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.

 mikhaila wrote:
GW used to have a clue. They encouraged stores to carry more stock, so they could sell more models. Now that they have cut what I can carry, they wonder why I'm selling less. I explain the same thing over and over. The higher ups don't care, lower level sales reps have no power.

Less GW on my wall = less sales of GW in the store = more of other peoples games I sell to make up with it.

Do you have any reasonable explanation, why GW keeps on making business decisions that have been proven to hurt their sales?
Or all those 50% price hikes lately?
To me all this looks like unprovoked economic suicide. Even in a yes-company, there must be some manager with basic economic knowledge and/or common sense.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Do you have any reasonable explanation, why GW keeps on making business decisions that have been proven to hurt their sales?
Or all those 50% price hikes lately?
To me all this looks like unprovoked economic suicide. Even in a yes-company, there must be some manager with basic economic knowledge and/or common sense.

I do-- those things are generally not real. "50% price hikes" are a myth. Many armies literally now cost less than they did in 2004. Internet naysayers aside, GW is doing very well. Most people don't have the full picture and even those that claim to are often looking at things through a very biased lens.

This is currently a golden age of 40k, but many people simply can't accept the fact that GW is actually doing things right for once and hence the Internet naysayers are still in full effect.

 Kingsley wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
Do you have any reasonable explanation, why GW keeps on making business decisions that have been proven to hurt their sales?
Or all those 50% price hikes lately?
To me all this looks like unprovoked economic suicide. Even in a yes-company, there must be some manager with basic economic knowledge and/or common sense.

I do-- those things are generally not real. "50% price hikes" are a myth. Many armies literally now cost less than they did in 2004. Internet naysayers aside, GW is doing very well. Most people don't have the full picture and even those that claim to are often looking at things through a very biased lens.

This is currently a golden age of 40k, but many people simply can't accept the fact that GW is actually doing things right for once and hence the Internet naysayers are still in full effect.

Out of idle curiosity, how do you substantiate that armies cost less than in 2004? Do you mean per point? Because that's a fallacy of logic. Otherwise, I'd be interested to see the math on it.

Hobbit Starter Box 50% more than LOTR Starter Box.
Dark Talon 66% more than Storm Talon (same 2 sprues, slightly modified).
Chaos Chariot 50% more than HE chariot (also with 2 different builds).
Throgg 66% more than comparable Ogre characters.
DA Land Speeder 100% more than same sized Land Speeder Storm.
All army books and Codices more than 100% more than previous edition at release.
Tell me these are all myth.
And I haven't yet started on Fantasy's new focus on big infantry units in 3000 point games.

 Kingsley wrote:
It really goes to show just how much the "GW hate" consensus has set in on Dakka when a thread about Finecast (widely hated here) going away is met with comments insulting GW!

Being disappointed with a modeling medium is one issue. Fearing that the loss of the medium will lead to more limited options or losing your one defense against the poor medium (checking blisters before purchase) is entirely another.

I'm a big proponent of just going back to metal. It was the best of all the worlds, for detail, price and strength, and had few downsides. There has never been a single (normal) figure in the nearly 20 years I've been collecting and painting 40K (not counting large, multi-part monsters) that I ever had a lick of trouble with in metal, where what I've seen of Finecast has scared me off ever, ever buying a single model in that material, and I refuse to pay even more than metal models for those in a medium whose entire reason for being was because the high price of metal made it a cheaper medium to work in!

I would totally support the replacement of Finecast with plastic models, especially with the quality GW has shown they can produce with the Space Hulk figures, the Dark Vengeance models, and the new characters that are plastic. But the price point that they would be set at (and are at right now) is completely absurd for what you get, and won't support something that would jack the prices up even more.

They talk about how much it costs to strike a mold for plastic figures, and how "that drives the sale price so high". Absolute load of bull. They expect us to believe that they can produce something like Dark Vengeance for the price it is, with the quantity of unique sculpts inside but then sell single sprue, monopose figures of the exact same type for $25 apiece?

Granted, Dark Vengeance is priced at a *very* high price point for an intro game, but the same line of reasoning from above would make Dark Vengeance cost several hundred dollars. Going by what their new plastic Chaos Aspiring Champion costs ($20), just the seven Chaos Marines in DV would run $140US if produced outside of that box.

Many armies literally now cost less than they did in 2004.

Sorry, no. I can't think of a single army I own that could possibly cost less now than in any point in 40K history, even taking inflation into account. And that's just the models. Back in 2004 I was paying 15 dollars for a codex, or 25 if it was something like DA that needed one book and then a minidex.

And it's nowhere near the Golden Age, just the easiest to buy off-the-shelf. The decade from 2000-2010 was much healthier, in my opinion.

