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.

Time spent at minimum wage to buy something is a pointless argument. The only real factor is how much discretionary income a person between minimum and median wage has and the fact is Australians DON'T have that much discretionary income.

What difference does it make if it takes an Australian on minimum wage 2 hours less to earn the money to buy a riptide if they've had to work 2 hours longer to reach the point where they can actually have discretionary income...

EDIT: I don't know how discretionary income compares between UK and Oz, I just know it's not all that much comparing Oz to US as that's the only place I have actual experience.

SeanDrake wrote:
At current Aus minimum wage it will take roughly 5hrs rounding down to earn enough for the Tau Battlesuit team.

Except it won't. because at minimum wage you're working two jobs just to pay the rent and feed yourself, and have no time or cash leftover for wargaming.


Minimum wage is completely irrelevant when you're looking at someone's buying power. Disposable income is the one you're looking for. And even then, national averages tell you nothing substantial, since they leave out too much pertinent information.

It's not as simple as 'this person earns more, so can afford to pay more.' Not by a long shot.

 insaniak wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:
At current Aus minimum wage it will take roughly 5hrs rounding down to earn enough for the Tau Battlesuit team.

Except it won't. because at minimum wage you're working two jobs just to pay the rent and feed yourself, and have no time or cash leftover for wargaming.


Minimum wage is completely irrelevant when you're looking at someone's buying power. Disposable income is the one you're looking for. And even then, national averages tell you nothing substantial, since they leave out too much pertinent information.

It's not as simple as 'this person earns more, so can afford to pay more.' Not by a long shot.

This... exactly this. People on Centerlink get roughly $400 a fortnight. Rent in Sydney is about $400+ a week. To buy a house here in Sydney, of decent quality, you're looking at minimum $650k, one priced at $450k in the City boundaries will probably be a fibro shack. Even in a country town a reasonable house will set you back at the very minimum $280k.

Let's take Sydney out of the equation, given its something like the 3rd most expensive city to live in - in the world. Go back the country town pricing, a good mate of mine lives in South Carolina (Greenville to be exact), a decent house there is between $60k to $90k, compared to a house here which ranges (in a similar demographic) $280k to $400k - so roughly four times the price. Throw in standard living costs... well, you can see that a minimum wage earner isn't going to be concerned about plastic men in the slightest.

Generally speaking, the only people (on any continent) who are interested in the game and actually have models are middle or high income earners - who are NO WHERE near the minimum wage bracket. Frankly the only people I know of that played the game when I started (at age 13) were all private school educated middle income families. Anyone else who started, didn't do so until they were in their early 20's earning a decent wage. Also, the wages here are restricted until you hit 21. So even it a 20yo is doing the same work as a 30yo, there is a general maximum that can be paid to that person. Makes a bit of a difference when you're trying to put petrol in the car and save your bum off for a place to live, or even rent. It more or less forces kids these days to live at home until they turn 21 and can actually afford to move out.

In short, there are so many aspects to be considered across economic demographics that a base statement like "your minimum wage is higher" lacks serious insight into our cost of living compared to that in America, or any other country for that matter.

 Morachi wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:
At current Aus minimum wage it will take roughly 5hrs rounding down to earn enough for the Tau Battlesuit team.

Except it won't. because at minimum wage you're working two jobs just to pay the rent and feed yourself, and have no time or cash leftover for wargaming.


Minimum wage is completely irrelevant when you're looking at someone's buying power. Disposable income is the one you're looking for. And even then, national averages tell you nothing substantial, since they leave out too much pertinent information.

It's not as simple as 'this person earns more, so can afford to pay more.' Not by a long shot.

This... exactly this. People on Centerlink get roughly $400 a fortnight. Rent in Sydney is about $400+ a week. To buy a house here in Sydney, of decent quality, you're looking at minimum $650k, one priced at $450k in the City boundaries will probably be a fibro shack. Even in a country town a reasonable house will set you back at the very minimum $280k.

Tangent but that's ridiculous. I'm living in outer Sydney, and my fiancee and I are looking at building a house this year. We're looking at $400k for a 3 bedroom, brand new house. $450k for a fibro shack? I'm afraid you're still looking too close in Sydney.

That said, $400k is too much by far. I could buy a vineyard in France for that.

