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.

Stranger83 wrote:
True, and from a game perspective they are cheaper, but if you just want a cheap wargame to play may I suggest Risk. There is more to the hobby than simply playing a game, and you get more “hobby stuff” for the money from GW than the other “big 3”.

You should define more "hobby stuff".

If providing mountains of ill fitting non-gameplay affecting parts is more hobby - I could see an arguement for that - IF YOU USE THE EXTRA PARTS PROVIDED - considering that it takes a gak load of extra work to make any of the pouches, grenades, holstered pistols, knives, tabbards etc. that GW provides as "extras" look like they are PART of the model without it looking like an awkward, haphazzardly surface mounted piece of crap. 95% of all the players that I know have MOUNTAINS of unused pouches, grenades, knives, etc... You can't even GIVE most of these parts away, let alone trade them for valuable parts. For the really specialized parts and parts with strong gameplay value - GW makes you pay for the extra "hobby stuff" (if that is the right interpretation of your term). That's why the SM command squad is extra expensive for 5 guys.

If providing a crap ton of "customizable" statlines is more hobby stuff - I daresay that it isn't, considering that 80-90% of all included options take are weaker by design and either take away from gameplay, or are consigned to a dreary life in the bitz box (single lightning claws anyone?) Other than providing a 10 year old with the chance to build a Terminator equipped with an assault cannon, a power sword, a cyclone missile launcher AND a heavy flamer - I'm not sure how options = more hobby stuff, when sensible modellers will usually use the best option.

Of course, YMMV.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tehjonny wrote:
I saved up for them. Now I'm a grown man and I have to save up for one??!? AND IT HURTS. PHYSICALLY HURTS WHEN YOU PAY THOSE PRICES. You've metaphorically been kicked in the gut whilst having your pride questioned. You actually walk out feeling soiled. That's not a 'retail experience' I'm willing to partake of :p.

I kinda wanted to buy a Mauler Fiend to convert. It was $80. It went back on the shelf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Harriticus wrote:
I like all the scientific analysis of if GW's products are overpriced or not going on in this thread.

You really just need to think to yourself, is this fairly priced? That alone answers the question.

Seems fair. It's $91.44 USD in Canada and $132.42 USD in AUS. [ / sarcasm ]

Stranger83 wrote:


Again, this is why your definition of “the hobby” matters – and when I questioned it I was told that it refered to the whole miniature experience, including the collecting, painting and converting of minis. Yes, on a game only basis GW are more expensive – but on a Hobby basis (as per how it was defined in this thread) the GW are the cheapear because, on a model by model basis they are cheaper. From the way “The Hobby” is defined in the thread the Model to Model cost is just as relevant as the “cost of a full army”.

Now not everyone will care about the mini experience, and that is fine – there is nothing wrong with being a gamer – but this thread is about “The Hobby” of which the game is only a small part

Actually no, the game ISNT only a small part. Its what most people actually DO with the miniatures. If I wanted minis for my D&D game, GW isnt the first place I go to for, reaper, iron winds have a much better selection. Even if its just for painting and sticking on a shelf hosts of other company have better minis to do that with. For space opera games? Other manufactures have jsut as good or better, for small scall RPGing

The "hobby" is a mythical part of gaming that GW lays out, only problem is they only want to include themselves. If their going to claim hobby there is a much much bigger world out there.

 keezus wrote:
I daresay that it isn't, considering that 80-90% of all included options take are weaker by design and either take away from gameplay, or are consigned to a dreary life in the bitz box (single lightning claws anyone?

Slightly off topic, but a single lightning claw will almost always outperform a power sword+CCW at equal point values.

That said, I agree that the whole "you get more stuff" argument falls apart when you consider that most of it will never actually be used. I happen to actually quite like the pouches that come with the space marine kits, but they're far to big to use without truescaling the marines. And that's another problem with the extra stuff (and generally any overused accessories that GW throws on their models): it's all too big to even look good on the models they come with.

 Harriticus wrote:
I like all the scientific analysis of if GW's products are overpriced or not going on in this thread.

You really just need to think to yourself, is this fairly priced? That alone answers the question.

$75 for 4 models, most of which are single piece. That is laughable. It almost begs to be recast based on the simplicity of the sculpts and their inflated prices. China would sell them for about $6ea.

