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.

asmith wrote:
GW is a public company and posts their sales figures you guys know right? Going by memory their sales have been dropping year over year for at least several years now. I could be wrong, look it up.

Well, they don't list sales, they list revenue. You can make $100 by selling 5 items at $20 or 20 items at $5, and knowing their revenue doesn't really explain what margins they sell at.

Their five year summary shows a significant drop in revenue from 2004 to 2007, and then increased revenue in 2008, and the first half of 2009. If you pay attention to what they say, their claim is that the decreases from 2004-2006 were due to the Lord of the Rings bubble bursting as the interest spawned by those movies fell away.

During the LotR years, they invested heavily in new equipment and technology, and they also used some of the LotR proceeds to fund unprofitable lines. When the LotR money dried up, they found that they were losing money (they posted low gains in 2006, losses in 2007 and minor losses in 2008 due to the cost reduction programme), and the steps taken to cut the unprofitable lines are apparently paying off this year.

It appears to me that whatever choices they have made over the last two years seem to be working, from a corporate balance sheet point-of-view. I'm not a trained financial analyst though. All I see is that they've made more so far this year than they had in the similar period last year, and they made more last year than they did in 2007, when they started implementing their changes. I don't know if this is the result of fewer sales at higher margins, or, as I suspect (and has been claimed by several GW managers, as well as by high-ups), increased sales due to extremely popular expansions like Apocalypse.

It's clear, though, that they could not keep doing business the way they did when they had the LotR money. I'm sad that the old bitz service was closed, I used it a lot. But, it was obviously losing them money. And, most of the stuff I want is actually available via the new bitz sale mechanism. I can get my wings, my shoulder-pads, and my weapons when I want them. It's a shame that they're reducing store hours and number of employees, but it's hard to keep a store open at times when few customers come in. And it's annoying that they're raising prices. But it is understandable. They're not rolling in money - they're on the borderline between making a small profit and posting a small loss.

To only address your first point and ignore everything else you are comparing to past years revenue numbers. simplistically if prices are up and revenue is down sales are down.

Also they should have their margins and cost of sales listed, last I remember their margin was something like 70%.

Right, and it's acknowledged that revenue went down from 2004-2007, they claim, due to the LotR interest waning. That is definitely due to fewer sales, no argument.

But, from mid 2007-2009, revenue has gone up. And, we have no way of knowing if that's because sales went up, or because sales stayed constant and prices went up...

I'll buy less. Unfortunatly, there are no independent stockists near me that I'm aware of (however, I'm going to flex my google muscle and prove myself an idiot in a moment). I've made a couple of purchases from ebay in the past, but nothing more.

I'm also now in the process of stripping, remodelling and repainting some of the stuff that I've bought over the years, though a lot of it got traded for beer money xD

@ redbeard: I looked up financials since 2002.

2002 revenue was basically equal to last years results.

Last years results were flat compared to 2007.

Surely you must see how this means sales were going down during this period. (if we are to believe that LOTR is still 1/3 of sales that means the other two are off 33%!)

I agree the interim 2009 results are up sharply, and I'm no accountant either, but I'm guessing this is because they are reporting in GBP and not a different currency.

In summary I think you are being an optimist for optimisms sake, not that there is anything wrong with that

It's odd that Warlord Games & Victrix models can produce hard plastic box sets, with more figures & options and be cheaper. You would of thought that GW's buying power would of given them an advantage on basic cost price... unless they do get a better rate and don't bother to pass it on

Redbeard wrote:

Well, again, do you have any data? What if these price increases are legitimately the only way the company is staying solvent? What if the options are pay more, or lose GW forever? Unless you have insider information on their finances, you don't know that this isn't the case. I'm not defending them, because I too do not know. I am, however, giving them the benefit of the doubt. These are tough economic times for many companies. And, like I said before, this isn't some fly-by-night operation run by college dropouts. I'm willing to make the assumption that whatever they're doing, it is based on what is best for the company, the shareholders, and the employees. We're customers, and they're a business. And, while they may not be a faceless company like walmart, at the end of the day, their main duty is to stay in business. If they fail in that, then there is no more GW hobby, at all.

