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.

 BryllCream wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

If we are focusing on them, would you mind sharing how a very similar style and size of kit being offered for sale at half the retail price isn't relevant?

Sure. It's not a Riptide, for one.

There are many things in the world that aren't riptides, would you like me to list them for you? Or are you going to list a load of GW "alternatives" which are either piss-poor, or more expensive than GW to begin with, all the while insisting that because you think they're good, they're objectively superior. Not that there aren't alternative models that *are* better than GW, but they're in my experience pretty rare, and generally more expensive/the same price as GW.

http://www.hlj.com/product/KBYFA006
Twenty. Quid.

Now, you can prefer the Riptide, that's your right. I didn't even buy this as a Riptide, but the release stimulated a want to build and paint a giant robot.

But it is an analogous kit, with similar details and a similar size (slightly smaller, so perhaps add 5p extra for the plastic in the Riptide) produced for less than half the price. The fact it isn't a Riptide isn't relevant

But, you game in a Workshop vacuum, so couldn't use it as a proxy even if you wanted to (which I'm sure you'll have many reasons to explain why you wouldn't...)

edited to add link to where I ordered the model, as I've had many PMs asking me where I got it!

...it's still not a Riptide. Not that I'd have a problem playing with/agaiunst it as a proxy, but it's not a riptide.

So you've bought something that's not a riptide for £20. I can also buy a jumper for £20 - that's not a riptide either. Or like...beer, or something.

Are you wilfully missing the point?

A jumper or beer is nothing like a Riptide.

This is a LOT like a Riptide.

I bought a kit of similar size and subject matter, I'd argue better but that's subjective, for less than half GW sell theirs for!

There is no vast difference in the amount of raw material, its almost certain that the same design and production methods were used, I have no idea what volumes this kit would likely sell in, but its unlikely to be significant enough difference to explain it by virtue of economies of scale.

Sooo...

Suggestions? Either why doesn't this cost the same as a Riptide, or why doesn't the Riptide cost the same as this?

 azreal13 wrote:
Are you wilfully missing the point?

No, you are. You have something that looks vaguely like a riptide, but is not a riptide. You could probably make a whole army out of anime plastic models but it wouldn't be Tau, would it?

 BryllCream wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Are you wilfully missing the point?

No, you are. You have something that looks vaguely like a riptide, but is not a riptide. You could probably make a whole army out of anime plastic models but it wouldn't be Tau, would it?

See what I mean Az?

 BryllCream wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Granted, but there's a line between knowingly overpaying for something because you want it and trying to convince yourself that the price is reasonable when it blatantly isn't. I was just trying to underline that.

I wasn't aware that there were Riptides available from other companies, mind sharing?

I suppose you could draw comparison to any number of 'big robot kits' to come out of asia. I saw some pretty mental ones while I was living in Korea, probably less than half the price of the Riptide, looked 'cooler' (great object comparison there! ), and knock the Riptide into a cocked hat in terms of detail and component count.

Same too with the repertoire of plastic kit vehicles - the price of something like a Land Raider or Rhino is far, far higher than the quality level of the kit deserves. You're paying that much because it is a 'Rhino' or whatever, and you need to buy one from GW to use in their games. If you ever get the chance (and apologies if you have done so already, although you will know exactly what I am talking about!) buy a 1/32 kit from Hasegawa or Trumpeter of a WW2 tank and compare the quality of the two. It's incomparable.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
See what I mean Az?

Oh, I've encountered this before, it's testament to my enduring optimism that I haven't given up hope that one day he'll get it!

I got to agree with the point that azreal13 is making, similar size and likely same amount of raw materials but vastly cheaper. Riptide being 100CAN =/= logical pricing.

But back to the OP this is a interesting discussion as I'm seeing certain models in ways of critique I'd have never thought of, but overall I agree with some of the posts in this thread that its mainly subjective opinion on the appeal of newer kits. Case in point I dislike the new DA speeder but actually thing the nephalim jet fighter looks awesome. Everyone is going to have varying opinions on what appeals to them, just human nature.

However the point of whether the cheaper plastic kits and quicker/cheaper production costs warrants the price tag is an entirely different issue lol

 Pacific wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Granted, but there's a line between knowingly overpaying for something because you want it and trying to convince yourself that the price is reasonable when it blatantly isn't. I was just trying to underline that.

I wasn't aware that there were Riptides available from other companies, mind sharing?

I suppose you could draw comparison to any number of 'big robot kits' to come out of asia. I saw some pretty mental ones while I was living in Korea, probably less than half the price of the Riptide, looked 'cooler' (great object comparison there! ), and knock the Riptide into a cocked hat in terms of detail and component count.

