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.

agustin wrote:
A quote from the OP:

I heavily rely on Dark Angels figures for my DYI chapter but I'm wondering if GW has finally hit that magical point where I simply can't justify the cost of their product

Where are you getting this "can't afford it" business? It's an element YOU are adding to the thread title. The OP talked about justifying the cost of GW's product, not "can't afford it."

Is there actually a point of disagreement between you and anyone else in the thread at this point? I can't tell with how you're muddying the discussion by insisting on some meaningless distinction about the definition of "priced out."

To bring things back to the topic at hand, where do you think GW is going to go from here with their prices? What will be the effect?

I'm getting the "can't afford it" from the priced out in the question. Priced out is an actualy phrase in the English Language that means (from the point of view of the buyer" that you cannot afford it for the price.

However, you are right, this is getting off topic so I will instead agree that, to the question of "are GW overpriced for what you get" then the answer is yes.

As to where I think it's going to go, I don't see it changing anything at all. Thinking about it logically wargaming is still a pretty cheap hobby (as you mentioned before when compared to snowbording or my own other hobby of archery - if you think GW are expensive try spending £200 on some arrows that you'll only use for 6 months or £250 on a target) Therefore the only ones who see GW as expensive are the ones who are into wargaming and then look around at what else they can get. GW, weather we like it or not, are usually a players first point of call to the hobby due to their larger presence. The fact that you can actually see stores in "normal" locations is a big plus. Whilst other games are in LGS they tend to be out of the way due to the need for gaming space - this means that unlike GW stores you don't realise they exist unless you are looking for them (i.e. after you have already bought your GW stuff).

So, until such time as GW becomes expensive enough that those who might take it up look at it and go "Why for the same cost I could take up archery" then I don't think they are in any trouble at all. Indeed even if it did become as expensive as archery I'm sure there would still be people who would prefer wargaming over archery so would still choose GW.

All I can say is it looks like I better buy my FW Termies now before the price hike.

Stranger83 wrote:

Eilif wrote:
Stranger 83,
You've backed yourself into a corner where the only way you can win your argument that the best place to spend your £10 is GW is to ONLY compare GW price-per-miniature to two of the most expensive miniature makers out there. And those are games who don't require nearly as many miniatures as GW games.

You've formed an argument based on discounting the dozens of other miniature wargaming options whose price per-figure AND price per army are drastically cheaper than any of the "Big 3". And you've discounted them soley because they don't fit into your point of view.

Give it up man. You've LOST!

But my point is still the same, if GW are not the most expensive why do people not compalin about the more expensive companies pricing people out of the market? Again, the fact that there are other companies cheaper than GW doesn;t make them the most expensive. By all means complain that you find GW too expensive, but if you do the, on the stand point of the fully hobby (i.e. not just the game) then you should find the compaines more expensive than them to all be too expensive and complain about them just as much.

And for price per model IS important when you inclde both "Build" and "Paint" into the hobby, which I was told by the thread OP is what was meant by "The Hobby"

I think we're talking about a few different things here.

1)While the hobby does include painting/gaming/building/etc, it shoudl be pointed out that most folks seem to be taking the OP's use of the word "The Hobby" to mean specifically "The Games Workshop Hobby". This is a fair assumption, because GW prices can only drive someone out of the "GW hobby". GW can't price someone out any other part of the wargaming hobby, because they only make and sell the "GW Hobby".

2) Price per model is important. I agree that building and painting are a big part of the hobby. I will even go so far as to agree that the big 3 do price their miniatures similarly with some being even more expensive per miniature than GW. However, your artificial limitation to just the big 3 is nonsensical. There are far more miniature makers than the big 3, and nearly all of them (with the exception of a few high-end-boutiques) make miniatures that cost less-per-mini.