At the risk of sounding like a nutjob, I'll just say it: GW won't survive this financial climate as an independent company. I don't think they or their IP will disappear, but they will go the way of TSR/WotC/Hasbro. Contrary to what we're being spoonfed, the world economy is going to get much worse before it gets better, and that's if nothing catastrophic occurs before the start of the slow recovery. I just don't see how a toy soldier manufacturer's products finds a space on the budget of the average American or European when we're all looking for fat to trim, even those of us still fortunate to have a job.

the_Armyman wrote:
At the risk of sounding like a nutjob, I'll just say it: GW won't survive this financial climate as an independent company. I don't think they or their IP will disappear, but they will go the way of TSR/WotC/Hasbro. Contrary to what we're being spoonfed, the world economy is going to get much worse before it gets better, and that's if nothing catastrophic occurs before the start of the slow recovery. I just don't see how a toy soldier manufacturer's products finds a space on the budget of the average American or European when we're all looking for fat to trim, even those of us still fortunate to have a job.

There are a number of things that would indicate that this won't happen. Firstly, gaming is to men as going to the hairdressers is for women. There is strong evidence to show that in times of recession, this is an area that gets hit only a bit. It's a "cheap" luxury that women can indulge and makes then feel happier and better about themselves. This goes for gamers, buying models makes us happy and isn't as expensive as larger price tag stuff. Secondly, if you are in a job you are likely to have way more money than you did before. Interest rates are down, VAT in the UK has been dropped, fuel and heating prices are dropping (and it's summer) and food costs are down. Even if you are concerned about losing your job, you still have more money to spend and I'm sure even if you are cutting back, as a gamer you will still set aside money for your hobby. The industry will get hit, but not as bad as other sectors.

GW people are saying that they aren't feeling the pince at the moment, but this could change with the price increases, not the recession.

I haven't bought any GW products for...damn...many years now, and I would like to keep it that way!

Is fun a measurable commodity, and is that the basis they are basing their worth on?

Actually yes, people like rollercoasters. They are fun, and are generally willing to pay out about 5-15 dollars a ride. But if that ride went to $100? I think you would see a sharp decline in rollercoaster ride sales. Its also the reason why i don't buy many new video games. Yah, I can pay 60-70 dollars for it now or I can wait a year and pay 25 dollars. I can't exactly spend 70 dollars a month on video games so I wait for them to fall into the 20-30 dollar margin and purchase them then.

I do it because I enjoy it, which is also why I think everyone else in the hobby does it. How do I put a price tag on enjoyment?

Quite simply actually, if the guilt you feel from paying that much money for it is greater than the enjoyment you get from using it than it was overpriced for the amount of enjoyment given.

And I don't really get how people say that they give the shaft to GWs when they buy from a discounter. The discounter bought those sprues from GW, its not like they came from some other magical/black market place where GW products are miraculously lower priced.

I will simply buy what I can afford. I play Tyranids, hoped on starting Orks, but not likely now.

Having finally seen an instore list of whats going up, I can say that the increase will not affect me in the slightest... a few things go up by £1-2 but nothing major and most of it is metal. I can live with starter sets going up as they have not changed price in at least 10 years. Incedentally, the list i've seen is very different (and shorter) than that posted in news and rumors. does this mean that America is getting hit much harder than uk?

Elnicko5 wrote:At the end of the day, I dont think it could ever be "worth it" in a strictly monetary sense, which leaves me to consider how I deem it worth it. I do it because I enjoy it, which is also why I think everyone else in the hobby does it. How do I put a price tag on enjoyment? I don't, and I don't think I could. I've seen others compare the hobby to other things they enjoy, and though they often find it less expensive, I am apprehensive of such comparisons, because this is one of the few things I enjoy doing that costs money, aside from eating, so a personal comparison of this sort seems pointless. As long as I can afford the enjoyment, as those with a hobby budget clearly can, I will do what I enjoy, even if the prices mean I get fewer toys to play with. So, I guess I am part of the inelastic spending trend. So long as I can afford it, Ill be buying warhammer.

