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.

 Kingsley wrote:
"Massively increased" seems like an overstatement when inflation-adjusted price increases are not even always apparent over an 8-year span. I priced out the Marines I used in a recent game and compared them between now and 2004 (inflation-adjusted); they had gone up in price by 12% over eight years if you didn't count starter set availability savings and had gone down in price by 21% if you did. Further, the models had been vastly improved during that period.

Hardly a "massive increase."

I don't know what "the Marines" are, but have a look at the introductory products I spoke of:
New Codex 2004 would be around 16 €, new Codex today is around 39 € (+143%). 40k starter set 2004 would be around 50€, today it is 78€ (+56%, with Hobbit starter set currently around 100€ +100%). 40k starter book was 50€, now 60€ (+20%, with Hobbit book 65€ +30%). And I haven't spoken of Finecast recasts or the new Hobbit plastic boxes yet!

Another thing to keep in mind with the "has it gotten more expensive" argument is point size:

What was the size of the average 40K or WFB army in 2000.

What is it now?

If it takes more models to play with now than it did 10 years ago, then the game has gotten more expensive even if the individual model cost stayed the same, and GW makes more money per "finished army".

40k is still 1850 around here, Fantasy got upped to 3k but has been downscaled to 1500 as barely anyone still plays it.

Not so much game points total.
But the way the PV values of units have fallen , to take more minatures to get to 1500 pts in the first place.

So.. how does this matter? At all?

It means GW products, esp. introductory products, get more expensive exponentially (even considering inflation), continuously raising the hurdle for new customers and losing old ones. Considering those price increases, flat revenue levels mean less sales each year and probably less customers. Having less sales and customers each year for 6-7 years is bad for a company outlook. That's why it matters.

Only for investors.

Players would arguably be better off if GW went bust and stopped fiddling with the rules.

It would be a shame for people whose codex was desperately out of date (mainly Tau, at this stage) but most other armies would be OK.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Only for investors.

Players would arguably be better off if GW went bust and stopped fiddling with the rules.

It would be a shame for people whose codex was desperately out of date (mainly Tau, at this stage) but most other armies would be OK.

I don't think so. If GW should fall, I'm pretty sure another company would immediately hop on the bandwagon and would try to get the license.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It would be a shame for people whose codex was desperately out of date (mainly Tau, at this stage) but most other armies would be OK.

Wood Elf and Sororitas players would like to have a word with you
Plus all people waiting for new shineys like flyers, monsters and terrain.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Having less sales and customers each year for 6-7 years is bad for a company outlook. That's why it matters.

Again, what proof do you have of falling customer numbers? Yes we know sales have fallen, we have no idea if the customer base has. Whilst I agree that GW customer base probably has fallen I cannot confirm it/ You can't just go around stating it as a fact without any kind of evidence to back it up.

I'd argue a little against the falling points values making the game more expensive. Those of us who have been around a while are happy to play 2000 points (or whatever value we suggest) because we have that number of troops to use, but there is no minimum value for games, if all you can afford is 500 points of stuff then the rules work perfectly at that level too whilst you build up a larger force (or even just stay at 500 for ever if thats what you like). You are not required to jump in at 2000 points to start., though I will accept that if you want to play in tournaments they tend to be around the 2000 point range, which you are correct then means you have to spend more.

Whether or not the customer numbers have fallen is largely irrelevant if the sales are falling (which is what the financials show).

The reduction in sales means that either the same number of customers are buying less (collecting smaller armies or dropping out earlier) or a smaller number of customers are buying as much. Both result in a reduction in the 'critical mass' of players, where people get into the game because people play it.

We can reasonably assume that since the cost of starting is increasing significantly, the number of starters must be decreasing as some will be priced out of the market.

As the business model is based on short-term customers spending lots of money before dropping out after a couple of years, a reduction in customer recruitment can only be seen as a bad thing in the long term, as at some point it'll become too expensive / obscure to attract new customers at all.


Regarding points values; from what I can tell of the FOC's, 500pt armies are pretty hard to make legally without having to bend rules, and the commonly used point values seem to remain constant (tournament and magazine points values haven't decreased), and getting a pick-up game of <1000pt is hard to do. So whilst you may not need a 2000pt army initially, you may find that you need at least 1000pt before you can participate in a lot of club games.

 d-usa wrote:
Another thing to keep in mind with the "has it gotten more expensive" argument is point size:

What was the size of the average 40K or WFB army in 2000.