3) Lastly, regardless of whether painting and building are part of the hobby or not, the fact remains that collecting a standard size GW army is more expensive than any other game, and that's enough to price someone out of the GW hobby, regardless of how much painting and building are included in that cost. The idea that a much higher cost-for-entry is offset by simply having more figures to build and paint is an argument that will not be enough for many folks who seem (if this thread is any indication) to believe that GW has priced them out.

agustin wrote:
@Stranger83 - if you could summarize what I'm supposed to have understood by reading your posts in this thread, I'd appreicate it. You made some claim about GW being among the cheapest miniature gaming hobby options and that if GW is too expensive for someone, then all others priced at the same price per model will also lose that sale. Is there something else?

I don't believe either of those two claims are true, but I don't want to deal with them further if they are not what you are saying.

My summary is this. By it's very definition "Priced out" from the point of view of the buyer means that you cannot afford to buy what you want with the funds you have. So, by definition if you have been priced out of someething that is not the most expensive then you must have been priced out of everything that is even more expensive too.

Looking at "the hobby" as a whole (i.e. build/paint/play), and not just "what do I need to play the game" then GW are not the most expensive company out there, therefore to say that GW and GW alone are pricing people out of the hobby is wrong.

You might not buy GW because you don't like the rules, you might not buy GW because you don't like the models, you might not buy GW because you don;t like the mediums they use to make the models - but non of these have anything to do with price - they are value for money questions, which is not what is asked.

Now yes I did say GW were one of the cheapest - and I have admitted on multiple occasions that this was a poor choice of words when all I was trying to say is that - taking the full "build/play/paint" into equasion - that GW are not the most expensive.

By definition if you are buying something that is more expensive than the thing you are not buying you have not been "priced out" of it, you have simply decided the the thing you are buying is better value for money.

I actually made no claim about if someone doesn;t buy a GW model because of the price then all the more expensive companys will also not make the sale, just that if you are choosing to buy the more expensive model it isn't because YOU have been priced out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eilif wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:

Eilif wrote:
Stranger 83,
You've backed yourself into a corner where the only way you can win your argument that the best place to spend your £10 is GW is to ONLY compare GW price-per-miniature to two of the most expensive miniature makers out there. And those are games who don't require nearly as many miniatures as GW games.

You've formed an argument based on discounting the dozens of other miniature wargaming options whose price per-figure AND price per army are drastically cheaper than any of the "Big 3". And you've discounted them soley because they don't fit into your point of view.

Give it up man. You've LOST!

But my point is still the same, if GW are not the most expensive why do people not compalin about the more expensive companies pricing people out of the market? Again, the fact that there are other companies cheaper than GW doesn;t make them the most expensive. By all means complain that you find GW too expensive, but if you do the, on the stand point of the fully hobby (i.e. not just the game) then you should find the compaines more expensive than them to all be too expensive and complain about them just as much.

And for price per model IS important when you inclde both "Build" and "Paint" into the hobby, which I was told by the thread OP is what was meant by "The Hobby"

I think we're talking about a few different things here.

1)While the hobby does include painting/gaming/building/etc, it shoudl be pointed out that most folks seem to be taking the OP's use of the word "The Hobby" to mean specifically "The Games Workshop Hobby". This is a fair assumption, because GW prices can only drive someone out of the "GW hobby". GW can't price someone out any other part of the wargaming hobby, because they only make and sell the "GW Hobby".

2) Price per model is important. I agree that building and painting are a big part of the hobby. I will even go so far as to agree that the big 3 do price their miniatures similarly with some being even more expensive per miniature than GW. However, your artificial limitation to just the big 3 is nonsensical. There are far more miniature makers than the big 3, and nearly all of them (with the exception of a few high-end-boutiques) make miniatures that cost less-per-mini.

3) Lastly, regardless of whether painting and building are part of the hobby or not, the fact remains that collecting a standard size GW army is more expensive than any other game, and that's enough to price someone out of the GW hobby, regardless of how much painting and building are included in that cost. The idea that a much higher cost-for-entry is offset by simply having more figures to build and paint is an argument that will not be enough for many folks who seem (if this thread is any indication) to believe that GW has priced them out.

OK, for 2) I'll say that yes, there are other cheaper companies, but the reason I fixate on the other big three is because they are more expensive and thus prove my point that it isn;t being "priced out" it' making a choice that you are prepared to pay more for something bette (or if it costs the same that you prefer company 1 to company 2). Yes there are cheaper companies too, but just because GW are not the cheapest doesn;t make them the most expensive. If a Ford is cheaper than an Audi that doesn;t make Audi the most expensive company.

