

Sorry I guess I was unclear in "not compare"?

Tamiya & Dragon kits -pricing- isn't really comparable with the GW kits since GW has pretty much a monopoly on "Land Raider"-kits. Everyone can produce a "Pz. Kpfw IV Ausf. H".
GW most likely sets their own prices without any "real" regard to production costs and competition (compared to what MKM do), since they dont have PP coming out with a Land Raider next month.

Production costs? I bet that they're way higher for a random 1/35 german panzer. Especially since they get a ton of flak if they provide the wrong type of shürzen-hooks for that time period. So you'd have to do a ton of research just before you start designing the kit.
Three slide moulds seems to be really prominent in the new kits (barrels & turrets mostly). Further upping the cost.
And the amount of sprues & non styrene-parts is a tad higher in a box from Dragon

But competition and volume keeps the prices down for a typical 1/35 PzIV. Sort of? So since they're on two completely different markets I feel that it's not really sound to compare a Tamiya kit with a Games Workshop kit.

Is it clearer what I was trying to get at? :/

Yes.

Though I disagree that we cannot compare the price/quality of other kits with GW.

We just have to understand the reason why the GW kits are higher priced and lower quality.

Kilkrazy wrote:Yes.

Though I disagree that we cannot compare the price/quality of other kits with GW.

We just have to understand the reason why the GW kits are higher priced and lower quality.

As far as I am concerned there is a very simple explanation for why GW kits are higher priced and lower quality. Bad management coupled with pure corporate greed.

GW are blind to the long run problem they are going to have by pushing away adult gamers who have money to spend by massively overcharging. I love GW's background and would happily collect quite a few of their ranges. But not when I can buy a lot more models for say historical, or other scifi/fantasy ranges for the same money.

Point in fact I bought 10 metal models for a historical collection for £14 yesterday, high quality 28mm metal casts only minor flash. The same number of figures could quite easily have cost me twice or maybe even three times as much from GW.

GW are not going to go out of business tomorrow, but they are slowly killing themselves, it might take 10 years but they are going to one day go bust if they don't pay attention to the bigger picture.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Though I disagree that we cannot compare the price/quality of other kits with GW.

We just have to understand the reason why the GW kits are higher priced and lower quality.

I think that the definition of 'quality' has something to do with it. I'll admit, I know next to nothing about gundam models. I have, however, bought several 1:48 and 1:35 military scale models.

Misnomer 1: They're cheaper. No, not in my experience. At least, not the kits that looked like they'd be worth my time to make and paint. I'll acknowledge that there are some kits at the local store that are less expensive than the others (and less than GW kits too), but they're the most simplistic ones with little detail.

Misnomer 2: They're higher quality. Hardly. The plastic is often thin and feels brittle. I've had kits where the "treads" were a big rubber band type thing. I've had other kits where you had to individually glue each track linkage. Are either of these higher quality, or is it just a different approach?

I know that, compared to the military models, the GW kits are heavier. It's part of the 'heroic' aesthetic. Military models armour is paper thin compared to what you get on a GW tank. Maybe more plastic means higher cost - maybe not.


Different folks want different things. I don't want pre-painted minis, I enjoy painting. I don't want multi-coloured plastics, especially not if it impacts the price at all. I'm going to prime over it anyway. These things aren't advantages to me. I never got into any game that had pre-painted figures. I don't see the model kit scene any different from the infantry mini scene. If you look, you can find cheaper models or figs. If you look, you will also find more expensive alternatives in each category. GW's prices are not out of line for the industry. Perhaps they could be cheaper, but what incentive do they have to make them cheaper? All the old school gamers have all the models they need, they're here already, bragging about how they don't need to spend any more money, they've already finished their armies. The competitive tournament players are going to buy multiples of the newest bestest units with each codex release. They always have, they always will. Like with M:tG, the top-tier player will field the best stuff regardless of cost. The casual players will continue to buy new models they like the look of every so often.