I get your point, so in an effort to add an insight, consider the following: At what price point would you not buy models? Clearly you are the kind of person that really gets a lot of enjoyment out of "the hobby", and more power to your elbow sir. So (provided the funds were available) would you pay £500 for a Forgeworld Titan? Would you pay £1,000? £5,000? Would you pay the same for 10 plastic Greatswords? At some point even the most avid hobbyists must decide their hobby isn't worth the asking price. Yours is higher than mine (and mine was pretty high - I did buy a Mumak for £50 back in the day... which my wife thought madness!), and that's OK. But I do believe everyone has their price!

I appreciate these prices in my illustration look a little absurd, but £5k isn't really a silly number to blow on a "hobby". I bought a car "for fun" that cost me over £10k, for instance. Some people race cars for a hobby and pay multiples of that amount every year. Some guy paid £squillions for a trip into space the other week... People do blow a lot on hobbies/fun if they have the readies. The relevant question though isn't "are there some people prepared to pay the asking price whatever it is?". Rather the question is "are there ENOUGH people prepared to pay the asking price, or at what point will above-inflation rises tip more customers beyond their trigger point than is justifiable". These are little plastic men. There is a limit for how much most "rational" people will pay for them. At least in enough numbers to keep GW afloat. I do truly believe that many people are pushed out of the hobby by these price rises and as a result the hobby shrinks and its future jeapardised for all, in the name of short term shareholder profits.

Osbad raises the main point of hobby expenditure.

It's all about just how into it you are that determines how much you will spend.

For example, I don't buy Forgeworld gubbinz right now, as I don't have a 40k army. Looking at doing Guard in the next couple of months, so depending on the item, I might do. I don't worry so much about the price, as the value. The more I use any given purchase, the better value I extract from my outlay.

So, although a Reaver Titan is an expensive piece of kit, were I in a position to use it say, once a week, I'd be more inclined toward the purchase than if I would use it once a year.

As long as I enjoy playing the games, and have worthwhile opponents to play them with, the prices don't especially bother me (though even I am perplexed about the Greatswords to the point of refusing to buy them!). It does of course help immensely that every time GW raise their prices, I seem to start earning more money....

Osbad also mentions the prices possibly shrinking the pool of active gamers. This would of course be a bad thing for me. The fewer opponents I have, the quicker I get bored of my army as it keeps coming up against the same old lists. This will lead to me wanting to change it more often, causing me to look at the prices. If it's been 6 months, I would begrudge paying out £300 more. However, if my current army has been in use for say, 18 months, then the £300 seems less severe, as I ought to get 18 months more gaming out a new army.

Hope that makes sense and is none too rambly for people.

Ratbarf wrote:

I do it because I enjoy it, which is also why I think everyone else in the hobby does it. How do I put a price tag on enjoyment?

Quite simply actually, if the guilt you feel from paying that much money for it is greater than the enjoyment you get from using it than it was overpriced for the amount of enjoyment given.

I think that's a missing part of the equation here. At some point, they're not willing to pay even $1 more, because they feel like an a$$hole for doing so. You can say "but it's only $1 more," and they might be able to afford that extra buck. But they won't pay it because it's a psychological barrier for them. I think it's reasonable to say that this latest round of increases may hit some customers' limits. *shrug*

Redbeard wrote:The people running GW aren't idiots. They might not behave in a manner best suited to your interests, but this is a publicly traded company run by suits, not a fly-by-night shop run by college dropouts. They have the data, and they can see the trends.

Lessee...Bloodcrushers up 19%...Flesh Hounds up 18%...yep, they do their research.

Elnicko5 wrote:How do I put a price tag on enjoyment? I don't, and I don't think I could.

Now, if you're independently wealthy, living a life of leisure, I suppose price doesn't matter.

But for the rest of us mortals, who have limited income and limited time, we budget our spending and our time, and it's easy to compare whether $10 is better on watching a Hollywood blockbuster in the theatre, buying the DVD a few years later, having a nice lunch, or getting a couple GW minis.
____

Osbad wrote: At what price point would you not buy models?

Barring a great sale price, I'm pretty darn close to that point right now. But then, I have plenty of models, so it's not a big deal.
____

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Osbad also mentions the prices possibly shrinking the pool of active gamers.