For 3) I've always said GW are the most expensive for the game, this is why I questioned what "the hobby" was before I started posting, as there is more to "the hobby" than just the game, yes if you are doing the hobby just for the game part then GW are more expensive, but I've bever claimed otherwise.

As for 1) based on just looking at GW in a vacume I think they are one of the cheapest hobbies I could think off that actually means you have to aquire things (Videos games are probably cheaper, so is hobbies that involve making things if you had free access to a workshop) so therefore no, if I look at just GW and acted like there were no other wargamer companies at all (weather cheaper or more expensive) then no I do not think that the hobby would be overpriced.

Oh dear I am sorry I could not stop laughing when I saw this http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=&prodId=prod1890027a

Now they have put some stuff into bundles for us, no discount just easier to manage but boy oh boy do the prices look ridiculous for this one, £100 for 17 guys, £100 I just really dont get it, didnt know wether to burst into tears or laughter.

Stranger83 wrote:

As to where I think it's going to go, I don't see it changing anything at all.

So GW will likely keep raising prices 10%+ percent per year, some people will stop buying and their revenues will be flat? This also makes space for increased competition, so it's probably fair to assume that we'll see more individual product lines from multiple companies, more 3rd party bitz sellers, more choices, more options. It only really sucks if people want to buy stuff from GW and they get to pay 10%+ more for the same product.

Thinking about it logically wargaming is still a pretty cheap hobby (as you mentioned before when compared to snowbording or my own other hobby of archery - if you think GW are expensive try spending £200 on some arrows that you'll only use for 6 months or £250 on a target)

I used to do 4x4 off roading, so I know what you mean. Redoing my suspension with a lift kit and custom shocks, struts and leaf spring mods so I can off road 10 or so times more over a year got very, very expensive.

Therefore the only ones who see GW as expensive are the ones who are into wargaming and then look around at what else they can get.

I see people who don't know anything about wargaming pick up a GW kit at the local shop, making a sucking sound when they see the sticker and put it back down all the time. Even people not into the hobby can see when the price of some plastic dudes is high.

GW, weather we like it or not, are usually a players first point of call to the hobby due to their larger presence. The fact that you can actually see stores in "normal" locations is a big plus.

In the UK. In the places I've lived, GW has never had a presence in the normal places.

Whilst other games are in LGS they tend to be out of the way due to the need for gaming space

Really? I don't think I've ever seen a store where the product is hard to get at. Sounds like terrible store design.

- this means that unlike GW stores you don't realise they exist unless you are looking for them (i.e. after you have already bought your GW stuff).

The UK must be strange place when it comes to buying miniatures as GW shelves make up the minority in all the independent stores I've been to over the last few years. They might still be large, but they're usually still smaller than the board game sections.

agustin wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:

Whilst other games are in LGS they tend to be out of the way due to the need for gaming space

Really? I don't think I've ever seen a store where the product is hard to get at. Sounds like terrible store design.

- this means that unlike GW stores you don't realise they exist unless you are looking for them (i.e. after you have already bought your GW stuff).

The UK must be strange place when it comes to buying miniatures as GW shelves make up the minority in all the independent stores I've been to over the last few years. They might still be large, but they're usually still smaller than the board game sections.

Apologies, I didn't word this quite right, I meant that the shop it'self is out of the way - i.e. on an industrial estate or in a converted mill on the outskirts of town, places that you only really travel to because you know that a specific shop is there - I wasn;t trying to say that the shop hid all it's merchadise in the back...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

agustin wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:

As to where I think it's going to go, I don't see it changing anything at all.

So GW will likely keep raising prices 10%+ percent per year, some people will stop buying and their revenues will be flat? This also makes space for increased competition, so it's probably fair to assume that we'll see more individual product lines from multiple companies, more 3rd party bitz sellers, more choices, more options. It only really sucks if people want to buy stuff from GW and they get to pay 10%+ more for the same product.