And, would it be good for the hobby in general if they did cut their prices? Let's say GW did cut their prices. Let's imagine that they decided one morning to use their size and economy of scale to price out PP, Mantic, FoW, Malifaux and others. Is that good for wargaming as a whole? GW keeping their prices where they are (and I don't believe that their prices are unfair, or out-of-line for the industry) is allowing other companies to make headway. Competition is good for all of us. GW has seemingly abandoned the skirmish-scale games like Necromunda and Mordheim. Where does Malifaux operate? GW is aiming their primary games at larger scale conflicts, higher point cost battles are the norm. The void for 500-1000 point games is being filled by Warmachine/Hordes. Maybe it is a mistake on GWs part not to crush these new upstarts. Imagine if they did start pushing intro-level skirmish systems with some cheap figures - in such a way that those same models could be worked into the full wargame systems too. Would that be good for GW? Probably. Would it be good for the industry as a whole? I'm not so sure.

Gw Prices fair? Does $33 USD for a mounted figure and its on foot version in "finecast" sound fair to you? I think its ludicrous

lord marcus wrote:Gw Prices fair? Does $33 USD for a mounted figure and its on foot version in "finecast" sound fair to you? I think its ludicrous

PPs Dragoons (Mounted figure and foot version) cost between 30 and 45 USD in metal. If the quality wasn't an issue (an it obviously is) then I wouldn't say that it's ludicrous, no.

Thats not what i meant. Your comparing companies price points, I'm talking about the worth of a figure. Would YOU pay $33 USD for two, TWO figs total?

I've paid more than $33 for ONE figure, so yes.
I wouldn't pay that for just ANY figure though which is why this discussion is a bit pointless.

If you're saying that their prices would be unacceptable even if the casts were perfect then I would have to disagree with you. Everyone's going to have a different view of the value of both a dollar and their hobby crack though.

Because of this wide range of 'individual requirements' and 'what we are willing to pay' between every player or collector, a valid argument or even disscussion can not be entered into where everybody would be placated.

The price of this or that... the quality of this or that... cannot be effectivelly debated without ALL the costs... R&D, marketing, behind the GW scenes, etc

The veteran players have many issues about rules and format, which also detracts from the worldwide complaints.

The ONLY thing that will keep us apart from the whiney geeks and professional gamers, is to concentrate on the negative GW business decisions, ethics, practices, and unpredictable directions.

An all out effort regarding business direction would attract attention from the management and shareholders... arguing about prices and rules will not even attract the mail boy.

It is fact that the number of units sold is decreasing and the only reason that 'profit' has increased is because of the excessive price rises. It will be interesting to see if the units sold numbers are lower again this year.

Mik

Lord Castellan Mik wrote:
... arguing about prices and rules will not even attract the mail boy.

It is fact that the number of units sold is decreasing and the only reason that 'profit' has increased is because of the excessive price rises.

How is it that in one sentence you say that arguing about prices will get no where, and in the very next, you complain about price increases by calling them excessive?

How is it that you, and others, still insist that the price increases are excessive, without a single data point backing you up, other than your feelings? How can GW's price increases be considered excessive when it's trivially easy to show that GW's prices are actually right in line with other miniature and model manufacturers? They're not the cheapest alternative and Killkrazy will surely step in and point out the three or four companies that are cheaper. But they're not the most expensive either, and there are more companies that charge as much, or more, than GW on a per-model basis than there are that charge less.

Redbeard wrote:How is it that you, and others, still insist that the price increases are excessive, without a single data point backing you up, other than your feelings?

Your asking the average person to not use their emotions when talking about a subject?

Unfortunately, we'll need an educated, rational, and objective someone to compile an industry wide census on prices and research if this is true.

Redbeard wrote:
How is it that you, and others, still insist that the price increases are excessive, without a single data point backing you up, other than your feelings?

Because their sales volumes continue to trend lower over time. It's not 'us' that insist that price increases are excessive, it's the marketplace.

Price elasticities, utility curves, etc.

Until there's several good years of sales growth to break this trend, it is intact and, as Gartman would say, going from the 'upper left to the lower right'.

Its all speculation. No one can know for sure until the report is released. Their shares are up (5yr) and about as well as they have ever been, http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=GAW.L+Interactive#chart1:symbol=gaw.l;range=5y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined.

Its a mixed bag. I hope they are doing well because I know people who depend on their success, but I also hope they see the error of their ways. Although in a capitalist market, this usually means lay-offs and prices hikes to make bottom line.

sourclams wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
How is it that you, and others, still insist that the price increases are excessive, without a single data point backing you up, other than your feelings?

Because their sales volumes continue to trend lower over time. It's not 'us' that insist that price increases are excessive, it's the marketplace.

Price elasticities, utility curves, etc.