What is it now?

If it takes more models to play with now than it did 10 years ago, then the game has gotten more expensive even if the individual model cost stayed the same, and GW makes more money per "finished army".

Good point. I noticed it with the new empire book - the subtle decrease in points of basic troops. Given that you need to operate empire troops in large blocks, it is clear that GW have a strategy i.e milk em till they're dry!

 Kroothawk wrote:
I don't know what "the Marines" are, but have a look at the introductory products I spoke of:
New Codex 2004 would be around 16 €, new Codex today is around 39 € (+143%). 40k starter set 2004 would be around 50€, today it is 78€ (+56%, with Hobbit starter set currently around 100€ +100%). 40k starter book was 50€, now 60€ (+20%, with Hobbit book 65€ +30%). And I haven't spoken of Finecast recasts or the new Hobbit plastic boxes yet!

I guess I don't see why you consider those comparisons valid. All of those products (except for the 40k stuff) had far, far less content in 2004 than they do now. Codexes were thinner and had less interesting material and fewer units, starter sets had many fewer models and the models they did have were inferior, etc. You also don't seem to have taken inflation into account.

Chadian shock troops where £18 for 20, now they are £18 for 10. Miniatures are exactly the same just half the original box contents. Inflation wasn't 100% over that period.

When talking about GW massively increasing prices without reason, just watch the LotR price increase from 2010 to now. It's downright disgusting and, to me, one of the main reason why it became so unpopular. Just check it out:

Until December 2010: 1 box = 24 miniatures = 15,50€ = 0,65€ per miniature.

Now: 12 miniatures = 19,50€ = 1,63€ per miniature.

Isn't that cool? Price increases by +150%.

 Kingsley wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
I don't know what "the Marines" are, but have a look at the introductory products I spoke of:
New Codex 2004 would be around 16 €, new Codex today is around 39 € (+143%). 40k starter set 2004 would be around 50€, today it is 78€ (+56%, with Hobbit starter set currently around 100€ +100%). 40k starter book was 50€, now 60€ (+20%, with Hobbit book 65€ +30%). And I haven't spoken of Finecast recasts or the new Hobbit plastic boxes yet!

I guess I don't see why you consider those comparisons valid. All of those products (except for the 40k stuff) had far, far less content in 2004 than they do now. Codexes were thinner and had less interesting material and fewer units, starter sets had many fewer models and the models they did have were inferior, etc. You also don't seem to have taken inflation into account.

Cost of entry. It doesn't matter if the codex now contains more information (well, fluff) or that the starter box contains more figures, it's still the minimum cost required to get into the game. It's what the new customers will see first, and a smaller starter set for a lower price would look better.

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:
Chadian shock troops where £18 for 20, now they are £18 for 10. Miniatures are exactly the same just half the original box contents. Inflation wasn't 100% over that period.

Yes, but Necron Immortals were $10.00 for 1 in 2004 (not inflation-adjusted) and now they're $33.00 for 5. Some models go up dramatically, some models go down dramatically.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It would be a shame for people whose codex was desperately out of date (mainly Tau, at this stage) but most other armies would be OK.

Wood Elf and Sororitas players would like to have a word with you
Plus all people waiting for new shineys like flyers, monsters and terrain.

International rules ruling council, include previous GW staff like Alessio, Rick P, Andy H, Andy C, any of the current guys, if any of them wanted in. Regular FAQs, Frequent Rules rulings. Tournament clarification.

Numerous indy mini companies releasing monsters and such, best sculpts/prices get the business... You think if GW wasn't hovering ferociously over it's IP that the Sisters of Battle, sculpted by that guy from statuesque minis wouldn't be the sweetest models in the world? Or Enigma minis Wood Elf Wardancers?

Seems perfectly plausible for me. GW needs us, we do not require GW.

 Kingsley wrote:

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:
Chadian shock troops where £18 for 20, now they are £18 for 10. Miniatures are exactly the same just half the original box contents. Inflation wasn't 100% over that period.

Yes, but Necron Immortals were $10.00 for 1 in 2004 (not inflation-adjusted) and now they're $33.00 for 5. Some models go up dramatically, some models go down dramatically.

Lord of the Rings. An entire product line. Price increases of +150%.

Furthermore, the Necron Immortal comparison isn't working as good. First of all, Necron Immortals aren't the same as before. They are in a different slot, have -1 T and have a different weapon. Are those still the same models as before? Not to mention they are now 9 points cheaper than before. And are mostly equipped with Tesla weapons as their role changed as well...they still share the same name but their role differs.