Not really, I live our just past Fairfield and the house i'm staying in right now is valued at over 580k. The one across the road just went for 650k. A firbo based shack down the road was indeed over $450k. Are you living out past Mt.Druitt? The only other place that is reasonable for affordability is Campbelltown or Penrith which I wouldn't consider part of Sydney. Regarding distance, it used to take me 2 hours in and 2 hours out from where I am getting to work in the CBD (Pyrmont). To be generous, knock 25 mins off each way if just going to Central, simply because the tram is cut out.

 Morachi wrote:
Not really, I live our just past Fairfield

Yeah, you're looking too close to Sydney. Look in places farther out - for example, I'm looking in the Macarthur/Camden area. It's still only about 40 minutes from the city, but much better priced.

That would be if you're driving yeah? It takes me 45-55 mins to drive from where I am now to get into the CBD, but naturally I don't due to the cost of parking there. It's cheaper for me to park at Cabramatta and take the train in with a multipass - even buying a yearly ticket costs upwards of $2200 and $5 a day parking locally.

 Morachi wrote:
That would be if you're driving yeah? It takes me 45-55 mins to drive from where I am now to get into the CBD, but naturally I don't due to the cost of parking there. It's cheaper for me to park at Cabramatta and take the train in with a multipass - even buying a yearly ticket costs upwards of $2200 and $5 a day parking locally.

Even train is about 50 minutes to the CBD. I know, I did it for 4 years.

Anyway, this has gone pretty off topic.

Indeed, and now back to our regular scheduled viewing - GW, minimum wage and the lack of personal lubricant.

 -Loki- wrote:
That said, $400k is too much by far. I could buy a vineyard in France for that.

Yeah but... then you'd be in France.

But in france, you don't pay the Australia tax for GW miniatures!

Looking at the quality of the new AoW dwarves and the fact that 20 of them is really not much compared to GW dwarves, I'm pushing our dwarf players in that direction.

Mantics human faction look amazing, tempting to get a brettonian force up and going, maybe even empire.

On topic - PDFs scanned are still free Australians have proven time and again they are loyal - to a point. Its at the stage now that the people I know think nothing of people using print outs or using resin copies that are 1/3 price and very difficult to know the difference.

darkslife wrote:
Looking at the quality of the new AoW dwarves and the fact that 20 of them is really not much compared to GW dwarves, I'm pushing our dwarf players in that direction.

I'd push people to AoW's models simply because they look better. They could cost more than GW's stuff and I'd push them that way. Every kit they've done as an alternate to GW stuff looks better by a mile.

darkslife wrote:
On topic - PDFs scanned are still free Australians have proven time and again they are loyal - to a point. Its at the stage now that the people I know think nothing of people using print outs or using resin copies that are 1/3 price and very difficult to know the difference.

Yeah, you might want to not discuss that. Dakkas got a pretty strong 'no piracy talk' rule.

darkslife wrote:

On topic - PDFs scanned are still free Australians have proven time and again they are loyal - to a point. Its at the stage now that the people I know think nothing of people using print outs or using resin copies that are 1/3 price and very difficult to know the difference.

I have no tolerance for theft.

If you can't afford to buy the books then go play a game you can afford. I can't afford to live in a $3M mansion but I'd like to. Should I just move into someone else's house and call it mine? No. I can't afford a new Lamborghini but I'd love to have one, should I just walk into a dealership and steal it? No. I'm pretty sure both of those things would land me in jail. Stealing a codex by refusing to pay for it and instead downloading a "free" pdf is theft just the same, regardless of any "justification" you may come up with. You may as well walk into your local game shop, grab what you want and saunter out without so much as a backwards glance towards the till. Yes, that would make you a thief. I know instead of calling it thievery we have a sexy name, aka "pirating" and "all the cool kids are doing it" but quite frankly it shows a complete lack of moral character to even suggest, much less engage in, that activity.

GW created and produced the content. It's up to GW to pick a price. Just because that price is more than "people you know" being willing to pay for it is not justification in outright theft of GW property. If "people I knew" or my friends engaged in this practice, they would no longer be people I knew. Small example, my oldest son asked me to copy his SM codex the other day. His reason was that it had been left in my car when he needed it. I own both the iPad version and the physical one, so I've already paid for the content twice. Know what I did? I told him no and explained how that is still theft. If it's a problem that neither copy is available when he wants it, then we need to buy another one or somehow ensure one of the two already purchased copies are available.