Same too with the repertoire of plastic kit vehicles - the price of something like a Land Raider or Rhino is far, far higher than the quality level of the kit deserves. You're paying that much because it is a 'Rhino' or whatever, and you need to buy one from GW to use in their games. If you ever get the chance (and apologies if you have done so already, although you will know exactly what I am talking about!) buy a 1/32 kit from Hasegawa or Trumpeter of a WW2 tank and compare the quality of the two. It's incomparable.

So, in effort to get the conversation back on track..

With all the resources at GWs disposal, why doesn't it produce kits of this quality?

Ignoring price for the moment, why does the self styled manufacturer of premium model kits not actually produce premium model kits?

 Pacific wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Granted, but there's a line between knowingly overpaying for something because you want it and trying to convince yourself that the price is reasonable when it blatantly isn't. I was just trying to underline that.

I wasn't aware that there were Riptides available from other companies, mind sharing?

I suppose you could draw comparison to any number of 'big robot kits' to come out of asia. I saw some pretty mental ones while I was living in Korea, probably less than half the price of the Riptide, looked 'cooler' (great object comparison there! ), and knock the Riptide into a cocked hat in terms of detail and component count.

Same too with the repertoire of plastic kit vehicles - the price of something like a Land Raider or Rhino is far, far higher than the quality level of the kit deserves. You're paying that much because it is a 'Rhino' or whatever, and you need to buy one from GW to use in their games. If you ever get the chance (and apologies if you have done so already, although you will know exactly what I am talking about!) buy a 1/32 kit from Hasegawa or Trumpeter of a WW2 tank and compare the quality of the two. It's incomparable.

I had considered 1/32 kits before, but the fact that it's a WW2 tank would just shatter the willing suspension of disbelief for me, especially compared to the distinctive look of the Russ.

I mean look at this:


The main gun is fine but there's no room for sponsons, and it'd be a bit of effort to fit a hull weapon on. And it doesn't have access to an Executioner cannon I suppose it would work if you did an army-wide proxy with a ww2 force, but that would definitely be a "novelty" battle and not something I'd invest time/money into.

 azreal13 wrote:
Ignoring price for the moment, why does the self styled manufacturer of premium model kits not actually produce premium model kits?

Not to dunk my head in any sort of cream, Bryll or otherwise, but what about GW minis isn't premium (yes, I know not all of them are good, I'm not arguing that), but you seem to be indicating that they are inferior in some way. May I ask why?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Ignoring price for the moment, why does the self styled manufacturer of premium model kits not actually produce premium model kits?

Not to dunk my head in any sort of cream, Bryll or otherwise, but what about GW minis isn't premium (yes, I know not all of them are good, I'm not arguing that), but you seem to be indicating that they are inferior in some way. May I ask why?

In response to Pacifics post about how other manufacturers produce more detailed and intricate kits.

It wasn't so much any assertion that GW are poor quality, by and large their plastic kits aren't, but more that if other companies can do better for less money, that undermines GWs claims that they are a premium manufacturer.

In any other market you'd expect the big player to be the one to put money into innovation, either to reduce production costs or suppress the competition with new shinies, GW just don't.

 azreal13 wrote:

In any other market you'd expect the big player to be the one to put money into innovation, either to reduce production costs or suppress the competition with new shinies, GW just don't.

GW release less new model/rules than other gaming manufacturers? Got any stats on this?

 BryllCream wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

In any other market you'd expect the big player to be the one to put money into innovation, either to reduce production costs or suppress the competition with new shinies, GW just don't.

GW release less new model/rules than other gaming manufacturers? Got any stats on this?

Sure, just go to the same place where I mentioned a thing about production volumes and all those stats are there.

I can't find that post.

 BryllCream wrote:
I can't find that post.

That's because there isn't one.

That's because I never talked about production volumes, I was talking about innovation.

Churning out new kits has absolutely no relevance to what I was talking about.

So how do you define "innovation" then? I stupidly assumed you meant designing new kits that people want to buy. GW is hit and miss, but by virtue of them being the largest manufacturer, that would mean that they also produce the most amount of "hits", wouldn't it?

 azreal13 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
See what I mean Az?

Oh, I've encountered this before, it's testament to my enduring optimism that I haven't given up hope that one day he'll get it!

Then you're a bigger fool than he is.

 azreal13 wrote:
With all the resources at GWs disposal, why doesn't it produce kits of this quality?

Ignoring price for the moment, why does the self styled manufacturer of premium model kits not actually produce premium model kits?

Because they're not interested in "quality" or competing with anyone else. They made crude gaming pieces because that's all they've ever made. Like the scorpion in the fable, they're unable to act contrary to their natures.