Models going down in price is the exception rather than the rule, as anyone can see. There isn't a debate.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Seems perfectly plausible for me. GW needs us, we do not require GW.

Speak for yourself. I enjoy collecting 40k, if you don't I'm at a loss as to why you post in a 40k forum at all.

 Testify wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Seems perfectly plausible for me. GW needs us, we do not require GW.

Speak for yourself. I enjoy collecting 40k, if you don't I'm at a loss as to why you post in a 40k forum at all.

We know you're a GW fanboy, but on the other hand, would GW being taken over somehow change your hobby of collecting stuff?

 Sigvatr wrote:

We know you're a GW fanboy, but on the other hand, would GW being taken over somehow change your hobby of collecting stuff?

I'm not a GW fanboy.

And you're kidding yourself if you think that another company picking up the IP would be better for the hobby. It might be a bit cheaper because they wouldn't have to pay for the stores, but on the other hand that means a lot less newcomers, and it'd be no cheaper than GW could offer if they shut down the stores themselves (give it time).

 Testify wrote:

I'm not a GW fanboy.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah, sure.

And you're kidding yourself if you think that another company picking up the IP would be better for the hobby. It might be a bit cheaper because they wouldn't have to pay for the stores, but on the other hand that means a lot less newcomers, and it'd be no cheaper than GW could offer if they shut down the stores themselves (give it time).

How could anything be worse than GW? Considerable price increases, increasing anti-gaming attitude...in what way would another company be worse? Even if GW shut down the stores, we would not see any decrease in prices. Not by a long shot.

 Testify wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Seems perfectly plausible for me. GW needs us, we do not require GW.

Speak for yourself. I enjoy collecting 40k, if you don't I'm at a loss as to why you post in a 40k forum at all.

You, yet again, fail at reading comprehension.

The discussion was an aside regarding the hypothetical fate of the games should GW cease to exist.

Go back, reread (or actually just READ what I said) and try, for the love of God, to contribute in a positive and mature way instead of your endless kneejerk reactions on this board, which have painted you as an absolute idiot, unless of course you are an absolute idiot and that measure of maturity is simply beyond your capacity to process.

Also, GROW UP.

 Kingsley wrote:

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:
Chadian shock troops where £18 for 20, now they are £18 for 10. Miniatures are exactly the same just half the original box contents. Inflation wasn't 100% over that period.

Yes, but Necron Immortals were $10.00 for 1 in 2004 (not inflation-adjusted) and now they're $33.00 for 5. Some models go up dramatically, some models go down dramatically.

So you say kroothawks examples aren't valid because the product has changed over time, I then post an example where the core product hasn't changed other than quantity for cost which was a good example in terms of changing cost over time. You then decry this example by creating one using a product that has changed over time, the very thing you stated invalidated kroothawks example. Make your mind up, you can't have your cake and eat it. All this shows is that you know your wrong but will try to take any stand point you think will prove you right.

 Testify wrote:
It might be a bit cheaper because they wouldn't have to pay for the stores, but on the other hand that means a lot less newcomers, ...

That's the GW Koolaid speaking.

For a time there, Oz was GW's most profitable region. At that time, we had less than a dozen GW stores scattered across a landmass the size of the US. GW stores are not required for recruiting new players (players do that themselves much better than GW ever has)... that's just the business model that they have managed to make work in the UK.

I would doubt that many of the uk stores pay fr themselves. Does anyone know if there are figures out there for online v shop sales?

GW business model is terrible the business could b streamlined by shutting dead weight stores.

I simply refuse to by GW products anymore the price to quality and quantity does not add up. Especially with so many great independent figure companies nowadays.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It would be a shame for people whose codex was desperately out of date (mainly Tau, at this stage) but most other armies would be OK.

Wood Elf and Sororitas players would like to have a word with you
Plus all people waiting for new shineys like flyers, monsters and terrain.

Why do people continually forget that the Bretonnian army book is the oldest in their current range?

Downsizing is continuing in Oz, one of the largest Sydney stores is being downsized to a one-man (even with the massive floorspace) and stores are being closed left, right and centre.

 Testify wrote:
And you're kidding yourself if you think that another company picking up the IP would be better for the hobby.

They've licensed the IP out to other non-miniature related things (FFG RPGs, various video games) and those turn out fine. What makes the miniature and rules side of things any different to that?