Yes, but flat revenues (or revenues that increase in line with inflation anyway) and lower production costs due to needing to make more models is still an increase in profits.

Stranger83 wrote:My summary is this. By it's very definition "Priced out" from the point of view of the buyer means that you cannot afford to buy what you want with the funds you have. So, by definition if you have been priced out of someething that is not the most expensive then you must have been priced out of everything that is even more expensive too.

Even more expensive on what basis? Individual figure? Size of a full army? Could you see a situation where someone would be willing to pay higher prices per figure in order to take advantage of a lower price for a complete army?

Looking at "the hobby" as a whole (i.e. build/paint/play), and not just "what do I need to play the game" then GW are not the most expensive company out there, therefore to say that GW and GW alone are pricing people out of the hobby is wrong.

I don't understand what you mean by build/paint/play. Are you talking about the amount of money needed to: 1)Get the rules. 2) Get the rules for your faction/army 3) Get a full sized army 4)Get paints and hobby supplies, 5) Get access to terrain and 6) Play the game? If so, then GW is probably the MOST expensive.

You might not buy GW because you don't like the rules, you might not buy GW because you don't like the models, you might not buy GW because you don;t like the mediums they use to make the models - but non of these have anything to do with price - they are value for money questions, which is not what is asked.

Um. I know you have your own strange definition of "priced out" but you seem to be using "value" in a strange way as well. You can't have "value for money" that doesn't have anything to do with price. What you get for your money is directly related to the price. It's right in the phrase "for money" that you used.

Now yes I did say GW were one of the cheapest - and I have admitted on multiple occasions that this was a poor choice of words when all I was trying to say is that - taking the full "build/play/paint" into equasion - that GW are not the most expensive.

Only if build/paint/play is defined in such a way that spending more somehow means spending less.

agustin wrote:

- this means that unlike GW stores you don't realise they exist unless you are looking for them (i.e. after you have already bought your GW stuff).

The UK must be strange place when it comes to buying miniatures as GW shelves make up the minority in all the independent stores I've been to over the last few years. They might still be large, but they're usually still smaller than the board game sections.

Boardgames on the continent are a much bigger business than in the UK, you ask most people to name some boardgames here and all they can come up with is Monopoly and a few others, nothing like the masses of quality boardgames that are made all the time.

agustin wrote:
I see people who don't know anything about wargaming pick up a GW kit at the local shop, making a sucking sound when they see the sticker and put it back down all the time. Even people not into the hobby can see when the price of some plastic dudes is high.

True, but are these people looking for a hobby or a game? If your gonna pick up a packet of plastic soldiers and go "£15!!!!" then you are probably not in a place that you can take up a new hobby. These people are probably actually just after a new game and wondered into the store because it had "game" in the title and were expecting to find a new monopoloy or something. Again, GW is a cheap hobby, if you run from £15 for a box a plastic men that you can use forever you're also not gonna spend £200 on arrows that'll last 6 months or a whatever your other hobby might be.

Oh, if it was only 15 pounds here...

Stranger83 wrote:
[True, but are these people looking for a hobby or a game? If your gonna pick up a packet of plastic soldiers and go "£15!!!!" then you are probably not in a place that you can take up a new hobby. These people are probably actually just after a new game and wondered into the store because it had "game" in the title and were expecting to find a new monopoloy or something. Again, GW is a cheap hobby, if you run from £15 for a box a plastic men that you can use forever you're also not gonna spend £200 on arrows that'll last 6 months or a whatever your other hobby might be.

They're in a game store. And they often then drop a couple hundred on three or four board games. Or maybe a model kit. Or perhaps some new RPG books. Or maybe even a Warmachine starter. So no, it's not that they don't have money or aren't looking for games. It's that they see GW's prices and think paying them is DUMB.

You've got this idea going on that if someone doesn't choose to pay GW's prices that it must be because they have no money. It's simply not true. Lots of people think GW's prices are stupid and then happily buy a new 50 inch TV. You need to drop this idea because it's bull crap.

