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.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/cc993y/gws_price_hikes_an_attempt_to_explain_theyre_not/

A well researched post.

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

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

If that's all true, that's awesome. Way to go GW.

Great article! Good to know......this is something a lot of Americans like when companies stay put to support their communities.

Credit to where credit is due, I never knew about this, so definite props to GW for doing that.

Hoo boy, let's have some fun and sort by controversial.

I found it interesting to note that they don't try and skirt UK tax law. In America, corporations paying taxes is heresy.

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

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

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

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

So;

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

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

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

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

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

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

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reddit in a nutshell my friend.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reddit in a nutshell my friend.

So, how do we get people to stop using reddit as "Well researched articles"?

Here's my main issue with all of the defense of price rises on GW's part.

There are "we're manufacturing here", and "well materials cost went up", etc. Those arguments are all predicated on GW making a very small profit on something they sell. "Oh times are tough we need to eek out an additional $5 per kit". GW isn't making a tiny sliver of profit per box. They're making a very healthy profit.

Market materials and costs impact a "premium" product less than they do a bottom end product. We're not talking about a $4.99 action figure which bumped to $5.50 because of the market or the economy, etc. We're talking about a company asking $60 for a box of two sprues. Even if they paid double the cost of production vs. China etc., they're still making healthy profit on each of those kits. Other UK based products (Renedra is a big UK based plastics manufacturer who does sprues for numerous companies - Perry Brothers, etc.) are still being sold for 30-40 dollars with more sprues per box, etc.

The continued "they need to do this to survive this harsh economy!" defense is getting silly.

You're not factoring in overheads. And I don't just mean manufacturing ones, I'm talking about costs of design, art, community support, stores. The list is endless.

Talking about the gross margin on a box is basically pointless.

Have you ever bought a digital product? The gross margin on each unit of those can be as high as 100%

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

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

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

Yeah, our local store did a controversy this weekend in outright banning non-gw armies from the store.

Defined as

Less than 60% of the model is GW = Not Allowed
Total 3d Printed Army = Not Allowed
Converted a different game of the same scale to 40K = Allowed, If your opponent is okay, but totally banned from any events.

 Togusa wrote:

Yeah, our local store did a controversy this weekend in outright banning non-gw armies from the store.

Defined as

Less than 60% of the model is GW = Not Allowed
Total 3d Printed Army = Not Allowed
Converted a different game of the same scale to 40K = Allowed, If your opponent is okay, but totally banned from any events.

Unless your store is a GW store; your store is full of dumbasses. There is no nice way of saying that. Apart from maybe the second one, what right does an FLGS think it has to dictate what miniatures people use?

It's an interesting article, for sure, and there are some commendable things going on there, especially around the sensible investments and debt-free nature of the company. That's always been one of GW's strengths.

However, while all these reasons may be justified when it comes to how GW price their products (and I'm not saying they are), after a certain point I, as the consumer, don't care. It's great that the company manages its money well, but the corporate politics and financial modelling are of no concern to me. What I am concerned about is the final price I'm paying and whether I think it's justified given what I'm purchasing. When considering that justification I couldn't care less about corporate structures and employee pay. It still ahs to represent good value for me independent of any of that. While we're talking about employee pay, it's a little disingenuous to give GW credit for staff profit sharing bonuses when it's well known the level of pay in the industry as a whole and at GW in particular is pretty low.

Slipspace wrote:
It's an interesting article, for sure, and there are some commendable things going on there, especially around the sensible investments and debt-free nature of the company. That's always been one of GW's strengths.

However, while all these reasons may be justified when it comes to how GW price their products (and I'm not saying they are), after a certain point I, as the consumer, don't care. It's great that the company manages its money well, but the corporate politics and financial modelling are of no concern to me. What I am concerned about is the final price I'm paying and whether I think it's justified given what I'm purchasing. When considering that justification I couldn't care less about corporate structures and employee pay. It still ahs to represent good value for me independent of any of that. While we're talking about employee pay, it's a little disingenuous to give GW credit for staff profit sharing bonuses when it's well known the level of pay in the industry as a whole and at GW in particular is pretty low.

That's all well and good. If it's not worth it to you, fine. The issue is when people seem to think they have a right to access the product at a price they like, and if they can't then they have a right to break the law to get it. Which is total cattle manure.