Some people may think that they've already paid for it so what's the big deal. To them I'd say: I have a car, if I'm using it then my wife can't. Should she then be able to just pick up another one at the local dealership without paying for it? After all, I already bought one... No, that would be theft. It's the exact same thing.

If the price is high enough and you still want to play this game, then get with your friends to pull your money together to buy it and pass it around. However, stay away from copying it.

/soapbox.

clively wrote:

darkslife wrote:

On topic - PDFs scanned are still free Australians have proven time and again they are loyal - to a point. Its at the stage now that the people I know think nothing of people using print outs or using resin copies that are 1/3 price and very difficult to know the difference.

I have no tolerance for theft.

If you can't afford to buy the books then go play a game you can afford. I can't afford to live in a $3M mansion but I'd like to. Should I just move into someone else's house and call it mine? No. I can't afford a new Lamborghini but I'd love to have one, should I just walk into a dealership and steal it? No. I'm pretty sure both of those things would land me in jail. Stealing a codex by refusing to pay for it and instead downloading a "free" pdf is theft just the same, regardless of any "justification" you may come up with. You may as well walk into your local game shop, grab what you want and saunter out without so much as a backwards glance towards the till. Yes, that would make you a thief. I know instead of calling it thievery we have a sexy name, aka "pirating" and "all the cool kids are doing it" but quite frankly it shows a complete lack of moral character to even suggest, much less engage in, that activity.

GW created and produced the content. It's up to GW to pick a price. Just because that price is more than "people you know" being willing to pay for it is not justification in outright theft of GW property. If "people I knew" or my friends engaged in this practice, they would no longer be people I knew. Small example, my oldest son asked me to copy his SM codex the other day. His reason was that it had been left in my car when he needed it. I own both the iPad version and the physical one, so I've already paid for the content twice. Know what I did? I told him no and explained how that is still theft. If it's a problem that neither copy is available when he wants it, then we need to buy another one.

Some people may think that they've already paid for it so what's the big deal. To them I'd say: I have a car, if I'm using it then my wife can't. Should she then be able to just pick up another one at the local dealership without paying for it? No, that would be theft. It's the exact same thing.

/soapbox.

Ok, I don't personally pirate any things (well, I may make or download backups for things I already own). HOWEVER, I'm not opposed to others pirating things if they are aware it's illegal and they are doing something illegal, just the same way I don't really care if other people speed on the road as long as they are safe drivers and are aware they are doing something illegal.

No, that would be theft. It's the exact same thing.

Actually, no, it's not the exact same thing. There's a reason theft is treated differently to copyright infringement by the courts, because it's not the same thing. In one case you are depriving someone of their physical possession (stealing) in the other you are making a copy of it, hence "copyright infringement".

A more apt analogy would be if you were using the car and the wife can't, she goes and gets the schematics for a Ford Mustang and then builds one herself. It's very different to physically going in and taking an object that belongs to someone else.

Copyright infringement is illegal, but that doesn't make it theft, is it wrong? That's a matter of opinion, I personally think it's wrong which is why I don't do it, but I've spoken to other people who feel you shouldn't be allowed to copyright anything as it stifles innovation (I disagree with that, but I just use it as an example that not everyone agrees it is wrong). The same way that not stopping at a stop sign when there's no other cars is illegal, but IMO is not "wrong".

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Copyright infringement is illegal, but that doesn't make it theft, is it wrong?

Of course it is. if it's illegal, it's wrong. People may to mental hoops to justify doing something wrong, but that doesn't make it any less wrong.

 -Loki- wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Copyright infringement is illegal, but that doesn't make it theft, is it wrong?

Of course it is. if it's illegal, it's wrong. People may to mental hoops to justify doing something wrong, but that doesn't make it any less wrong.

No, if it's illegal, it's the government telling you it's wrong. Ideally the government is telling you it's wrong because that's what the community at large thinks, but that's not always the case. Whether it's actually wrong or not is debatable.

Likewise there can be things that many people perceive as wrong or unethical but are totally legal.