 Fafnir wrote:
That said, I agree that the whole "you get more stuff" argument falls apart when you consider that most of it will never actually be used. I happen to actually quite like the pouches that come with the space marine kits, but they're far to big to use without truescaling the marines. And that's another problem with the extra stuff (and generally any overused accessories that GW throws on their models): it's all too big to even look good on the models they come with.

I cut the pouches down to 2/3 length, reshape the cut, score the division between the pouches so you can bend them to fit the location you are placing them, grind down the back of the pouches about 15% and the spot where I'm going to place them on the model, and then greenstuff the join. I only do this on SGT models, as to do it on rank and file is a PITA.

I'm not sure what the single lightning claw costs pointswise these days, but in the olden days, thing cost damn near what a powerfist cost.

Personally I wish FW guard kits came with more pouches/grenades and at least canteens.

 Aerethan wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
I like all the scientific analysis of if GW's products are overpriced or not going on in this thread.

You really just need to think to yourself, is this fairly priced? That alone answers the question.

$75 for 4 models, most of which are single piece. That is laughable. It almost begs to be recast based on the simplicity of the sculpts and their inflated prices. China would sell them for about $6ea.

Are they insane!?

It's a shame too, since they're actually pretty good models. Just not $90 pretty good.

 Fafnir wrote:
It's a shame too, since they're actually pretty good models. Just not $90 pretty good.

And that is the point. It's not that $75US for 4 models in general is bad. It's $75 for THOSE models that is bad. Those models are far to simple for such a price tag. Are the actors getting some giant royalties off them or something? They cost more than 3 trolls, and the trolls were already expensive.

Keep in mind that $75 is what Battle for Macragge went for, and that had a bunch of models and a rulebook.

Actors get some royalties but the copyright holder of the IP (not the actors) get most of it. At least that's how it normally works.

Backfire wrote:

No I'm not. You keep repeating same mistake, assigning some meaning to "general inflation rate" which is quite irrelevant from perspective of single company which works in niche business.

So many government programs are based on CPI. So many union wage contracts. So many insurance contracts. Inflation adjusted municipal debt instruments and on and on and on. And mysteriously, average incomes across multiple nations all seem to follow CPI in their general change year over year. And when real wages fall, then again, you can use CPI as a measurement to identify it as an exceptional case and look for the factors causing it.

CPI matters to individual companies because it really does represent the change in a basket of goods and the change in purchasing power of currency. The same reason financial planning uses it to determine real returns.

In short, it works. It's relevant because it works. Pure pragmatism. Your academic objections about medians and what really is average falls by the wayside in the face of it actually functioning.

Take it up with an economist, because I don't care about your pet issues with CPI. I'm sorry you can't see why other people might use the most reliable indicator of price change across many industries.

 Aerethan wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
I like all the scientific analysis of if GW's products are overpriced or not going on in this thread.

You really just need to think to yourself, is this fairly priced? That alone answers the question.

$75 for 4 models, most of which are single piece. That is laughable. It almost begs to be recast based on the simplicity of the sculpts and their inflated prices. China would sell them for about $6ea.

I know I'm not supposed to, but I wish the Chinese/Russians would take the FineCast stuff, correct the errors, and start production. I'd have fewer qualms about that than the FW stuff they're doing.

 Breotan wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
I like all the scientific analysis of if GW's products are overpriced or not going on in this thread.

You really just need to think to yourself, is this fairly priced? That alone answers the question.

$75 for 4 models, most of which are single piece. That is laughable. It almost begs to be recast based on the simplicity of the sculpts and their inflated prices. China would sell them for about $6ea.

I know I'm not supposed to, but I wish the Chinese/Russians would take the FineCast stuff, correct the errors, and start production. I'd have fewer qualms about that than the FW stuff they're doing.

I'm surprised bootleggers haven't done so yet. It'd be easy to forge this stuff and correct all the errors GW makes, then sell them for much less and still walk away with a hefty profit.

tjdrago wrote:
The prices ar ethe reason I've been debating on actually getting into 40k. I would like to start a Tau army, but I don't really have the funds to keep up with it.

Your biggest savings will likely be on Battlesuits. For $25+ a pop retail, you can find them for $10 used.
And a list heavy in X-V8's will creep up to 2,000 points quicker than you'd expect.

maybe i am slow painter or my life is full. if i drop 200 dollars on GW stuff I have 6-8 months of assembly and painting.
say like 2 chaos battleforces. that is nearly 80 hours of hobby time before I put it on the table.
I will put out about a grand a year on GW related stuff. in 2012 it was about $500 in forge world and $500 in battle foam.
in 2013, i will probally spend a grand on forge world.
I have such a huge back log of painting. I really shouldn't buy anything.