MTG players have this perception that wargaming (GW/PP) is a far more expensive hobby, despite the fact that it is significantly cheaper than playing MTG seriously. The initial buy-in price usually crushes any small spark of interest.

agustin wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:My summary is this. By it's very definition "Priced out" from the point of view of the buyer means that you cannot afford to buy what you want with the funds you have. So, by definition if you have been priced out of someething that is not the most expensive then you must have been priced out of everything that is even more expensive too.

Even more expensive on what basis? Individual figure? Size of a full army? Could you see a situation where someone would be willing to pay higher prices per figure in order to take advantage of a lower price for a complete army?

Yes I could, but this person would be in it for the game first and formost - not every hobbiest is is all I am saying

agustin wrote:

Looking at "the hobby" as a whole (i.e. build/paint/play), and not just "what do I need to play the game" then GW are not the most expensive company out there, therefore to say that GW and GW alone are pricing people out of the hobby is wrong.

I don't understand what you mean by build/paint/play. Are you talking about the amount of money needed to: 1)Get the rules. 2) Get the rules for your faction/army 3) Get a full sized army 4)Get paints and hobby supplies, 5) Get access to terrain and 6) Play the game? If so, then GW is probably the MOST expensive.

I'm talking about the number of models you get to build and paint with. Using the regiment I build for my grandad as an example - I didn;t care about how weel the things work in a game, I wasn;t bothered if company A's models needed 200 for the game as opposed to company B's only needing 10 I wasn;t going to play with them, it was the building and painting I went for so I bought the ones that were best value for that.

There are many other hobbiests who do the same - the fact that companies can sell models that don;t even have a game attached proves this fact.

agustin wrote:

You might not buy GW because you don't like the rules, you might not buy GW because you don't like the models, you might not buy GW because you don;t like the mediums they use to make the models - but non of these have anything to do with price - they are value for money questions, which is not what is asked.

Um. I know you have your own strange definition of "priced out" but you seem to be using "value" in a strange way as well. You can't have "value for money" that doesn't have anything to do with price. What you get for your money is directly related to the price. It's right in the phrase "for money" that you used.

First off, my definition of "Priced out" is the English definition of it, so if it's strange I apologise, but I'm using it right. Value for money is tied to price, but just because something is more expensive does not mean it is less value for money. For example if I tried to sell you a cardboard box for £100 then it is poor value for money, if I tried to sell you a diamond ring for £120 it is good value for money, even though it is mpore expensive than the box.

agustin wrote:

Now yes I did say GW were one of the cheapest - and I have admitted on multiple occasions that this was a poor choice of words when all I was trying to say is that - taking the full "build/play/paint" into equasion - that GW are not the most expensive.

Only if build/paint/play is defined in such a way that spending more somehow means spending less.

Again, 10 space marines for cheaper then 10 winter guard - thus I get 10 models for less money from GW, I don't understand why that is hard to understand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

agustin wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:
[True, but are these people looking for a hobby or a game? If your gonna pick up a packet of plastic soldiers and go "£15!!!!" then you are probably not in a place that you can take up a new hobby. These people are probably actually just after a new game and wondered into the store because it had "game" in the title and were expecting to find a new monopoloy or something. Again, GW is a cheap hobby, if you run from £15 for a box a plastic men that you can use forever you're also not gonna spend £200 on arrows that'll last 6 months or a whatever your other hobby might be.

They're in a game store. And they often then drop a couple hundred on three or four board games. Or maybe a model kit. Or perhaps some new RPG books. Or maybe even a Warmachine starter. So no, it's not that they don't have money or aren't looking for games. It's that they see GW's prices and think paying them is DUMB.

You've got this idea going on that if someone doesn't choose to pay GW's prices that it must be because they have no money. It's simply not true. Lots of people think GW's prices are stupid and then happily buy a new 50 inch TV. You need to drop this idea because it's bull crap.

But if they are only picking up the box and seeing that 10 plastic space marines are more than they will spend then won;t they do the same thing when they pick up a box of 10 winter guard and see it is more expensive? This is all I am trying to say. I'm presuming that people that pick up a box and then put it down don;t some how magically come to understand that they need fewer models for one game over the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well, don't take this a capitulation, but I'm now going out for drinks, so I'll let you go back to slaggng GW off without someone offering a different opinion

Well, I was hoping asking you directly would clarify your position, but all I get from you is constantly moving goal posts.