Obviously, because those 20 Guardsmen I got in 2004 for £12 are way cheaper to buy nowadays, when they're only £18 for 10 of them!

Also, the Space Marine battleforce is a lot cheaper now at £80, than it is was just 3 years ago at £50.

Seventy... five... dollar... Land... Raiders.

 Kingsley wrote:
I do-- those things are generally not real. "50% price hikes" are a myth. Many armies literally now cost less than they did in 2004. Internet naysayers aside, GW is doing very well. Most people don't have the full picture and even those that claim to are often looking at things through a very biased lens.

This is currently a golden age of 40k, but many people simply can't accept the fact that GW is actually doing things right for once and hence the Internet naysayers are still in full effect.

This has to be a troll.

You're trolling right?

 Scottywan82 wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
Do you have any reasonable explanation, why GW keeps on making business decisions that have been proven to hurt their sales?
Or all those 50% price hikes lately?
To me all this looks like unprovoked economic suicide. Even in a yes-company, there must be some manager with basic economic knowledge and/or common sense.

I do-- those things are generally not real. "50% price hikes" are a myth. Many armies literally now cost less than they did in 2004. Internet naysayers aside, GW is doing very well. Most people don't have the full picture and even those that claim to are often looking at things through a very biased lens.

This is currently a golden age of 40k, but many people simply can't accept the fact that GW is actually doing things right for once and hence the Internet naysayers are still in full effect.

Out of idle curiosity, how do you substantiate that armies cost less than in 2004? Do you mean per point? Because that's a fallacy of logic. Otherwise, I'd be interested to see the math on it.

Here's what I used in a recent small game of 40k:

1x Space Marine Librarian (10 USD in 2004, 16 USD now)
2x 10 Space Marine Tactical Marines, including plasma gun and missile launcher (80 USD total in 2004 (as two special weapons blisters are required to get the plasma guns), 74.50 total USD now)
1x 10 Space Marine Scouts with bolters (48 USD total in 2004, 50 USD total now)
2x Space Marine Rhino (60 USD total in 2004, 74.50 USD total now)
2x Space Marine Vindicator (80 USD total in 2004, 105.50 USD total now)

The cost to make this army in July 2004 would be 278 USD. The cost to make this army now would be 320.50 USD. However, when you adjust for inflation, 278 USD in 2004 turns out to be worth 337.38 in 2012-- so the actual cost to make the army went down over eight years! Further, several of the kits used are much better now than they were in 2004. In fact, every listed model except the Rhino is now a better sculpt, and often with more customizability than was available in 2004.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kroothawk wrote:
Hobbit Starter Box 50% more than LOTR Starter Box.
Dark Talon 66% more than Storm Talon (same 2 sprues, slightly modified).
Chaos Chariot 50% more than HE chariot (also with 2 different builds).
Throgg 66% more than comparable Ogre characters.
DA Land Speeder 100% more than same sized Land Speeder Storm.
All army books and Codices more than 100% more than previous edition at release.
Tell me these are all myth.
And I haven't yet started on Fantasy's new focus on big infantry units in 3000 point games.

Sure, you can point to examples where costs went up more than one might expect. But I could just as easily point to Command Squads, Devastators, Wyches, Immortals, Reaver Jetbikes, Scourges, Grey Knight Terminators, etc.-- all these units literally cost less money than they did in 2004 in absolute terms BEFORE accounting for inflation. Further, the newer models are better in all cases.

 Sidstyler wrote:
Personally I think PP charges what they do for their models because they saw GW doing it and thought they could get away with it, too.

Having visited PP facility in Seattle a while back I'd say their product is more expensive due to their entire manufacturing department being one giant clusterf***. That place looked a total confused mess. I've seen some pics of GW's UK factory as well, totally different work philosophy it looks like.

 Kingsley wrote:
Sure, you can point to examples where costs went up more than one might expect. But I could just as easily point to Command Squads, Devastators, Wyches, Immortals, Reaver Jetbikes, Scourges, Grey Knight Terminators, etc.-- all these units literally cost less money than they did in 2004 in absolute terms BEFORE accounting for inflation. Further, the newer models are better in all cases.

Every single one of those models doesn't exist any more and has been replaced with a plastic model.

On the other hand, plastic Cadians and Catachans are still the same kits as when they were first released, and cost double what they did when they first came out.

Actually, HBMC, they cost near enough triple...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
Sure, you can point to examples where costs went up more than one might expect. But I could just as easily point to Command Squads, Devastators, Wyches, Immortals, Reaver Jetbikes, Scourges, Grey Knight Terminators, etc.-- all these units literally cost less money than they did in 2004 in absolute terms BEFORE accounting for inflation. Further, the newer models are better in all cases.

