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.
Sir Isaac Newton may be the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space, but John von Neumann is the logistics officer that eats your problems and turns them into kit.
I came across the goblin town last night and I thought paying $60NZ for Osgiliath, Aegis Defence line was bad. $115NZ for the goblin town seems like a joke. I'm sure people could build better for less.
I don't mind the films being stretched from 2 to 3. I was disappointed so much was left out of LOTR or changed to help make it fit together. Also much rather have Peter Jackson making them than have to watch the horror of another Ralph Bakshi LOTR.
I guess GW also has to be careful on what they release and when. Releasing items not relevant to the film being shown will result in poor sales of the product for those not familiar with the book. I think the main push will have to remain for The Battle of 5 Armies. Maybe the prices are how they are because the idea is to capture playing the film scenes on the table top as opposed to just building massive armies like we do in 40k, but pricing it too high will make people not want to play. For some people its easier to play out things they know, instead of using their imagination to decide an outcome. We know the outcome of the battles in LOTR, so in some cases you set out to have it end the same way but enjoy the ride you take getting there. 40k games have to be played out to decide the outcome, unless you are playing a campaign you know the result to, Horus Heresy, Black Reach, etc and in many ways that is probably why people get disappointed with 40k and the "unbeatable" nature of certain armies. You get too focussed on the winning and less of the fun or story telling side of it.
I think once a game goes over the $120NZ mark for the starter/main game, then it must be worth it. Otherwise its a lot of money down the toilet for piss all entertainment. The Hobbit isn't going to be an easy sell since there already like 4 games on the shelf that tie in and GW's will be the most expensive. For a smart buyer for miniatures, they'll be buying up the last of the LOTR things on discount and building their own Hobbit game.
I played LOTR at home, which may be why you never saw it being played.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I just thought about something . . .
With the metal models, it was easy to assemble. You stick it in a base, maybe glue arms and heads on, bend anything into shape that was out of shape and you're done assembling the model. A five year old could do that!
Finecast is a lot more risky, however - there are bad casts, if the cast is good the weapons or legs or something is sometimes bent and very rarely do you get a cast that's just as good as the metal models. Also, if you don't have clippers, then you could very well break your own model because the material is so soft. I've seen someone do it. Yes, GW are improving, but even so . . .
My point is: as we've said here many times, the market for these products are apparently collectors. But also many children (maybe eight-ish) would look at these models at the local shops and say "hey, that looks pretty cool, I'm going to buy it". Would these children and some collectors as well have time to spend ages cleaning up flash, filling holes with Liquid Green Stuff, soaking the model in hot water so that the material is malleable and then bending things into shape? I highly doubt it. Most people would just want to stick a model into a base and be done with it. In addition, what if the kid/collector gets a bad cast? Would they know that they can phone GW up and tell them that their product sucks so send me a new one? Or if they do know, would they be bothered? Probably not, and they'd just write the company off.
So, in my view, they should either have released the models as metal (as they still do with the majority of Wood Elves) or in plastic.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/02 03:48:21
keisukekun wrote: Considering they are almost the size of a warhammer giant (a side by side would be good) which is $50 us then 85$ us is not too bad a price for 3. Not saying I'd buy it but I think its probably reasonable for someone interested.
Those don't look as big as the Warhammer giant. They look more about Dreadnought/Hellbrute size. Maybe a tad bigger.
Time to start another round of GW store closings that inevitable comes around this type of scam.
Ho Ho Ho, merry Christmas, Your fired!
Poor Poor GW. We're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you.
Post the obiquitous "I'm a Porche!" picture.
At Games Workshop, we believe that how you behave does matter. We believe this so strongly that we have written it down in the Games Workshop Book. There is a section in the book where we talk about the values we expect all staff to demonstrate in their working lives. These values are Lawyers, Guns and Money.
Those trolls really don't look good at all. Look at that fire. Is this 1998?
Spoiler:
Maybe GW will lose so much money, their stockholders cash in their shares and the company goes bankrupt. Then, a new GW will arise from the ashes and get back to making Noise Marines that look just like these, except better!
Sure when compared to Warhammer prices, the box set seems less expensive. But that doesn't make it a good deal. That just means that GW has done a masterful job over the past decade of convincing folks to pay their outlandish prices.
That and rising costs have forced them to raise prices.
If GW cut their prices by 10%, they would no profit whatsoever. Food for thought.
You are badly mistaken if you think that GW, or any other company for that matter, can exist with only a 10% profit margin. Food for thought.
GW's own financial reports from a couple of years ago said their gross margin on cost of goods was 75%. In other words a £40 model costs £10 to make.
A lot of the money is used up in running the retail chain. At the same time, the retail chain is their main form of marketing.
Sure when compared to Warhammer prices, the box set seems less expensive. But that doesn't make it a good deal. That just means that GW has done a masterful job over the past decade of convincing folks to pay their outlandish prices.
That and rising costs have forced them to raise prices.
If GW cut their prices by 10%, they would no profit whatsoever. Food for thought.