I still can't even really isolate what you are trying to say other than some strange idea that GW is cheaper because people won't buy as much of it because they don't necessarily want it for the game or something strange like that. And the weird thing was that you presented that notion inside of the idea of "build/paint/play" which implies actually playing the game, when you mean the opposite.

Build/paint/play makes GW more expensive not less because to actually use what they offer, you need way, way more models.

Unless of course, you're using a stupid definition of build/paint/play that actually means build / paint / ignore-the-game.



...

So as it keeps coming up the price to price I thaght I would put something up some comparison. These prices are what I pay as we have been looking at what stranger pays a few times now. And these at are based on both being import products

Starting with warmachine and a leagion of everblight army.
absylonia-the-terror-of-everblight $11 (this is the warlock and leader, so I have compare to HQ)
warbeasts ( these I have compare to dreadnaughts as a bit smaller they do compare for size)
carnivean $36
scythean $41
Shredder pack $9
Units
Blighted archers $27
Warspears $41
Solos
Nyss Shepard $9
2 forsaken $18 ($9 each)
$192 total
19 models total

Now for a space marine one.
Space marine Chaplin with jump pack $23 (this was one of the cheapest HQ I could buy)

Dreadnaught $120( ouch now these are slightly bigger than the big war beasts and 60 each)

Troops
Space marine tac squad $50
scouts unit $33
Terminator Squad $60
Total $286 (even dropping a Dreadnaught it is still more expencive)
Total models 23

I try and compare as best I could here, and I would say the tac box if just model to model is best value. But as a army starts for both the price difermce is quite difernt for me, all these prices are from the same online store.( you can also take out the second Dreadnaught to compare as they are little bigger than the 2 big war beasts)

I would actuly be interested to see how these prices compare around difernt places. And I didn't go into rules with this but it shows I think why people here at least are leaving GW games.

Doing this on my iPad so math may be off :0

 keezus wrote:
MTG players have this perception that wargaming (GW/PP) is a far more expensive hobby, despite the fact that it is significantly cheaper than playing MTG seriously. The initial buy-in price usually crushes any small spark of interest.

And MTG has resale value, my 2nd ed models arent worth anything, but my magic cards from alpha and beta are worth a ton.

@Apple fox -- part of the problem with the comparison is that your Legion of Everblight purchase is a complete army while your Space Marine purchase is tiny and doesn't come close to a full size game.

I actuly was trying to compare models with similar size. Trying to make a full marine army I wouldn't go that way I know.
Half of why I did it was to show how the model to model comparessen isn't strait forward as it had been shown.

I get it now. You're showing that even with plastics, GW price per figure is not actually any better than Warmachine/Hordes. It's actually worse. Unless you live in the UK I suppose.

 Ravenous D wrote:

 keezus wrote:
MTG players have this perception that wargaming (GW/PP) is a far more expensive hobby, despite the fact that it is significantly cheaper than playing MTG seriously. The initial buy-in price usually crushes any small spark of interest.

And MTG has resale value, my 2nd ed models arent worth anything, but my magic cards from alpha and beta are worth a ton.

I'd give you money for them lol

it was what I was hoping to convey, I thaght I was being quite generous with the tac squad :( as without it the price looks quite Nasty(I think it's one of GW best value box of the top of my head) its realy hard to compare in this way and I allready could make some adjustments to make it better. But Its not what I was hoping to show.

Regardless of how the game plays I don't think anyone will just buy 5 tac boxes for 50 models.

OK, had a few to drink, so hopefully this is coherant:

agustin wrote:
Well, I was hoping asking you directly would clarify your position, but all I get from you is constantly moving goal posts.

I still can't even really isolate what you are trying to say other than some strange idea that GW is cheaper because people won't buy as much of it because they don't necessarily want it for the game or something strange like that. And the weird thing was that you presented that notion inside of the idea of "build/paint/play" which implies actually playing the game, when you mean the opposite.