Every single one of those models doesn't exist any more and has been replaced with a plastic model.

Right. That's... the point? All of the examples Kroothawk gave also compared new kits to old ones.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
On the other hand, plastic Cadians and Catachans are still the same kits as when they were first released, and cost double what they did when they first came out.

Yeah. Those are a bad deal, especially given the kit quality isn't very good. On the other hand, not all armies get screwed like that. Imperial Guard unfortunately seem to have received the short end of the stick there. I'm hoping the next Imperial Guard release comes with a redone basic trooper box, but I'm not exactly holding my breath...

And Tyranids. Don't forget that they got divided into two boxes from their old 1 Gaunt Box.

Things naturally go down when transitioning from metal to plastic (perfect example being 3 Metal Raveners or Killer Kanz vs the plastic 3-boxes we have now). But not everything does. When the plastic Termy box in 2nd Ed came out (around 2nd Ed Space Hulk) it was around AUD$2 (in mid 1990's money) less than the metal Terminator box. The plastic Dread kits have always been the same cost as the old metal Dread kits.

And we have all these new releases, from Hobbit through Dark Angels and now Warriors of Chaos and still you harp on about how some things have gone down. Throgg costs an insane amount of money. The new Elrond foot&mounted is just absurd. Codex/Army Book costs are far and above what a hard-cover book of that page-count should cost (FFG books, with more pages and better production values cost less). The Forsaken cost more than other similar units... just 'cause! The DA Termies cost more than regular Termies... just 'cause! And still you talk about Command Squads and Devastators like it's relevant.

Put down the Kool-Aid and open your eyes Kingsley. We're not imagining this trend, or exaggerating the impact or scope of the latest price increases.

The 10 man marine box also cost £10 when it was first released. That came with a missile launcher, basic sergeant and flamer.

Since then, it's had a couple of slight recuts, some added bling and an extra 5 individual weapons. Its current price is £23.

 Kingsley wrote:

 Scottywan82 wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
Do you have any reasonable explanation, why GW keeps on making business decisions that have been proven to hurt their sales?
Or all those 50% price hikes lately?
To me all this looks like unprovoked economic suicide. Even in a yes-company, there must be some manager with basic economic knowledge and/or common sense.

I do-- those things are generally not real. "50% price hikes" are a myth. Many armies literally now cost less than they did in 2004. Internet naysayers aside, GW is doing very well. Most people don't have the full picture and even those that claim to are often looking at things through a very biased lens.

This is currently a golden age of 40k, but many people simply can't accept the fact that GW is actually doing things right for once and hence the Internet naysayers are still in full effect.

Out of idle curiosity, how do you substantiate that armies cost less than in 2004? Do you mean per point? Because that's a fallacy of logic. Otherwise, I'd be interested to see the math on it.

Here's what I used in a recent small game of 40k:

1x Space Marine Librarian (10 USD in 2004, 16 USD now)
2x 10 Space Marine Tactical Marines, including plasma gun and missile launcher (80 USD total in 2004 (as two special weapons blisters are required to get the plasma guns), 74.50 total USD now)
1x 10 Space Marine Scouts with bolters (48 USD total in 2004, 50 USD total now)
2x Space Marine Rhino (60 USD total in 2004, 74.50 USD total now)
2x Space Marine Vindicator (80 USD total in 2004, 105.50 USD total now)

The cost to make this army in July 2004 would be 278 USD. The cost to make this army now would be 320.50 USD. However, when you adjust for inflation, 278 USD in 2004 turns out to be worth 337.38 in 2012-- so the actual cost to make the army went down over eight years! Further, several of the kits used are much better now than they were in 2004. In fact, every listed model except the Rhino is now a better sculpt, and often with more customizability than was available in 2004.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kroothawk wrote:
Hobbit Starter Box 50% more than LOTR Starter Box.
Dark Talon 66% more than Storm Talon (same 2 sprues, slightly modified).
Chaos Chariot 50% more than HE chariot (also with 2 different builds).
Throgg 66% more than comparable Ogre characters.
DA Land Speeder 100% more than same sized Land Speeder Storm.
All army books and Codices more than 100% more than previous edition at release.
Tell me these are all myth.
And I haven't yet started on Fantasy's new focus on big infantry units in 3000 point games.

Sure, you can point to examples where costs went up more than one might expect. But I could just as easily point to Command Squads, Devastators, Wyches, Immortals, Reaver Jetbikes, Scourges, Grey Knight Terminators, etc.-- all these units literally cost less money than they did in 2004 in absolute terms BEFORE accounting for inflation. Further, the newer models are better in all cases.