You are badly mistaken if you think that GW, or any other company for that matter, can exist with only a 10% profit margin. Food for thought.
GW's own financial reports from a couple of years ago said their gross margin on cost of goods was 75%. In other words a £40 model costs £10 to make.
A lot of the money is used up in running the retail chain. At the same time, the retail chain is their main form of marketing.
from what i remember form my accounts class is that gross doesn't take into consideration the wages etc but net profit does (Gross is the manufacturing and sales costs compared to sales)
Currently debating whether to study for my exams or paint some Deathwing
Ogryn cost about 69 USD for three, are ancient models, and don't come with a campfire.
These seem proportional to those.
Also, unrelated, but there was a guy in the game store yesterday who actually was running 20 of them. Ogryn, that is. Strange way to invest for retirement if you ask me, though I suppose that if he bought in early enough, even with the typical 50% cost reduction, given that GW prices only go up, you could potentially realize a return on investment given enough years.
Sure when compared to Warhammer prices, the box set seems less expensive. But that doesn't make it a good deal. That just means that GW has done a masterful job over the past decade of convincing folks to pay their outlandish prices.
That and rising costs have forced them to raise prices.
If GW cut their prices by 10%, they would no profit whatsoever. Food for thought.
You are badly mistaken if you think that GW, or any other company for that matter, can exist with only a 10% profit margin. Food for thought.
GW's own financial reports from a couple of years ago said their gross margin on cost of goods was 75%. In other words a £40 model costs £10 to make.
A lot of the money is used up in running the retail chain. At the same time, the retail chain is their main form of marketing.
from what i remember form my accounts class is that gross doesn't take into consideration the wages etc but net profit does (Gross is the manufacturing and sales costs compared to sales)
You are quite correct. Also, as UK companies pay tax on their net profit, you can bet that the FineAccountants will have done everything possible to make that number as low as possible without scaring the investors.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
azreal13 wrote:
Your getting mixed up with net and gross here.
They make 10p in the pound AFTER all other costs.
A quick read of the document you link to suggests their gross margin somewhere around 75%
So unless they shut down their entire chain of shops, my point stands, no?
Kroothawk wrote:
You don't really believe that, do you?
Tom Kirby alone gets 1-2% of all sales (he just decided to take 383,650 £ dividend, compare that to you supposedly £300,000 profit) , and there are 3 shareholders getting more.
And reducing starter box price from 100€ to say 70€ doesn't mean 30% less revenue.
Same with selling cheaper resin miniatures for cheaper than metal.
Their pricing is crucial for losing about 10% customers and sales per year.
Dividends are paid out of profits so I don't see your point.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/02 16:27:20
Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:
jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
Nobody plays LOTR, nobody will play Hobbit either especially given the outrageous prices. Back in the day you could get a whole 40k battleforce for the price of 3 trolls.
Harriticus wrote: Nobody plays LOTR, nobody will play Hobbit either especially given the outrageous prices. Back in the day you could get a whole 40k battleforce for the price of 3 trolls.
Back in the day you could buy a house for twenty pounds. Don't bother posting price comparisons for "back in the day" without an inflation adjuster.
Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:
jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
Harriticus wrote: Nobody plays LOTR, nobody will play Hobbit either especially given the outrageous prices. Back in the day you could get a whole 40k battleforce for the price of 3 trolls.
Back in the day you could buy a house for twenty pounds. Don't bother posting price comparisons for "back in the day" without an inflation adjuster.
Well in this case "back in the day" was like 5 years ago. Not 1920. So.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/02 16:54:16
Kroothawk wrote:
You don't really believe that, do you?
Tom Kirby alone gets 1-2% of all sales (he just decided to take 383,650 £ dividend, compare that to you supposedly £300,000 profit) , and there are 3 shareholders getting more.
And reducing starter box price from 100€ to say 70€ doesn't mean 30% less revenue.
Same with selling cheaper resin miniatures for cheaper than metal.
Their pricing is crucial for losing about 10% customers and sales per year.
Dividends are paid out of profits so I don't see your point.
The point is that GW is paying out profits to shareholders in dividends and doing this by increasing prices. While at the same time their customer base is not growing (by some reports is shrinking).
GW could forgo some of the dividends and keep prices the same (or even lower them) or invest more in advertising, but they aren't and they won't because the board makes too much money from dividends. They make so much money from dividends that most have probably already gotten their investment back and then some. Thus, they can take as much out of the company as they want because even if they drive it into the ground they'll make money all the way down, and the GW IP is still worth enough that if GW has to sell to another company they'll probably still come out ahead of their initial investment without even considering all the dividends they've been taking. The only thing that might be lost is the miniatures game itself if a new owner decides to take the IP in a new direction.
This is the truth that most folks don't realize. Kirby and company have no incentive to not raise prices, even if it shrinks the consumer base for their products. Every economic incentive is for them to keep raising prices and paying out hefty dividends, even if it kills the company.
We pay more, they make more. If less of us buy, we still pay more and they still make more.