And yes, I will call GW models "crude". Have you seen what Bandai can do? What Dreamforge can? What Tamiya, Revell, Dragon, Trumpeter, Bronco, Meng, Eduard or Wingnut Wings can? GW models are usually built with an eye towards durability as game pieces in mind, which taken together with their insistence on backwards compatibility, means giant gun barrels, overscale spear hafts, visible seam lines, etc. These are not "premium model kits". They're barely even "premium wargaming models" (which is very much not the same thing).

I don't see how me simply pointing out that using a generic non-GW model that looks vaguely like a riptide, is not the same as a riptide, is worth sidelining this thread with a discussion about how (apparently) irrational I am.

 BryllCream wrote:
So how do you define "innovation" then? I stupidly assumed you meant designing new kits that people want to buy. GW is hit and miss, but by virtue of them being the largest manufacturer, that would mean that they also produce the most amount of "hits", wouldn't it?

I don't define innovation, the whole world defines it, go look it up.

Doing the same thing but different month in month out is not innovation. Innovation would be finding a way of machining better texture on plastic or reducing the tolerances in manufacturing to the nth degree.

Fine cast was, in reality, an attempt at innovation, as it appears to be a completely different sort of resin that was new to the market when released.

Just a shame it fell on its arse really.

I don't think an "innovation" need be successful. Betamax was an innovation, as was the Gamecube or the Atari Jaguar. They weren't commercial successes, but that's an entirely different thing.

 azreal13 wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
So how do you define "innovation" then? I stupidly assumed you meant designing new kits that people want to buy. GW is hit and miss, but by virtue of them being the largest manufacturer, that would mean that they also produce the most amount of "hits", wouldn't it?

I don't define innovation, the whole world defines it, go look it up.

Doing the same thing but different month in month out is not innovation. Innovation would be finding a way of machining better texture on plastic or reducing the tolerances in manufacturing to the nth degree.

Hahaha no.
You state that they should put money into "innovation" then you should define what "innovation" is relating to. It has multiple meanings. Just because you want an excuse to change the goalposts in case one of your points get shot down doesn't mean the burden of proof (or burden of definition in the case) isn't on you.

Also, you have seen Dark Vengeance haven't you? You're honestly saying that the models within it aren't an "innovation" related to the previous starter sets? How about the recent plastic characters? I'd say they're an "innovation" in regards to how previous plastic models were released and assembled but, again, I don't know what definition of innovation you're intending on using, so go ahead and shift the goalposts as much as you like.

Why are people raving about Dark Vengeance specifically as an "innovation"? The Terminators are no improvement from the Space Hulk ones (if anything, the Deathwing regalia on them makes them look worse), and the Tactical Marines are still hideous.

And really, to call a good plastic sculpt an "innovation" is like calling a hot dog stand a restaurant. It's true, broadly speaking, but bends the definition of the word out of shape.

Then feel free to throw in your own definition of "innovation".

 Goliath wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
So how do you define "innovation" then? I stupidly assumed you meant designing new kits that people want to buy. GW is hit and miss, but by virtue of them being the largest manufacturer, that would mean that they also produce the most amount of "hits", wouldn't it?

I don't define innovation, the whole world defines it, go look it up.

Doing the same thing but different month in month out is not innovation. Innovation would be finding a way of machining better texture on plastic or reducing the tolerances in manufacturing to the nth degree.

Hahaha no.
You state that they should put money into "innovation" then you should define what "innovation" is relating to. It has multiple meanings. Just because you want an excuse to change the goalposts in case one of your points get shot down doesn't mean the burden of proof (or burden of definition in the case) isn't on you.

Also, you have seen Dark Vengeance haven't you? You're honestly saying that the models within it aren't an "innovation" related to the previous starter sets? How about the recent plastic characters? I'd say they're an "innovation" in regards to how previous plastic models were released and assembled but, again, I don't know what definition of innovation you're intending on using, so go ahead and shift the goalposts as much as you like.

Yes, I'm honestly saying Dark Vengeance isn't an innovation. They're mono pose plastic sculpts. This isn't a new concept. The fact that the set contains some nice sculpts doesn't make them innovative, it makes them well executed.

I honestly haven't moved the goal posts, but you do appear to have turned up on the wrong pitch.

Have edited to bold my comment where I very clearly offer a couple of examples where GW could innovate.

There's nothing innovative about Dark Vengeance. Space Hulk was the innovation because it was the first time we were blown away by that level of specific and unique detail on plastic minis. Their progress their plastic kits have made in the past decade is innovation (compare even 4th Ed Marine kits, like the plastic Commander, to more modern plastic kits).

Yep,I would agree that, within the realm of wargaming models, GW have pushed forward what we consider possible from plastics.