 Breotan wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
I like all the scientific analysis of if GW's products are overpriced or not going on in this thread.

You really just need to think to yourself, is this fairly priced? That alone answers the question.

$75 for 4 models, most of which are single piece. That is laughable. It almost begs to be recast based on the simplicity of the sculpts and their inflated prices. China would sell them for about $6ea.

I know I'm not supposed to, but I wish the Chinese/Russians would take the FineCast stuff, correct the errors, and start production. I'd have fewer qualms about that than the FW stuff they're doing.

I'd like it just because I won't touch finecast with a 39 and a half foot pole.

 Fafnir wrote:

 keezus wrote:
I daresay that it isn't, considering that 80-90% of all included options take are weaker by design and either take away from gameplay, or are consigned to a dreary life in the bitz box (single lightning claws anyone?

Slightly off topic, but a single lightning claw will almost always outperform a power sword+CCW at equal point values.

That said, I agree that the whole "you get more stuff" argument falls apart when you consider that most of it will never actually be used. I happen to actually quite like the pouches that come with the space marine kits, but they're far to big to use without truescaling the marines. And that's another problem with the extra stuff (and generally any overused accessories that GW throws on their models): it's all too big to even look good on the models they come with.

Or when you simply don't get more stuff but still have atrociously raised prices, like for Sisters.

17.25 for three battle sisters, you need three packs and a superior, or 64 USD for a squad. Even if you want to just get a five person celestian or dominion or retributor squad, you're going to pay out the ass for it. Superior of 12.25 plus four multi-meltas of 14.00 = 68.25 usd for a retributor anti-tank squad.... for five metal models, four of whom are the exact same model, no different posing at all.

 Harriticus wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
I like all the scientific analysis of if GW's products are overpriced or not going on in this thread.

You really just need to think to yourself, is this fairly priced? That alone answers the question.

$75 for 4 models, most of which are single piece. That is laughable. It almost begs to be recast based on the simplicity of the sculpts and their inflated prices. China would sell them for about $6ea.

I know I'm not supposed to, but I wish the Chinese/Russians would take the FineCast stuff, correct the errors, and start production. I'd have fewer qualms about that than the FW stuff they're doing.

I'm surprised bootleggers haven't done so yet. It'd be easy to forge this stuff and correct all the errors GW makes, then sell them for much less and still walk away with a hefty profit.

Maybe it's my small minded American perspective but, I really don't think the nations states of Russia and China necessarily care about boot-legging and Knock offs. Hell, I think the still joust on caribou is Russia. I don't know how long you could get away with Knocks off in the States. I know some people down here have done some Knock off FW and bases but, nothing on a large scale to actually turn a profit. With that said, There is a market for it.

 Melissia wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 keezus wrote:
I daresay that it isn't, considering that 80-90% of all included options take are weaker by design and either take away from gameplay, or are consigned to a dreary life in the bitz box (single lightning claws anyone?

Slightly off topic, but a single lightning claw will almost always outperform a power sword+CCW at equal point values.

That said, I agree that the whole "you get more stuff" argument falls apart when you consider that most of it will never actually be used. I happen to actually quite like the pouches that come with the space marine kits, but they're far to big to use without truescaling the marines. And that's another problem with the extra stuff (and generally any overused accessories that GW throws on their models): it's all too big to even look good on the models they come with.

Or when you simply don't get more stuff but still have atrociously raised prices, like for Sisters.

17.25 for three battle sisters, you need three packs and a superior, or 64 USD for a squad. Even if you want to just get a five person celestian or dominion or retributor squad, you're going to pay out the ass for it. Superior of 12.25 plus four multi-meltas of 14.00 = 68.25 usd for a retributor anti-tank squad.... for five metal models, four of whom are the exact same model, no different posing at all.

Honestly, Sisters players have a lot to complain about, and the pricing is just the tip of the iceberg. They've pretty much all they can to squat the damn army without actually squatting it.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 keezus wrote:
I daresay that it isn't, considering that 80-90% of all included options take are weaker by design and either take away from gameplay, or are consigned to a dreary life in the bitz box (single lightning claws anyone?

Slightly off topic, but a single lightning claw will almost always outperform a power sword+CCW at equal point values.