Yes, but it almost all situations those models went from metal --> plastic. You can't make a straight cost analysis. The models are cheaper to produce now. Now to mention your tactical marine situation you end up with 12 marines, including an extra special weapon guy.

If you want to make valid comparisons, compare the first plastic kits to the current plastic kits.

Then come back and tell us how "cheap" armies became.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And we have all these new releases, from Hobbit through Dark Angels and now Warriors of Chaos and still you harp on about how some things have gone down. Throgg costs an insane amount of money. The new Elrond foot&mounted is just absurd. Codex/Army Book costs are far and above what a hard-cover book of that page-count should cost (FFG books, with more pages and better production values cost less). And still you talk about Command Squads and Devastators like it's relevant.

Looking at the new releases, I see a general trend of prices going down on core units.

Dark Eldar had price drops across essentially the entire range and giant improvements to the model quality as well-- Wyches, Reavers, Scourges, Warriors (once you factor in specials/heavies), Raiders, Ravagers, Talos, Hellions...

Necrons also came with price drops, with reduced prices for Immortals, Pariahs (now Lychguard), and Flayed Ones (yeah, they suck, but...).

Grey Knights brought price drops on both Grey Knight Terminators and Grey Knights in power armor and opened a huge range of options for both relative to the old metal models.

Chaos Space Marines had fewer core troop kits being redone, but the one that did (Raptors) got a price drop, better models, and more options.

Dark Angels do have a mild price increase on their Terminators, but perhaps that is because they have far more bitz than any other Terminator kit ever made? I agree that the Nephilim/Dark Talon and LSV/Darkshroud seem overpriced, but see those kits as outliers. The Ravenwing Command Squad went down in price when you consider what you would have had to convert to get those bitz previously.

I predict that the next army to get a big revamp-- probably the Sisters of Battle-- will see similar price drops.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Put down the Kool-Aid and open your eyes Kingsley. We're not imagining this trend, or inflating these prices. GW is.

GW inflates some prices and reduces others. Their general business model for 40k at present seems to be to reduce or keep relatively stable the prices on core units, while increasing the prices on big centerpiece models and characters. That's fine by me-- most of the army is made up of core units, after all! I don't mind paying high prices for a single model.

I'm not very interested in talking about the relative merits of GW and FFG books with someone who works for FFG, so let's just say our opinions diverge there.

i hope they get rid of Finecast, because i would actually like to start collecting GW models again...
i have not bought a single Finecast mini...
i have wanted at least half of the characters that have been released, but the material is a no go for me...
i would have bought them if they had used Forgeworld resin...

i like resin, metal, and plastic...
what i don't like, is not being able to depend on a quality product...
at least with plastic kits i know that i will get a mini i can work with, and not have to fly 1000 miles to L.A. to try and get a replacement...

cheers
jah

 Kingsley wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And we have all these new releases, from Hobbit through Dark Angels and now Warriors of Chaos and still you harp on about how some things have gone down. Throgg costs an insane amount of money. The new Elrond foot&mounted is just absurd. Codex/Army Book costs are far and above what a hard-cover book of that page-count should cost (FFG books, with more pages and better production values cost less). And still you talk about Command Squads and Devastators like it's relevant.

Looking at the new releases, I see a general trend of prices going down on core units.

Dark Eldar had price drops across essentially the entire range and giant improvements to the model quality as well-- Wyches, Reavers, Scourges, Warriors (once you factor in specials/heavies), Raiders, Ravagers, Talos, Hellions...

Necrons also came with price drops, with reduced prices for Immortals, Pariahs (now Lychguard), and Flayed Ones (yeah, they suck, but...).

Grey Knights brought price drops on both Grey Knight Terminators and Grey Knights in power armor and opened a huge range of options for both relative to the old metal models.

Chaos Space Marines had fewer core troop kits being redone, but the one that did (Raptors) got a price drop, better models, and more options.

Dark Angels do have a mild price increase on their Terminators, but perhaps that is because they have far more bitz than any other Terminator kit ever made? I agree that the Nephilim/Dark Talon and LSV/Darkshroud seem overpriced, but see those kits as outliers. The Ravenwing Command Squad went down in price when you consider what you would have had to convert to get those bitz previously.

I predict that the next army to get a big revamp-- probably the Sisters of Battle-- will see similar price drops.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Put down the Kool-Aid and open your eyes Kingsley. We're not imagining this trend, or inflating these prices. GW is.