I'm not so worried about this, either. It's not like the existing stock of stuff that is in circulation will disappear overnight. Stuff will go on eBay to new players, and the hobby will go on.

Elnicko5 wrote:...so what do people mean "worth it" when they start talking about a box of figures being worth $22 but not $25? Is fun a measurable commodity, and is that the basis they are basing their worth on? Is there some other intangible at work that I haven't considered? How is this concept worth constructed? It seems like people are playing a semantical game with a word everyone likes to say they know the meaning of, but in this context it seems a bit unclear.

What you say might be true if GW games were my only hobby. But it's not. Like JohnHwangDD alluded to, for every dollar I spend on GW, that's one less dollar I spend on something else, whether it's videogames, another company's game, or going out with friends. And as GW's prices increased, I had to ask myself if I would rather spend the money somewhere else. That determines worth to me. And GW's products weren't enough of a value to me to sacrifice other things I enjoy to compensate for its increased prices.

Well I have been doing the hobby since 1992 and have enjoyed the game and been prepared to pay for it but now at £24.75 for 10 plastic greatswords I have to seriously think about whether I want to pay those prices. I recently went to Salute 09 (a major wargames show in London) and have started looking elsewhere. I bought 2 plastic box sets (No names mentioned historical) and got 30 figures and 60 figures for £19.99. I have and will always enjoy W40K 2nd edition as to me this was how the game should be played with hit areas on vehicles etc but have found that recent rule changes have considerably dumbed the game down.

I have to say that now is the time for me to give up buying figures at these sorts of prices. I know that if everyone thinks like I do then GW could go out of business but then I am not the one making these sorts of price rises when the basic materials have come down due to a major recession, one the GW will not have experienced in its business life (there was a small recession in 90's).

I will continue to play the game but not purchase anymore models and look at other systems where I can get armies at a cheaper price.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I hear the 'time goes by so prices must increase' and simply don't get it, the profit margin on tin (and plastic) soldiers is already massive, the price increase is large and at a time when many companies are freezing or reducing price.

I would have been very happy to build several armies and spend a considerable amount, over time, but the amount being asked for individual minis and boxes is too high and demonstrates a brazen greed and indifference bordering on hostility towards the customer base by this company.

They do not deserve your custom.

It's not that. GW can't figure out how to make money. They have a lot of costs. They have to pay for their costs somehow. The only way that they can conceivably pay for these costs is by making models. No matter what you say they're still top dog as far as quality is concerned. Find me another company that produces such a varied line with such high quality. Find me another set of rules for a wargame that can compete with GW. Fantasy may be pretty broken but 40k has the most balanced rules out there for a tabletop wargame.

^ That post wins newcomer of the month award.

LordHypnogogue wrote:I will simply buy what I can afford. I play Tyranids, hoped on starting Orks, but not likely now.

With AoBR orks are probably one of the cheapest armies that you can buy for 40k. Just get on ebay, buy up some AoBR boys, convert them how you need them and you're G2G.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ratbarf wrote:^ That post wins newcomer of the month award.

prove it. PM me if you don't want to make a post about it. I'd love to find a cheaper game with better rules.

i called my local game store to get 3 more bloodcrushers before the increase. they didn't have them and told me it was too late. and the next one were almost thirty. the three at the new price plus tax would have been almost 100 So I just hoped on line and picked up 7 for $131 from an online store that hadn't adjusted yet.

artyboy wrote:Find me another set of rules for a wargame that can compete with GW. Fantasy may be pretty broken but 40k has the most balanced rules out there for a tabletop wargame.

One of the major problems with the internet, be it live chat, IM'ing or even message boards such as this, is that the tone of a person's voice is extremely hard to gague. Sarcasm, anger, happiness, and so on cannot be gleaned from simple words alone (most of the time). For this reason, the 'Emoticon' was invented. When added to a sentence, paragraph, message or post it can help to frame the words being written.

Dakka has taken this concept one further with the EmORKticons, giving us a multitude of clever, funny and well-animated emoticons themed around Orks. It is through these EmORKticons that the denizens of Dakka can communicate with one another in an effective manner with no ambiguity.