That said, I agree that the whole "you get more stuff" argument falls apart when you consider that most of it will never actually be used. I happen to actually quite like the pouches that come with the space marine kits, but they're far to big to use without truescaling the marines. And that's another problem with the extra stuff (and generally any overused accessories that GW throws on their models): it's all too big to even look good on the models they come with.

Or when you simply don't get more stuff but still have atrociously raised prices, like for Sisters.

17.25 for three battle sisters, you need three packs and a superior, or 64 USD for a squad. Even if you want to just get a five person celestian or dominion or retributor squad, you're going to pay out the ass for it. Superior of 12.25 plus four multi-meltas of 14.00 = 68.25 usd for a retributor anti-tank squad.... for five metal models, four of whom are the exact same model, no different posing at all.

Honestly, Sisters players have a lot to complain about, and the pricing is just the tip of the iceberg. They've pretty much all they can to squat the damn army without actually squatting it.

I'm just going to take my SoB army case and cry in the corner for a bit.

To actually make a useful comment, I bought a bunch of SoB stuff off the swap shop this fall. I eventually whittled down what I wanted to paint and play with to a 1500 point force, but I probably have 2k total in accumulated Sisters stuff. When I was about to pull the trigger and make the purchase I did the math. I spent about $300 which is expensive for an army.... but then I did the math. New from GW my total list of Sisters stuff would have cost me over $800 (all prices in USD). The Grimdark Future's Girl Power brigade has always been one of my favorite 40k factions so I didn't balk at the secondary market price tag... too much. However if new from GW was my only option I'd just not buy the army.

Ancient sculpts, all metal models, limited posing and customization options (and you better have a saw ready) for a price tag that may as well involve a back alley beating. When I did the math above... that's when I figured it was time to walk away. I still pick up used stuff here or there, but GW isn't taking my cash on new products any more.



Yes. I'm taking my ball and going home.

Even the rumor of plastic sisters can't tempt me back into the fold.... probably. Knowing GW the price point for plastic sisters will be the same as present prices.

Just another math note to add to Melissa's adding practice. Most sisters players mechanize so you need rhinos, it's also rare to not give a squad of sisters special/heavy weapons. (multi meltas are popular)
So assuming 1 Superior, 1 heavy weapon, a special weapon, rhino and six sisters you're at $108.90 and you're STILL under strength a sister. The cheap solution for that is adding a Simulacrum Imperialis which brings you to a lovely $121 and some change.

For one kitted out squad.

Prices of Sister's models is something I've already become immune too. It's Ebay and rarely GW direct for the stuff that doesn't show up much in useable condition.

 keezus wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:
True, and from a game perspective they are cheaper, but if you just want a cheap wargame to play may I suggest Risk. There is more to the hobby than simply playing a game, and you get more “hobby stuff” for the money from GW than the other “big 3”.

You should define more "hobby stuff".

More hobby stuff simply means more models - as I've said many times I can get 10 models from GW cheaper than 10 models from the other "big 3" even without counting all the "extras" in the box - which I agree are largely pointless. On that point alone GW are the better company, yes you need more to play the game, but that has already been covered to death.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

carmachu wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:


Again, this is why your definition of “the hobby” matters – and when I questioned it I was told that it refered to the whole miniature experience, including the collecting, painting and converting of minis. Yes, on a game only basis GW are more expensive – but on a Hobby basis (as per how it was defined in this thread) the GW are the cheapear because, on a model by model basis they are cheaper. From the way “The Hobby” is defined in the thread the Model to Model cost is just as relevant as the “cost of a full army”.

Now not everyone will care about the mini experience, and that is fine – there is nothing wrong with being a gamer – but this thread is about “The Hobby” of which the game is only a small part

Actually no, the game ISNT only a small part. Its what most people actually DO with the miniatures. If I wanted minis for my D&D game, GW isnt the first place I go to for, reaper, iron winds have a much better selection. Even if its just for painting and sticking on a shelf hosts of other company have better minis to do that with. For space opera games? Other manufactures have jsut as good or better, for small scall RPGing

The "hobby" is a mythical part of gaming that GW lays out, only problem is they only want to include themselves. If their going to claim hobby there is a much much bigger world out there.

Ah, but here is the rub of it are the minis you buy for D&D cheaper - on a mini per mini basis than GW? (And that will all depend on where you buy it from - but GW are not the mst expensive on a model per model basis). Now the game is a part of the hobby, I'm not saying it isn't - but this isn't "Has GW priced you out of wargaming?" It's Has GW Priced people out of the hobby?" And as such, as it was defined to me, I feel that that means we should also look at how much stuff you get to do everything that isn;t gaming with for the money.