Build/paint/play makes GW more expensive not less because to actually use what they offer, you need way, way more models.

Unless of course, you're using a stupid definition of build/paint/play that actually means build / paint / ignore-the-game.



...

Build/paint/play, meaning there are 3 components to the hobby,

the building part – I get more GW stuff to build than I do with a company that has more expensive minis but a cheaper game for the same amount of money

The painting part - I get more GW stuff to paint than I do with a company that has more expensive minis but a cheaper game for the same amount of money

the play part – I have to spend more with GW to play than I do with a company that has more expensive minis and a cheaper game.

So, on a 2/3 ratio GW wins for the cost if you are looking at it from a Build/Paint/Play perspective.

Now if you are looking at it from the perspective of “I build and paint my models because I want to play with them” then yes, GW are the most expensive, thats because building and painting are simply stages that you go through so that you can play the game, nothing wrong with this but it's not the Build/Paint/Play hobby as I see it (and as other hobbiest who are more into the Build/Paint part see it)
For example, my Hail Ceaser Roman army started life as a painting project, I wanted to paint some Romans because I quite liked the idea of working on them, so I bought the models first, painted them up bought more, painted them up and eventually I realised that I had a army that I could use to play a game, so I started to play, but to me, and the hobbiests like me, the “game” stage of Build/Paint/Play is the optional stage, and to us the cost to play the game is less important as we would be perfectly happy to never play a game with our minis ever.

Now unless you are imply that I am doing the hobby wrong then on a 2 of the areas of Build/Paint/Play GW are cheaper than the companies that charge more for minis, frankly I don;'t see what you are having trouble seeing – and constantly saying I am changing goal posts when all my posts stay very central to the tennant that there is more to “the hobby” than the game and if you want to build and paint GW are not the most expensive is either the mark that you don't understand what changing the goalpost means or you are intentially saying things that you know to be false to make it sound like my position is not correct because you can't actually come up with an answer to my point that I get 10 Space marines for cheaper than the price of 10 Winter Guard (or similar comparisons that put GW under models from other companies). If you think I'm being unfair here then please explain how I have moved the goalposts, other than 3 pages ago when I was saying “one of the cheapest” but I've already apologised for that and explained it was not what I intended to say. At what point have I ever said anything other than on a model to model basis then GW are not the most expensive so if you are priced out of GW then you are also priced out of the ones who are more expensive and so should also direct your anger at them too.

Apple fox wrote:
So as it keeps coming up the price to price I thaght I would put something up some comparison. These prices are what I pay as we have been looking at what stranger pays a few times now. And these at are based on both being import products

Starting with warmachine and a leagion of everblight army.
absylonia-the-terror-of-everblight $11 (this is the warlock and leader, so I have compare to HQ)
warbeasts ( these I have compare to dreadnaughts as a bit smaller they do compare for size)
carnivean $36
scythean $41
Shredder pack $9
Units
Blighted archers $27
Warspears $41
Solos
Nyss Shepard $9
2 forsaken $18 ($9 each)
$192 total
19 models total

Now for a space marine one.
Space marine Chaplin with jump pack $23 (this was one of the cheapest HQ I could buy)

Dreadnaught $120( ouch now these are slightly bigger than the big war beasts and 60 each)

Troops
Space marine tac squad $50
scouts unit $33
Terminator Squad $60
Total $286 (even dropping a Dreadnaught it is still more expencive)
Total models 23

I try and compare as best I could here, and I would say the tac box if just model to model is best value. But as a army starts for both the price difermce is quite difernt for me, all these prices are from the same online store.( you can also take out the second Dreadnaught to compare as they are little bigger than the 2 big war beasts)

I would actuly be interested to see how these prices compare around difernt places. And I didn't go into rules with this but it shows I think why people here at least are leaving GW games.