I legitimately don't think not stopping at a stop sign or speeding 10km/h over is "wrong", I have absolutely no guilt in my mind if I roll through a stop sign when I know there's no cops watching or speed when I know there's no speed cameras around. It's still illegal though, and I know that.

There's some people (and I'm not one of them) that don't think copyright infringement is wrong, so making these arguments of "you wouldn't steal a car, would you?" is pointless, because it's not the same.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


Ok, I don't personally pirate any things (well, I may make or download backups for things I already own). HOWEVER, I'm not opposed to others pirating things if they are aware it's illegal and they are doing something illegal, just the same way I don't really care if other people speed on the road as long as they are safe drivers and are aware they are doing something illegal.

So.. it would be okay for me to throw a rock through your window as long as I'm aware that breaking your window is illegal..and you wouldn't care. That is a very odd rationalization.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

No, that would be theft. It's the exact same thing.

Actually, no, it's not the exact same thing. There's a reason theft is treated differently to copyright infringement by the courts, because it's not the same thing. In one case you are depriving someone of their physical position (stealing) in the other you are making a copy of it, hence "copyright infringement".

A more apt analogy would be if you were using the car and the wife can't, she goes and gets the schematics for a Ford Mustang and then builds one herself. It's very different to physically going in and taking an object that belongs to someone else.

Copyright infringement is illegal, but that doesn't make it theft, is it wrong? That's a matter of opinion, I personally think it's wrong which is why I don't do it, but I've spoken to other people who feel you shouldn't be allowed to copyright anything as it stifles innovation (I disagree with that, but I just use it as an example that not everyone agrees it is wrong). The same way that not stopping at a stop sign when there's no other cars is illegal, but IMO is not "wrong".

Yes, the words "copyright infringement" and "theft" have distinct and somewhat separate legal meanings, what could that possibly matter? The following is focused on the idea of downloading a PDF of a codex that you have neither paid for nor have any intention of paying for.

GW has created a product for which it demands to receive compensation for the use thereof. Using it without paying for it is depriving GW of that compensation. Sure, you may never have bought it in the first place, which is fine as you would engage in a different activity. However, you have chosen to engage in the activity of playing their game and as such they should be compensated. The way to do this is by buying the rules. Plain and simple: you are stealing their content. Just because others do it doesn't make it right.

For kicks, I'll quote the US Supreme court: (MGM v. Grokster)

No one disputes that 'reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius.' United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131, 158 (1948). And deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft.

Regarding copyright stifling innovation: I haven't heard that one. Patents stifling innovation? - absolutely, but not copyright. There are certainly classes of patents that should never have existed; but that is an entirely different subject.

 -Loki- wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Copyright infringement is illegal, but that doesn't make it theft, is it wrong?

Of course it is. if it's illegal, it's wrong. People may to mental hoops to justify doing something wrong, but that doesn't make it any less wrong.

In other words - "GW is wrong for having stupidly high prices on their e-book codecii."

"Piracy is wrong."

"Two wrongs do not make a right."

In my estimation, the right way to handle GW's ridiculous prices is to buy games and miniatures from other folks.

Mantic.
Reaper.
Hasslefree.
Heresy.
Stonehaven.
More Reaper....
Raging Heroes.

All are good folks that deserve my money more than GW at this time. So, they get my money - rewarding them for not being dicks.

GW is being dicks - they do not get my money. Rewarded appropriately for being dicks.

WotC behaved like dicks in the lead up to 4e - I have not gotten anything from WotC in years.
Paizo has not acted like dicks - the last thing that I bought from them was about fifteen minutes ago.
But... unfair comparison... WotC seems to have relearned how not to be dicks, but they don't have anything that I want....

The Auld Grump

clively wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


Ok, I don't personally pirate any things (well, I may make or download backups for things I already own). HOWEVER, I'm not opposed to others pirating things if they are aware it's illegal and they are doing something illegal, just the same way I don't really care if other people speed on the road as long as they are safe drivers and are aware they are doing something illegal.

So.. it would be okay for me to throw a rock through your window as long as I'm aware that breaking your window is illegal..and you wouldn't care. That is a very odd rationalization.

No, I didn't say that. Your example is one where there is a clear and distinct victim, me, you're throwing a brick through my window.