If it's not good value to you, just don't buy. If enough people agree with you, GW will get the message. If other people continue to buy it then that's fair enough really, just shows GW price their product correctly on balance.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Apart from maybe the second one, what right does an FLGS think it has to dictate what miniatures people use?

All the rights in the world, its a private place and they can enforce whatever rules they wish. Whilst they are not directly reliant on only GW products like a GW store is, a FLAGS which holds a lot of games might well try to enforce rules that restrict games to what the store sells. Because just like at a GW store the FLAGs is out to make money and if gamers are playing games the store doesn't or can't stock then the store is losing out on potential sales. It also means their gamers are "advertising" stuff the store can't provide to any new gamers.

Considering how many small time 3rd party firms there are out there I can well believe that a FLAGS might want to protect itself form ending up with everyone playing 40K with models the store cannot stock because the small companies aren't in distribution networks or aren't geared up to supply the store.

 Stux wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
It's an interesting article, for sure, and there are some commendable things going on there, especially around the sensible investments and debt-free nature of the company. That's always been one of GW's strengths.

However, while all these reasons may be justified when it comes to how GW price their products (and I'm not saying they are), after a certain point I, as the consumer, don't care. It's great that the company manages its money well, but the corporate politics and financial modelling are of no concern to me. What I am concerned about is the final price I'm paying and whether I think it's justified given what I'm purchasing. When considering that justification I couldn't care less about corporate structures and employee pay. It still ahs to represent good value for me independent of any of that. While we're talking about employee pay, it's a little disingenuous to give GW credit for staff profit sharing bonuses when it's well known the level of pay in the industry as a whole and at GW in particular is pretty low.

That's all well and good. If it's not worth it to you, fine. The issue is when people seem to think they have a right to access the product at a price they like, and if they can't then they have a right to break the law to get it. Which is total cattle manure.

If it's not good value to you, just don't buy. If enough people agree with you, GW will get the message. If other people continue to buy it then that's fair enough really, just shows GW price their product correctly on balance.

Not sure where you're first paragraph came from - I'm on no way advocating for buying recasts or breaking the law. Nothing in my response suggest that I am. As to your second paragraph, that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm merely pointing out that the internal workings of a company, while interesting, aren't really relevant to me when considering the value proposition their products represent. I'm not sitting here thinking "the new Executioner tank seems too expensive to me, but I've just read that GW are investing a lot of money in new production and warehouse facilities, so now I'll buy two!"

I'm not saying you are, just referring to lots of posts in the past that do. I support what you're doing!

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

Yeah, our local store did a controversy this weekend in outright banning non-gw armies from the store.

Defined as

Less than 60% of the model is GW = Not Allowed
Total 3d Printed Army = Not Allowed
Converted a different game of the same scale to 40K = Allowed, If your opponent is okay, but totally banned from any events.

Unless your store is a GW store; your store is full of dumbasses. There is no nice way of saying that. Apart from maybe the second one, what right does an FLGS think it has to dictate what miniatures people use?

Well it was the 40K specific group that made the decision, they came to the store owner on their own, he capitulated in the end.

The community of players were quite clear, only one objected to this and he decided to take his business elsewhere. I was actually surprised 99% seemed for it.

 Stux wrote:
I'm not saying you are, just referring to lots of posts in the past that do. I support what you're doing!

Ah, fair enough - sorry for the misunderstanding

Slipspace wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I'm not saying you are, just referring to lots of posts in the past that do. I support what you're doing!

Ah, fair enough - sorry for the misunderstanding

No, I should have been clearer! All good

 G00fySmiley wrote:

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

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

Stux,

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

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

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

 Elbows wrote:
Stux,

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

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

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

This reminds me of how some people will buy stuff that is on sale, just because it's on sale, rather than actually needing/wanting it.
"I saved 50% on this X" they say. To which I reply: "I saved 100% by not buying that X that I didn't need in the first place"

-

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

Agreed, like any company in a good position, GW's real pricing policy is simple: charge as much as people will pay. We don't need silly attempts to justify it.

Was certainly an interesting read, but there are other things GW could do to make game more manageable to the hobbyist. For example, a rule set that could allow customers to purchase fewer models. I would love for an article equating the price of GW models to the increased profitability of companies that manufacture rare-earth magnets.