As I've already said, if all you want is a cheap wargame why not pick Risk? My guess is because you want something that means you can pick, build, paint and convert, and GW will give you more models to do all that with for your £10 than any other "big 3" company.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fafnir wrote:
That said, I agree that the whole "you get more stuff" argument falls apart when you consider that most of it will never actually be used. I happen to actually quite like the pouches that come with the space marine kits, but they're far to big to use without truescaling the marines. And that's another problem with the extra stuff (and generally any overused accessories that GW throws on their models): it's all too big to even look good on the models they come with.

Again, get more stuff doesn't mean more "extras" I mean that £10 will get you more GW men than £10 will get you from PP, Corvus Belli or Wayd.

 Melissia wrote:
Actually, an average value doesn't have to be a median.

But let's not get in to that discussion.

A value that is way off of the average is an outlier, which is by definition exceptional.

That is a nonsense definition because you can easily have all values "exceptional", directly contradicting entire definition of "exceptional".

 Melissia wrote:
Or when you simply don't get more stuff but still have atrociously raised prices, like for Sisters.

17.25 for three battle sisters, you need three packs and a superior, or 64 USD for a squad. Even if you want to just get a five person celestian or dominion or retributor squad, you're going to pay out the ass for it. Superior of 12.25 plus four multi-meltas of 14.00 = 68.25 usd for a retributor anti-tank squad.... for five metal models, four of whom are the exact same model, no different posing at all.

True, sisters are bad and in need of much love from GW (and I do hate GW release schedule and how they just ignore certain armies but thats off topic so I won't go into any more). - but then again (without actually doing so) I could probably go through the other "big 3" companies and pick out 1 example that shows their prices as being much higher than everything else. If you look at the "standard kits" for 90% of the armies though they are plastic, so it's only fair to basis the prices off that.

agustin wrote:

Backfire wrote:

No I'm not. You keep repeating same mistake, assigning some meaning to "general inflation rate" which is quite irrelevant from perspective of single company which works in niche business.

So many government programs are based on CPI. So many union wage contracts. So many insurance contracts. Inflation adjusted municipal debt instruments and on and on and on. And mysteriously, average incomes across multiple nations all seem to follow CPI in their general change year over year. And when real wages fall, then again, you can use CPI as a measurement to identify it as an exceptional case and look for the factors causing it.

CPI matters to individual companies because it really does represent the change in a basket of goods and the change in purchasing power of currency. The same reason financial planning uses it to determine real returns.

In short, it works. It's relevant because it works. Pure pragmatism. Your academic objections about medians and what really is average falls by the wayside in the face of it actually functioning.

Take it up with an economist, because I don't care about your pet issues with CPI. I'm sorry you can't see why other people might use the most reliable indicator of price change across many industries.

There's your problem - "across many industries". It's irrelevant for SINGLE industry.

I can easily cite products which have seen similar or bigger price increases than GW products over same timespan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aerethan wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
I like all the scientific analysis of if GW's products are overpriced or not going on in this thread.

You really just need to think to yourself, is this fairly priced? That alone answers the question.

$75 for 4 models, most of which are single piece. That is laughable. It almost begs to be recast based on the simplicity of the sculpts and their inflated prices. China would sell them for about $6ea.

Umm, excuse me but why is that any more laughable than other GW pricing? Seems pretty much in line with it. Small IC's for Fantasy or 40k armies cost $20 apiece already. Granted they're more expensive than existing LotR figures, though also new sculpts.

As mentioned, if you think GW Hobbit stuff is expensive, check out Lego licensed Hobbit stuff.

Lanrak wrote:

GW plc is NOT in competition with any other war game company out there.
GW plc is NOT a war games company.

As far as they are concerned they are not, but in reality they are. My (and many others, I'd image) wargaming budget is split between GW and other companies, and any penny I spend on other companies doesn't go to GW, therefore they are in competition. Whilst GW wants to position themselves as a distinct hobby (purely through denial) that doesn't make it so.