Copyright infringement is a much murkier situation. You aren't physically taking something from GW, you aren't physically damaging something at GW, you aren't physically depriving them of something. The best argument you can make for "damages" is that you are depriving them of a sale, but that in itself is debatable.

Yes, the words "copyright infringement" and "theft" have distinct and somewhat separate legal meanings, what could that possibly matter? The following is focused on the idea of downloading a PDF of a codex that you have neither paid for nor have any intention of paying for.

If I punch you in the face is it the same as if I put my hands around your throat and throttle you to death? If you pinch a girl's arse is it the same as raping her? These distinctions matter. There's a world of difference between copying a Codex to a PDF and walking in to a store and stealing a Codex off the shelf.

I never said I don't think copyright infringement is wrong, in fact I expressly said I think it's wrong hence why I don't do it. But I don't think it's "wrong" because I'm stealing from GW, I couldn't care one way or the other, I think it's wrong because I think GW have the right to decide to set a price on the product and if I don't like it I won't pay it. Not everyone agrees with me on that and if they don't, I have no problem with them pirating it and sending GW a message that "We want your wares, but we are not willing to pay the price you are asking".

Just the same as if someone leaves something valuable in their car with the window down, I'm sure as hell not going to steal it, but I'm not going to feel overly sorry if someone else comes and pinches it off them (and that is a case which is much more clear cut "right" and "wrong" than copyright infringement).

I don't mind if you take the stance of "Copyright infringement is wrong". I'm not against that stance. What I'm against is the preposterous idea that copyright infringement can be thought of as being the same as stealing a car or even stealing a book, it ain't the same.

Plain and simple: you are stealing their content.

It ain't that simple and to think so is just being purposefully naive. Even Wikipedia has a blurb on it...

Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as theft. In copyright law, infringement does not refer to theft of physical objects that take away the owner's possession, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.[6] Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft holding. For instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985), bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property. Instead, "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: '[...] an infringer of the copyright.'" The court said that in the case of copyright infringement, the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law—certain exclusive rights—is invaded, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.[1]

If it were that simple, it would not need to be discussed whether it's the same as theft and there wouldn't be a court case saying that it's not theft.

IMO, it's wrong, but I've had enough long drawn out conversations with people to realise not everyone agrees that it's wrong and not even for the reason "everyone does it".

Regarding copyright stifling innovation: I haven't heard that one. Patents stifling innovation? - absolutely, but not copyright. There are certainly classes of patents that should never have existed; but that is an entirely different subject.

Like I said, I don't agree with the guy who said that, but I've heard it put forward as an argument that if people want to release something to the public domain they have a right to try and protect it but others have a right to obtain it freely if they can. Not an opinion I agree with, but definitely one that exists.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The best argument you can make for "damages" is that you are depriving them of a sale, but that in itself is debatable.

It's really not.

Did you download a pirate copy instead of purchasing a legal copy?

If so, you deprived someone of a sale.


Proving that is difficult, but the fact of it isn't debateable at all.

 insaniak wrote:
Did you download a pirate copy instead of purchasing a legal copy?

Then you get into the area of "But I never would have bought it anyway!", but I don't want to get into this debate at all.

*flees*

 insaniak wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The best argument you can make for "damages" is that you are depriving them of a sale, but that in itself is debatable.

It's really not.

Did you download a pirate copy instead of purchasing a legal copy?

If so, you deprived someone of a sale.


Proving that is difficult, but the fact of it isn't debateable at all.

As HBMC said, whoever said you were gonna purchase it in the first place. It's often thrown around that a game or a song or a movie has X million dollars in "lost sales" because of piracy when there is zero proof that any of those people actually would have bought it.

If it weren't debatable... why are we discussing it? Of course it's debatable, that's why it's debated

Ok, I'm going to bow out of this discussion because it's off topic. But I'm going to sum up my points first...

1. Illegal does not automatically = wrong. "Wrong" is a discussion of philosophy, not law.

2. Software piracy is not equivalent to physical theft. Comparing piracy to stealing a car or a book is hyperbole.

3. I think it's wrong, but the idea that it's wrong is relative/debatable and trying to guilt people in to thinking it's wrong by comparing it to car theft is not constructive.