If the company or game dies, it doesn't matter to their bottom line because they've already gotten paid big time.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/12/02 17:06:18
Kroothawk wrote:
You don't really believe that, do you?
Tom Kirby alone gets 1-2% of all sales (he just decided to take 383,650 £ dividend, compare that to you supposedly £300,000 profit) , and there are 3 shareholders getting more.
And reducing starter box price from 100€ to say 70€ doesn't mean 30% less revenue.
Same with selling cheaper resin miniatures for cheaper than metal.
Their pricing is crucial for losing about 10% customers and sales per year.
Dividends are paid out of profits so I don't see your point.
The point is that GW is paying out profits to shareholders in dividends and doing this by increasing prices. While at the same time their customer base is not growing (by some reports is shrinking).
I don't even...
Just go read through my posts. Actually read, don't decide that GW is evil and build your view around that.
Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:
jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
Yeah, I don't buy the little timmy bit either since toys are us sells hobbit action figures that don't require assembly or paint... This one's listed at $30.
Personally, I think the lego sets look cool but they charge almost as much as GW (sometimes more)...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/02 17:33:42
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
Kroothawk wrote:
You don't really believe that, do you?
Tom Kirby alone gets 1-2% of all sales (he just decided to take 383,650 £ dividend, compare that to you supposedly £300,000 profit) , and there are 3 shareholders getting more.
And reducing starter box price from 100€ to say 70€ doesn't mean 30% less revenue.
Same with selling cheaper resin miniatures for cheaper than metal.
Their pricing is crucial for losing about 10% customers and sales per year.
Dividends are paid out of profits so I don't see your point.
The point is that GW is paying out profits to shareholders in dividends and doing this by increasing prices. While at the same time their customer base is not growing (by some reports is shrinking).
I don't even...
Just go read through my posts. Actually read, don't decide that GW is evil and build your view around that.
What about those of us who have and realize you know two things about what you're talking about? And Jack just left btw.
azreal13 wrote:
Your getting mixed up with net and gross here.
They make 10p in the pound AFTER all other costs.
A quick read of the document you link to suggests their gross margin somewhere around 75%
So unless they shut down their entire chain of shops, my point stands, no?
No. Not even close.
You are simplifying a very complex situation with what appears to be a very tenuous grasp of real world economics.
Suffice to say a 10% drop in RRP ~ a 10% drop in profits for many, many reasons.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/02 18:06:05
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
You are simplifying a very complex situation with what appears to be a very tenuous grasp of real world economics.
Suffice to say a 10% drop in RRP ~ a 10% drop in profits for many, many reasons.
Good thing that's not what I said. A 10% drop in revenue would wipe out their profits almost completely, unless sales increased enough to make up the gap.
Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:
jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
You don't
A) actually think that the profits they report haven't been screwed down to within an inch of their life to minimise tax
Or
B) think that any drop in price would likely as not be offset or even wiped out completely by an increase in sales revenue
Or
C) think that the company wouldn't take action behind the scenes to reduce costs in advance of a price drop
Do you?
Don't forget that GW is also a wholesaler, and wouldn't cut those prices by 10%
Personally, I don't understand why they don't reduce their own store portfolio, invest more in supporting the independent market and using conventional media advertising while simultaneously cutting, if not all prices, then at least a range of products that lower the barrier to entry somewhat, not just the starter sets but also starter army deals or similar.
But hey, I'm just a guy with business qualifications, 7 years in management and 3 years as a company director, what do I know?
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
You should know that if revenues are 66m and profits are 6m, reducing prices by 10% will wipe out their profits, unless there's a huge upsurge in demand.
Clearly GW know that dropping prices wouldn't compensate for the loss of revenue so they don't do it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/02 19:02:44
Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:
jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
Profits are a percentage of revenue. If revenue goes down, then profits will likely fall by a similar percentage, but not by that amount of money.
Therefore if revenue falls by 5 million, and GW has a net profit of approx 10%, then their profit will likely fall by approx 500k.
Thats a very pared down example, but It won't just lose it off the top like you seem to think it will.
Obviously there is only so much income it can lose before its fixed costs outweigh its income and it makes a loss, but it's way more complex than you think.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Additionally, they sell to the trade at 60% of RRP, and still make money, how does that fit with your theory?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/02 19:16:27
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Such high prices for this game's debut to the public gives me the impression GW doesn't have much faith in The Hobbit going the distance and becoming an established core game. Basically squeeze the impulse buyers for all their worth than drop any further support once popularity deceases when the movies end.
I think that they will appeal to collectors and Hobbit fans more than they will gamers, but i might be wrong.
I too have never seen anyone playing LOTR, outside of GW.
I dont really like those figures either, apart from a few goblins maybe, most of them look quite poor to me and very static.
WarOne wrote: It would be interesting to note that most of these models would probably be bought by collectors rather than actual gamers. The LOTR IP is very strong still, and JRR Tolkein's works are lauded the world over; it won't be gamers but the die hard fans that buy into this.
Not entirely true. Hands down I love LOTR and Tolkiens work but I refuse to pay those prices for some plastic items to fill GW coffers