They sell the same stuff as wargames companies, and a lot of their customers are wargamers. Whilst GW's main focus is selling toys to kids, that doesn't mean they aren't a wargames company. If they stopped selling rulesets for their games to focus on the figures I bet they'd lose a lot more customers.

 cgage00 wrote:
I'm not gonna read everything in this thread but from what I have been skimming it seems like either A) there is a general lack of knowledge on inflation and what it does to prices. B) people just gripping to grip(aka gw haters)

...and this thread has its second nomination for a new meme

Herzlos wrote:

Lanrak wrote:

GW plc is NOT in competition with any other war game company out there.
GW plc is NOT a war games company.

As far as they are concerned they are not, but in reality they are. My (and many others, I'd image) wargaming budget is split between GW and other companies, and any penny I spend on other companies doesn't go to GW, therefore they are in competition. Whilst GW wants to position themselves as a distinct hobby (purely through denial) that doesn't make it so.

They sell the same stuff as wargames companies, and a lot of their customers are wargamers. Whilst GW's main focus is selling toys to kids, that doesn't mean they aren't a wargames company. If they stopped selling rulesets for their games to focus on the figures I bet they'd lose a lot more customers.

In all honesty I think GW very much knows it's a miniature/wargame company and is competing with other miniature/wargames companies, however when talking to shareholders who have no idea what waraming is saying "we sell toys to kids" is something that they will understand. People are more likely to invest in things they understand than things that they don't.

Backfire wrote:
No, it's you who doesn't get it but let me explain. Cost changes which a company experiences do not necessarily (in fact, almost never) follow "general trend of inflation" as cost of wages, materials etc do not each slavishly follow the CPI which, I repeat, is an average.

Indeed they don't, but I can't fathom anything cost increases to a business of GW's type and scale that'd result in the kind of price rises we're seeing.

It's not increased manufacturing costs, because they've been going down steadily (and rapidly with finecast).
It's not increased staffing costs; because they've reduced staffing levels significantly and wage inflation hasn't been significant.
It's not increased business costs; because business tax rates haven't changed much.
It's not increased design costs; because they are tied to staffing costs, computerized design much be cheaper at that scale, and the publication quality has dropped noticably of late.
It's not increased licensing costs; because they own all of their IP, so they don't pay anyone any royalties.

The only reason I can think for price increases has nothing to do with the cost to the company to produce them, but purely due to reduced sales volumes (so the development costs per unit may have increased by a couple of pennies) and a need to keep profit level.

Herzlos wrote:

Backfire wrote:
No, it's you who doesn't get it but let me explain. Cost changes which a company experiences do not necessarily (in fact, almost never) follow "general trend of inflation" as cost of wages, materials etc do not each slavishly follow the CPI which, I repeat, is an average.

Indeed they don't, but I can't fathom anything cost increases to a business of GW's type and scale that'd result in the kind of price rises we're seeing.

It's not increased manufacturing costs, because they've been going down steadily (and rapidly with finecast).
It's not increased staffing costs; because they've reduced staffing levels significantly and wage inflation hasn't been significant.
It's not increased business costs; because business tax rates haven't changed much.
It's not increased design costs; because they are tied to staffing costs, computerized design much be cheaper at that scale, and the publication quality has dropped noticably of late.
It's not increased licensing costs; because they own all of their IP, so they don't pay anyone any royalties.

The only reason I can think for price increases has nothing to do with the cost to the company to produce them, but purely due to reduced sales volumes (so the development costs per unit may have increased by a couple of pennies) and a need to keep profit level.

Whilst I agree mostly with I believe you are trying to say I will add this this:

It's not increased manufacturing costs, because they've been going down steadily (and rapidly with finecast). Except the cost of Plastic (I presume since it's a derivative of oil - unless that has changed which I've asked above but nobody has said I'm wrong) has gone up above inflation
It's not increased staffing costs; because they've reduced staffing levels significantly and wage inflation hasn't been significant. Yes, I think you are right here
It's not increased business costs; because business tax rates haven't changed much. Maybe not, but (at least in my area) things like rent and building rates for commerical property has skyrocketed (which I don;t understand considering the number of empty properties, but it's still true)
It's not increased design costs; because they are tied to staffing costs, computerized design much be cheaper at that scale, and the publication quality has dropped noticably of late. In your opinion, and the general opinion of the people on this board. Some people much prefer the new designs. Also, we don't know that GW has switched to digital sculpting - anyone who has worked at a large company will know that they adapt to new technology very slowly (how many people still use XP on their work machine?)
It's not increased licensing costs; because they own all of their IP, so they don't pay anyone any royalties. Except for the LotR stuff