4. My personal form of protesting prices is simply not to buy it, but I have no problems with people who instead pirate. It's not piracy that caused the lost sale, it was high prices. I might have a problem with it if I believed it was actually stealing, but the logical part of my brain forbids me from thinking it's stealing. Rather I think it's against the ideal that a company should be able to set a price and consumers should honour it or not use it.

Ok, I'm out... closing window and trying to forget argument before someone replies in a way that I feel compelled to reply

 insaniak wrote:
Did you download a pirate copy instead of purchasing a legal copy?

If so, you deprived someone of a sale.

That's not at all true because many instances of piracy are things that the person wouldn't have bought. Pirating the codex for your own army might have deprived GW of a sale since you use the book often enough to be willing to buy one, but can you really say the same thing for all the other armies in the game that you pirated just to see what they're capable of? Probably not. You might have browsed them at the store, or borrowed the relevant ones from a friend, but you almost certainly wouldn't have bought hundreds of dollars worth of books for armies you don't even play. So in that case, unlike stealing one off a shelf, GW hasn't lost anything.

And then there's the cases where piracy increases sales. If you pirate the codex for an army you're interested in you might buy models (and maybe even a legitimate copy of the codex) that you wouldn't have otherwise considered if you had to spend $999999999 up front just to see if you even like the army. So not only has nobody lost a physical product they've potentially gained sales as a result of piracy.

(The same is true for piracy of other products as well. It's far from guaranteed that a pirated copy is equal to a lost sale, or even that piracy hurts sales overall.)

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
As HBMC said, whoever said you were gonna purchase it in the first place.

That makes it hard for anyone who isn't you to prove your intentions. It doesn't change whether or not you bought it instead of buying it.

Presumably you know whether or not you would have bought it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
That's not at all true because many instances of piracy are things that the person wouldn't have bought.

If you wouldn't have bought it, you didn't download it instead of buying it. You just downloaded something that you wouldn't have bought.

I'm not making a statement on right or wong here... just commenting on the idea that it is somehow debatable that your action cost a sale. You know if your actions cost a sale, because you know whether or not you would purchase the book.

Pretty easy solution to all of this. I am tired of reading these threads with dull humor.

1 - VPN into a different region to purchase digital products.

2 - Order GW products from the U.S. and ship them in. Either via a U.S. store that will do this, or a fellow gamer you can trust. Don't purchase physical goods
locally.

That's it. Let's move on and talk about something else now.

Relic07 wrote:
2 - Order GW products from the U.S. and ship them in. Either via a U.S. store that will do this, or a fellow gamer you can trust. Don't purchase physical goods
locally.

That's it. Let's move on and talk about something else now.

As long as stores keep shipping to Oz I really have no problem with GW Oz pricing, but their latest trade terms seem to be trying to shut this down.

Finding a friend to send you stuff I always find is easier said than done. I've been living in the US for almost a year and I wouldn't want to hassle any of my work colleagues with sending me stuff and haven't made any wargamer friends as of yet.

Maybe we need to start a forum "People willing to ship crap to Oz"

Either way, if the discussion so offends you, perhaps you should not click on threads with "GW" and "Australia" in the title, coz they're almost always gonna be about the same thing... pricing. At least until GW successfully raise the price of all other countries to match it downunder.

Ok this is weird the prices are all over the place today. The DA codex is now down to 55 now it was 80 before but the previous codex the chaos marines is still 80. The demons fantasy army book is 50 but the chaos warriors is 55? There is no consistency with the prices at all. At least now only the tau and chaos are 80 maybe DA dropped in sales when it was 80 and they dropped it hope that will happen with Tau and they will leave this price gouging alone. Even odder the latest codex the demons one is 55.

Thachng wrote:
Ok this is weird the prices are all over the place today. The DA codex is now down to 55 now it was 80 before but the previous codex the chaos marines is still 80. The demons fantasy army book is 50 but the chaos warriors is 55? There is no consistency with the prices at all. At least now only the tau and chaos are 80 maybe DA dropped in sales when it was 80 and they dropped it hope that will happen with Tau and they will leave this price gouging alone. Even odder the latest codex the demons one is 55.

Saturation of the market is my answer in your region. People bought when it was the "New thing" and now they are trying to entice others into new purchases.

So, the new High Elves is $59, does this mean whoops, too high on the Tau?

Sounds like a mistake in pricing for the HE book.