Until there's several good years of sales growth to break this trend, it is intact and, as Gartman would say, going from the 'upper left to the lower right'.

That doesn't mean the price increases are excessive. That might mean that there's a worldwide recession going on. That might mean that they're recent rulesets aren't popular (Re: Fantasy?). That might simply indicate the existence of more competition, especially in low-model-count game settings. I'm not disputing that there are things they're not doing well. But, on a per-model basis, comparing their prices with other company's prices, I simply cannot get behind the argument that their price increases are excessive.

If they mention it at all then GW will probably try to sell their Finecast stuff as being a sucess but the reality is that it's too soon after release to track any trends either way.

Wait until christmas, then whether GW manage to sort out this product and what impact the switch and price increase on sales will have an effect... or not.

Redbeard wrote:

That doesn't mean the price increases are excessive. That might mean that there's a worldwide recession going on. That might mean that they're recent rulesets aren't popular (Re: Fantasy?). That might simply indicate the existence of more competition, especially in low-model-count game settings. I'm not disputing that there are things they're not doing well. But, on a per-model basis, comparing their prices with other company's prices, I simply cannot get behind the argument that their price increases are excessive.

*blows whistle* Foul- bad use of logic.

You cant claim the recession is the cause of something that was happening PRIOR to the recession. Sales volume has been dropping for years.

carmachu wrote:
*blows whistle* Foul- bad use of logic.

You cant claim the recession is the cause of something that was happening PRIOR to the recession. Sales volume has been dropping for years.

Foul? I thought this was a discussion, not a ball game. Besides, your data is bad. Sales dropped following the LotR "bubble", that was expected. They remained somewhat down-to-flat and then started turning around, increasing slightly from 2007-8 and significantly from 2008-2009. And following that, we're in the recession. How is it bad logic to believe that sales decreases in the last two years might be due to global economic factors?

The world isn't in a recession, by the way. US is in an economic soft spot, but is still growing at a modest ~2%/year (not recession), BRICS continue to grow, and even northern Eurozone is doing alright, it's mostly just southern Eurozone that's doing poorly. Globally, GDP continues to rise.

Redbeard wrote:

Foul? I thought this was a discussion, not a ball game. Besides, your data is bad. Sales dropped following the LotR "bubble", that was expected. They remained somewhat down-to-flat and then started turning around, increasing slightly from 2007-8 and significantly from 2008-2009. And following that, we're in the recession. How is it bad logic to believe that sales decreases in the last two years might be due to global economic factors?

When your bad logic is tying recession to bad sales, yeah its foul.

Sales VOLUME, aka number of units sold, are down, have been down, for YEARA. your comfusing that with other numbers. Thats the bad logic. Units havent increased, even if the bottom line has due to a variety of reasons.

sourclams wrote:The world isn't in a recession, by the way. US is in an economic soft spot, but is still growing at a modest ~2%/year (not recession), BRICS continue to grow, and even northern Eurozone is doing alright, it's mostly just southern Eurozone that's doing poorly. Globally, GDP continues to rise.

Try telling that to the people who are still unemployed, whose homes are still being foreclosed against. Sure, we're making very small increases overall, but most of these gains are being realized by corporations, who have yet to really increase their hiring.

carmachu wrote:
Sales VOLUME, aka number of units sold, are down, have been down, for YEARA. your comfusing that with other numbers. Thats the bad logic. Units havent increased, even if the bottom line has due to a variety of reasons.

So you're saying that a 15 million pound increase year-to-year sales from 2008-2009 is due entirely to price increases and not to volume at all? And you're saying my logic is suspect?

Redbeard wrote:
So you're saying that a 15 million pound increase year-to-year sales from 2008-2009 is due entirely to price increases and not to volume at all? And you're saying my logic is suspect?

They had a modest increase in sales from 2008-2009, although a great portion of that was due to exchange rate movement. If you adjust for that, they lost significant sales in continental Europe, gained very little in America/Asia and made their largest gains in the UK.

On the issue of unemployment:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

Again, I blame capitalism. Millionaires need to make their millions, even if it means outsourcing and layoffs.

Sales would probably be better if people had jobs to pay the outrageous costs for the hobby.

Given the large number of behind the scenes changes made around March last year, I think we might just see an overall improvement in sales.

As for the future? GW are looking into new markets, like Russia and China. There's plenty of life in the old dog yet.