GW inflates some prices and reduces others. Their general business model for 40k at present seems to be to reduce or keep relatively stable the prices on core units, while increasing the prices on big centerpiece models and characters. That's fine by me-- most of the army is made up of core units, after all! I don't mind paying high prices for a single model.

I'm not very interested in talking about the relative merits of GW and FFG books with someone who works for FFG, so let's just say our opinions diverge there.

There is a difference between lowering the price and releasing an entirely new kit in plastic. Comparing plastics to plastics on a model by model basis (so no claiming it is the same price because you would have had to go get a blister to get that special weapon) things have only gone up and up and up.

 jonolikespie wrote:
There is a difference between lowering the price and releasing an entirely new kit in plastic. Comparing plastics to plastics on a model by model basis (so no claiming it is the same price because you would have had to go get a blister to get that special weapon) things have only gone up and up and up.

Sure, but the way I see it, the reasonable thing to do is to compare what an army-- as an army-- actually cost in the past and what it costs now. That way we remove any bias due to liking one type of kit or material over another and end up with how much it would actually cost to make the army, then and now. This also helps get a more complete picture than cherrypicking units that support one claim or the other. Personally, I found that my prices went down. I bet for some people (foot IG) their prices will have gone up. But certainly the general claim of "GW is constantly hiking prices" seems to fall down when sometimes prices drop after eight and a half years of purported hikes, even if every army doesn't benefit the same.

 Kingsley wrote:
but the way I see it

I found your problem.

 Kingsley wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
There is a difference between lowering the price and releasing an entirely new kit in plastic. Comparing plastics to plastics on a model by model basis (so no claiming it is the same price because you would have had to go get a blister to get that special weapon) things have only gone up and up and up.

Sure, but the way I see it, the reasonable thing to do is to compare what an army-- as an army-- actually cost in the past and what it costs now. That way we remove any bias due to liking one type of kit or material over another and end up with how much it would actually cost to make the army, then and now. This also helps get a more complete picture than cherrypicking units that support one claim or the other. Personally, I found that my prices went down. I bet for some people (foot IG) their prices will have gone up. But certainly the general claim of "GW is constantly hiking prices" seems to fall down when sometimes prices drop after eight and a half years of purported hikes, even if every army doesn't benefit the same.

Alright, DE, GKs, Necron imomortals and paraias, chaos raptors, and all those other things were metal. Yes, the price did go down now they they are plastic but what else is left in the line (other than SoB) that need to be converted over? Prices drop when something becomes plastic (most of the time, the HE white lions and phoenix guard only dropped a couple of bucks IIRC) but now that pretty much everything is plastic or finecast we are not going to see any price drops in the future.
DEs, GKs and Necorns did all go down overall (I assume, I haven't done the numbers) because they were all incredibly old, mostly metal, ranges. There is nowhere left to go but up.

 Kroothawk wrote:

To me all this looks like unprovoked economic suicide. Even in a yes-company, there must be some manager with basic economic knowledge and/or common sense.

They fire those. I think you said it yourself when you mentioned something about golden parachutes and cashing in on stock options, lol.

They have a new business model, and it doesn't involve you. In fact, it doesn't involve Games Workshop. It involves precisely the people that would be responsible for maintaining a sustainable company, and no one else.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
but the way I see it

I found your problem.

Translation: My anecdotal evidence is right and your anecdotal evidence is wrong.

So in your world you can be correct but that doesn't make everyone else wrong or prove the overall arguement wrong.

I could just as easily say something like; My Dantewing Army cost is 1000% more than it used to be in 1989.

I would be just as correct at you.

Edited due to misunderstanding.

The quote you were responding to was arguing that we should compare pricing based on anecdotes.

So TalonZahn's objection was ironic.

 Ahtman wrote:
Trying to take the high road doesn't work nearly as well when you can't tell an obvious joke from an argument. It is nice that you know what the word 'anecdotal' is, and what the word 'evidence' is, now you just need to learn what they mean and how to actually apply them. If you did, you would realize neither were evidence, and at best Kingsleys was anecdotal, but that would be pushing it considering the limited context of the truncated quote.

Your quote wasn't supposed to be in there, just his.

All his evidence is based off an anecdote he presented.

You can work the math from there.

I'm not sure what kind of math Kingsley is doing... GW raises their prices far and above inflation rates.

Yes, some kits get a lot cheaper when they finally make it to plastic and you end up getting 3-5 when you used to have to buy one at a time.

But have you seen the price of mega-armored Nobz in finecast? Holy shEEt!

Not to mention GW production costs are going down. They are getting more efficient. So prices should be DROPPING ACROSS THE BOARD!

How does a kit that has been in production for several years suddenly cost 15-20 dollars more to make? It doesn't. They are just greedy sonsabitches.