The system falls apart however when one does not use the EmORKticons, and instead leaves a post such as yours, artyboy. See, we all know (hope) that you are being intentionally ironic, much as Cheese Elemental is whenever he tells people to buy direct from GW whilst simultaneously linking to Maelstrom Games UK, but without the presence of an EmORKticon at the end - preferably or better yet or - we can only assume that you are serious, and that you truly believe that:

1. 40K rules are balanced.
2. That they're the most balanced of all rulesets ever.
3. That no other company 'comes close'.

Now none of these three things are true - GW's rules are lazily written, aren't checked over, and in the world of gaming they might be a big fish from a miniature side of things, but their rules are looked down upon - so we can only assume that you were being intentionally ironic.

So artyboy, please, use those EmORKticons in the future and avoid any of these problems from ever cropping up again.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

artyboy wrote:prove it. PM me if you don't want to make a post about it. I'd love to find a cheaper game with better rules.

Hmm... still no EmORKticons there artyboy. Perhaps you were serious?

As to a cheaper game with better rules... umm... BattleTech is a good example. Not quite sure how much the intro box is, but in there you'll find a game more balanced, better written and cheaper than anythign 40K can produce. And I don't play many games outside of GW games, but I know a lot of people here do, so please, spare us the pathetic over-the-top sycophantism. It's not healthy.

artyboy wrote:prove it. PM me if you don't want to make a post about it. I'd love to find a cheaper game with better rules.

OK, fanboi, here we go:

http://www.groundzerogames.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=section&id=9&Itemid=50

Stargrunt. Rules are free. Infantry models cost £2.50 for 8 at 15mm, and £1 each for 25mm. (All metal of course.) There are a range of buildings and vehicles and such too.

15mm example:

http://www.gtns.co.uk/store1/commerce.cgi?page=sg15-fp.html&cart_id=7137063.21142

25mm example:

http://www.gtns.co.uk/store1/commerce.cgi?page=sg-fp.html&cart_id=6849536.18468

Although of course, no one is forcing you to use Ground Zero Games' models, any generic sci-fi models will do. So by definition that is always cheaper and/'or better than GW, as you can always use GW models as your minimum standard.

"Quality" is always subjective, but I know many who prefer these as more of a "grown-ups" game than "kiddie-kay" is. (added emorkicon for luck)

(P.s. I do play 40k, but enjoy it for what it is: a "beer and pretzels" game, not the be-all and end-all of life!)

That's just one example, there are many others. The only people who truly believe there is no real competition for GW are GW themselves, and the poor deluded fools they have gulled.

Now, to save yourself time and embarassment, you could have always vistited the "Other Sci-fi games" forum on dakka (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/30.page) but I do realise that this would have required the removal of fanboi blinkers...

I also think GW make the best rules and range and thats why I keep coming back to it and not any other games that I have played. Furthermore prices aren't the only thing that goes up. My job pays gives me an auto pay rise every year according to the CPI which is 4% and also have purcahsed an investment house during the boom time and I also gain CPI increases every 6 months for the rent, so I have enough money to keep up with the price rises.

Final thing for me is that I have one army that I hardly need to update but that gives me the chance to buy models that I like to paint when they are released this is not very expensive at all.

In the end I see alot of quality in what GW releases so I will keep on buying them.

Quality models maybe, but the rules are horse gak.

I don't want an overly complex game with a thick-ass rulebook that requires extensive study and several hours of test games to learn how to play or anything (I understand the hate for an abstract system because it isn't that "realistic" but I don't want to get so into it that we start including rules for wind and gak), so I don't hate 40k for simplicity. I'm pissed off more by the fact that they don't know how to balance anything or make every unit in an army fun or useful in some way, the game is too obviously an afterthought, designed just to sell models and invalidate your collection with every update forcing you to buy more models.

And despite GW's repeated claims that they're a miniatures manufacturer, there's very few people out there who would give GW the ridiculous amounts of money they demand for said models if all they were going to do is sit on a shelf and look pretty. People buy the models for the game and if the game isn't fun to play then they won't move nearly as many models.

I think some of us handled the price increase pretty well over the weekend...