Redbeard wrote:

So you're saying that a 15 million pound increase year-to-year sales from 2008-2009 is due entirely to price increases and not to volume at all? And you're saying my logic is suspect?

Price increase, cost cutting measures(store closings, firings, other) money from IP usage, currency conversion.

Yes, its NOT from an increase in the number of units sold. GW's total revenue has gone up and down. Its sales of actual UNIT sold, has not gone up, but down.

carmachu wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

So you're saying that a 15 million pound increase year-to-year sales from 2008-2009 is due entirely to price increases and not to volume at all? And you're saying my logic is suspect?

Price increase, cost cutting measures(store closings, firings, other) money from IP usage, currency conversion.

Hang on, did you just attribute an increase in sales to cost cutting measures like store closings and firings? Where's that bad logic foul flag again?

Yes, its NOT from an increase in the number of units sold. GW's total revenue has gone up and down. Its sales of actual UNIT sold, has not gone up, but down.

Sorry, not buying it. You cannot convince me that a company that saw a year-to-year sales (not profit) growth of 14% did so entirely on the basis of currency fluctuations and price increases, with falling unit sales.

Did you forget what happened in 2008? Apocalypse was released. They introduced the Baneblade model, with, if not great success, at least enough success to justify releasing the stompa and shadowstormlordthing the next year. They introduced formations that saw people buying huge kits of guys. My friend bought one of the Space Marine company boxes, he's still working through all the models it came with.

What happened since then? Planetstrike has to be considered a flop, although it probably sold some terrain. Spearhead was a non-starter as far as anyone I know is concerned. They tried the apocalypse approach to LotR, with War of the Ring - I don't think I've seen anyone play this, but maybe it got a paltry few more sales out of the last breaths of that dying system. They did 8th ed warhammer, which seems to have been received less-than-well. What's more, 8th Fantasy stressed huge blocks of infantry, probably cutting into sales of big monsters, so now they're backpedaling, trying to boost high-cost kits with Storms of Chaos. Somewhat schizophrenic, and way too early to see what it will do to their results, but I'm guessing not much.

And this is why I don't think price increases are the culprit behind falling sales. When they gave us something we wanted (apocalypse) we bought it, in large quantities. When they gave us Spearhead, we yawned and ignored them. I think the real issue isn't in the price increases, it's in the lack of reasons for me to buy stuff.

Summer campaigns - they introduced new units for armies, people bought new models. But that's outside the current design team's approach.
White Dwarf/Chapter Approved - Make some new unit every couple of months. Make them conversion-heavy. You'll increase sales of White Dwarf, and the kits needed to convert these new models. How many people made Deathwatch killteams? Not to mention alternate lists like Lost&Damned (or was that from a campaign?), Feral Orks, or Kroot Mercs?

I've hung around gamers for decades. I've seen people eat ramen for months when their game of choice offers them something they want. Prices aren't the issue, it's the general malaise surrounding the new game design philosophy, dating back roughly to when Jervis's son started dictating company policy.

Redbeard wrote:

You cannot convince me that a company that saw a year-to-year sales (not profit) growth of 14% did so entirely on the basis of currency fluctuations and price increases, with falling unit sales.

I know. I know some folks like yourself refuse to accept facts of things, even when pointed them out at the time of the reports. You wish to believe what you want to believe. Its ok, I see that in fanboys all the time. But no matter what you tell me, the bottom line of those reports were- money went up, unit sales did not. Whether you believe or not, is not really relevant.

What was released isnt relevent. Those formations were huge. However, notice they arent around anymore? They arent profitable- because if they were.....we would still see them right?

People have always had problems with GW, since they went public.

dating back roughly to when Jervis's son started dictating company policy.

I lol'd.

Redbeard wrote:

Try telling that to the people who are still unemployed, whose homes are still being foreclosed against. Sure, we're making very small increases overall, but most of these gains are being realized by corporations, who have yet to really increase their hiring.

Although the last jobs report was a real doozy, and although there isn't really a hard and fast definition of 'recession', we are not currently in one in the US. It doesn't matter if you 'feel' based on your perception of media and current economic climate that the US isn't doing well, things in general are far better than they were in 2H2009.

Gains are being realized by corporations, as you note (corporations like GW) that are generally seeing a continuation of incredible profitability. This simply does not happen in recessions.