Doing this on my iPad so math may be off :0

Apple fox, I feel your pain here, obviously in this case GW have priced people out – this is the problem with regional pricing and it really sucks for you guys, obviously in this case GW are the most expensive in all 3 areas of build/paint/play and so yes, could well be pricing people out of the market (and based on sales details in AUS they are doing)

I sometimes wonder if they have such extreme prices so they can make lots even selling to indepents here :0 as some of those prices I put up where 15$(or more) off.

Having a look about it looks like you pay one some GW stuff 40% less than I would here why you pay more for wh/h stuff ( it looks about 25% ish more )

I also think that GW has its units cheeper, why the wm/h have there big beasts cheeper due to how it plays.
Which is what makes the direct comparison look so difrnt :(

@Stranger83

Is build / paint / play really an accurate way of breaking down how people engage with the hobby? It seems like a convenient artifice to give GW a pass on two thirds of the activity.

I'm sure there are lots and lots of people who don't play GW's games. I think Jervis even said it was a majority at some point. I'm not convinced that there are lots of people who just build and don't paint though. I think modeling should probably be a single category and gaming with the models another.

It's very convenient that you make the aspects of the hobby that you enjoy two thirds of the hobby and activity you don't care about a minority share of the hobby. Very convenient indeed. It sets up the discussion for you to have two out of three areas you can make a case for GW being reasonably priced when the reality is it's only one area. And even then, it's not cheaper for GW. GW Paints are a ripoff compared to Vallejo, P3, Coat D'Arms, Reaper and many others when you actually look at the price per ml of paint. Compare GW greenstuff vs GF9. Compare hobby tools from GW versus hobby company tools like Zona or Excel. Similarly if you want to model and paint, there are actual model kits out there that are so much better than GW kits with working running gear, possibility, and multi-direction shifting moulds that allow details to be clear on all sides of a piece-- as opposed to GW's old two-sided mould approach. Check out a good Tamiya or HG or higher Gundam kit, for example. You'll get hours more enjoyment as a scale modeler buying scale model kits than you will out of crappy GW kits made with old mould technology.

If you want to separate out model building as a separate part of the hobby, GW loses here as well as there are real dedicated scale modeling options that make GW look horrible.


.

Why is 'build' being given such weighting? What sort of proportion of purchasers are going to build their models with no intention of ever painting OR playing?

I agree. It's a stupid thing to separate out as a category. Stranger83 is only doing it so he can credit GW with getting two out of three at reasonable costs. So he can remove the argument about the actual cost of a full size army in order to make GW look better. It's a disingenuous categorization.

agustin wrote:
I agree. It's a stupid thing to separate out as a category. Stranger83 is only doing it so he can credit GW with getting two out of three at reasonable costs. So he can remove the argument about the actual cost of a full size army in order to make GW look better. It's a disingenuous categorization.

So in order for GW to come up on top, you need to:

a) ignore the difference between plastics and resin
b) ignore any other companies that are not PP, Corvus Belli or Wyrd (for some weird reason)
c) ignore army sizes in which most players play with that game system

Frankly, I don't see why one does need to apply those restriction, unless you are driven to prove that GW is less expensive compared to other companies. It's the opposite of research: you already have a conclusion and you twist your parameters in order for you to come up with the same conclusion.

 heartserenade wrote:
It's the opposite of research: you already have a conclusion and you twist your parameters in order for you to come up with the same conclusion.

Pretty much.

I actually think GW can raise their prices a bit further. I think they can hit parity with Forge World and enough people will still buy that they'll make enough money. The customer base will continue to shrink, of course, but by the time it's a real problem Kirby and Friends will have retired and it'll be someone else's problem.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/New_Stuff/NIGHT_GOBLIN_COMMAND_SET.html


Forgeworld is now less expensive than the GW counterparts. For the size, detail and medium, these models come out to $16 each roughly after conversion rates (£30.00)

A GW Finecast squig(and much uglier than the GW one) model is $22.25
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440078a&prodId=prod1600112a

An insanely old goblin great shaman is $13.25
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440078a&prodId=prod1130266

And a comparable Finecast BSB model is $24.75(albeit not a goblin)
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440090a&prodId=prod1530064a

$60 for 3 terrible GW models, or $48~ for 3 rather nice looking ForgeWorld models.