I think it's only a matter of time before other companies catch up though, and think they really should be looking to keep moving forward, but appear to have, at best, plateaued.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There's nothing innovative about Dark Vengeance. Space Hulk was the innovation because it was the first time we were blown away by that level of specific and unique detail on plastic minis. Their progress their plastic kits have made in the past decade is innovation (compare even 4th Ed Marine kits, like the plastic Commander, to more modern plastic kits).

True in a sense, although the concept of the game is 20 years old. It gave me the feeling of fishing out a really old favourite of an album or computer game. Was great fun for a while (and the models indeed beautiful), but you realised after a while you were treading a road you had been down many times.

OK I'll give this topic a try, what I would love to see from GW in an ideal world, with an acknowledgement of them as the biggest player in the marketplace and by far the biggest amount of capital to pull things off:

- to put the 'games workshop' back into Games Workshop. There is no need perhaps for the 'accountants nightmare' (quote) of the late 90's, with 5 new games or re-launches coming out a year, and seemingly no regard for profits or loss, but some more innovation would be nice in terms of them introducing new ways to wargame. Either games built into the 40k or WFB universes, as has been done before with the likes of Epic/Necromunda or Mordheim, or even entirely new universes. The company is built on a foundation of imagination and creativity, and they still have that core to their design teams: let those guys flex their creative muscles and surprise us! I, and I'm sure many others, would genuinely like to see that, rather than a new version of a codex-background section that has been re-written 6 times in slightly different ways.
So yes - more along the likes of Dreadfleet please, and the more they try the more chance they can produce another big hit.

- Make the most of new technologies, the internet, smartphone and tablet technologies to create new levels of interaction between games makers and games players. Gates of Antares touched on what might be possible, and I still believe they gave the first hint of what might be the future of wargaming. Imagine: You and your mates connect to a server to get your 'mission brief' for that evenings game. When you finish that game, your results are uploaded onto a central server that is collating thousands of similar results. Within a week, the fully-interactive online 40k universe that GW has created heralds the fall of that particular system to the Tryanids.. the next results are going to be vital! And as someone who has taken part in that campaign since the beginning, you receive a 'special' mission to take part in.
Just imagine.. I think the potential is enormous, and far beyond what I have written about.

Even if you didn't want to go this far, take a look out there at what else already exists in the industry (and with companies that are relative minnows compared to GW). Of Infinity's online army builders and rule updates for example.

I think you can also add comments about bringing back more community involvement at all levels (far easier than ever before, with far less effort, with modern communication technologies), greater breadth and depth of licensing, new materials technology and sculpting methods (taking hold of 3D printing before someone beats them to it!) - perhaps even trying to create a good pre-painted miniature line. The world is a faster place than even 30 years ago when GW first hit the scene - acknowledge people's lack of free time, and their propensity to give hours to painting and modelling, and create a pre-painted model line cheaply (and as an alternative to) the unpainted. It makes sense on multiple levels.

These are just a few ideas; I think what's plain to both myself, and many others who have watched GW (and the sci-fi/fantasy wargaming hobby growing over the years) is that somewhat coincidentally the company has started to resemble the obese and belligerent goblin king of The Hobbit game; occasionally chucking a half-eaten piece of chicken gristle in the direction of the starving fans, telling them to enjoy it, while hoarding his big pot of gold behind him. For as long as he thinks there are no other options to his followers, there is no incentive to try and keep them, and he has become lazy as a result.

I don't want GW to die, I don't want the company to be bought our by some other massive corporation (and I think people are fooling themselves if they think the mindset of the company will change if that does happen - if anything it will become more veracious, with even less propensity to try and do anything new) - but it would be wonderful if they could get some of that glint back in their eye, of genuine innovation and imagination, that made them the king of the heap in the first place.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Ummm, yes, how much I like a model does affect how much I would be willing to pay for the model.

I cannot even begin to understand why anybody wouldn't expect that to be one of the deciding factors.

Not just for GW miniatures, or even miniatures in general - the same would hold true for any number of products, including things like food....

The Auld Grump

How much you're willing to pay for it has no bearing on how much it should be priced. I'm not willing to pay $50 G's for a Lexus, but that doesn't mean they should be priced lower. For many products, you're paying for the name just as much as the product itself. That's not at all limited to GW.

@Pacific - Gates of Antares didnt show us gak. They showed us a poorly developed business model with non-concrete ideas that were heavily reliant on the community. It played right into this community at-large's sense of entitlement but in actuality was poorly planned and incredibly ambiguous. It failed because they didn't actually know what their product was and they were banking too heavily on a name.

Maybe I'm on an island here, but I don't want to have to help you develop your game and your universe. That's your job. Then you can sell it to me and ill play it.