I'd like to make a challenge...GW standard prices are not insane.

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.

**Da Boss**

Why do we need to have so many discussions about this? If you think the prices are unreasonable, switch (I have). If you think the prices are reasonable, keep paying. It's not rocket science.

(I may be grumpier than usual today)

**Scipio Africanus**

Ascalam wrote:
Actually it's getting to the point that FW is barely more expensive, and generally better looking.

I'm looking at placing a hefty FW order for my Nurgle force, and if we forget the shipping the price would be near identical for the 'standard' models...

As to standard GW, they are spendy. I still buy them, as they haven't yet become too spendy to justify (though like you said the single figure prices are a touch much ) but there will come a point where it is no longer worth it, which will be sad since i've been with 40K since its inception..

I have more expensive hobbies. As long as the price is still justifiable by the return i have no huge problem.

I would, of course, like to see a price drop though Wouldn't we all

FW is cheaper for us.

**ExNoctemNacimur**

Well, costs for moulds have gone down, meaning the price of the newer models are cheaper. GW charge a higher price for them.

That's what I think they mean.

Re: FOC chart: they probably don't. The biggest aim for a 12 year old Warhammerer is to play as large a battle as possible in the shortest amount of time. They'll buy anything and everything.

**Scipio Africanus**

ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Well, costs for moulds have gone down, meaning the price of the newer models are cheaper. GW charge a higher price for them.

That's what I think they mean.

Re: FOC chart: they probably don't. The biggest aim for a 12 year old Warhammerer is to play as large a battle as possible in the shortest amount of time. They'll buy anything and everything.

as a fourteen year old I always preferred smaller, 250 point games without an HQ. It was cool having every trooper named and writing little stories to go along with the battle as it played out.

**ExNoctemNacimur**

That's not what everyone feels, and you're probably in the minority. Personally, that's what I like doing as well. However, my friends, their friends and nearly everyone I've met who plays prefers playing large, throw-every-fething-model-possible-on-the-table games.

**Grot 6**

jcrone2 wrote:
So, before you blast, let me clarify.

I have been taking a look comparing models from different places, and while GW prices seem high to me initially, after some consideration they don't seem that bad as a whole.

std troops
-Lets take a simple box of space marines for example...37.50...call it 40 bucks...is $4/per model...

-Compare to mantic enforcers...you get them at 2.30/model..almost half the price...

-Now compare them to Dark potential...standard unit box of 7 is 60 bucks... 8.60/model!!

------>When you factor in the quality vs cost factor...does not seem too bad...maybe I'm wrong. Lets continue.

Large size
GW model, say hive tyrant is around $50....land raider at $75......so..................................$50-75

-take on of the similar sized dragons off of reapers site and he is anywhere between $40-70....

-Banelegion banebeast Ophius, Gorgon Lord the war store................................. .............. $50

-Although I cannot speak for the pathfinder quality, I know GWs models are very nice.

Single std size models

Here I will say theyre gak cra because they can be wanting you to pay $15-20 for a single std size model just because he is 'speshal' or something........not even worth comparison.

Also, a couple of the certain units they have seem high based on lower number need in an army,,,,,,as if they take advantage of unit power to jack price....(terminators at $10 a piece) and then turn around and not give the opposite courtesy (such as making gaunts a little cheaper because you need more)

So I make the challenge that the overwhelming thought that GW products, while a little pricey, are not as bad as they seem. The condition that changes the opinion is that people want giant armies, in which to play the games, which makes sense. So it's not that their product is too crazy overpriced....but that the price of a collection.....army certainly adds up.

Thoughts?

Lets not talk about forge world.

Oh, look.

One of those...

You don't know what your talking about, and the subject has been beat like a Government mule.

The prices are gak. The company is gak, and a giant in the industry would rather rest on past laurals then actually work for it and put out quality.

Reaper? yeah, go on and talk about them. A company that has and continues to put out good quality and at a reasonable price.

GW are a bunch of gak herders compared to the rest of the gaming world. We're only waiting on FF to take them over so we can address how Kirby's Klown posse has gaked the bed and wasted our time while cerimonially laughing his way to retirement.

**puma713**

Pacific wrote:
As Andrew1975 says, really the situation will only change when they realise they are not operating in a monopoly. And that will only happen when the sale levels start to take enough of a hit, and they start to look around at what might be causing it and what they can do to start remedying the situation (beyond laying off hundreds of staff, and other cost cutting measures).

Or, this has already happened and the guys in the white tower are so myopic and head-in-sand that the measures they're taking (attacking fansites, trying to deny bit sales, etc.) are what they think they need to do to right the ship. They could be so self-absorbed that they know there is nothing wrong with their business model, but it's the rest of the world market causing their sales to stagnate.

**Kilkrazy**

As long as GW get the biggest chunk of their income from 12-year olds buying Space Marines in their own shops, they will not worry too much about the buying behaviour of veterans.

**Brother Gyoken**

Kilkrazy wrote:
As long as GW get the biggest chunk of their income from 12-year olds buying Space Marines in their own shops, they will not worry too much about the buying behaviour of veterans.

I still desperately want to see actual data on this because people insist it is true but I don't think it is.

**Kilkrazy**

There isn't any data.

You would have to get hold of detailed POS records from GW and analyse how many sales were being done by credit or debit card, cross-reference these with bank accounts to get the names, and cross-ref that with age of any children, etc.

Then make some reasonable assumptions, like a 35-year old man with children aged 1 and 3 is buying for himself, but a woman with children aged 12 and 14 is buying for them. And so on.

This obviously wouldn't be completely accurate, and anyway not even GW can probably go into so much detail.

However we can take soundings of the number of veterans who have cut back their buying.

For example, between 2005 and 2010 I spent about £1,000 on stuff for Tau and SMs, then between 2010 and 2012 I spent about £300 on Tyranid stuff, buying as much as possible from eBay, then I have spent nothing since mid 2012 except for a copy of the boxed set to get the rulebook, and I sold the figures on eBay. At some point I shall buy the new Tau codex, and probably a Riptide.

There are various reasons for this behaviour. Partly I have finished the armies I want to make, and secondly the prices are too high. If I make any more armies, like IG, it will be with non-GW models.

Common sense tells me that I am not that strange and different to a lot of vets. And a lot of vets on DakDak have said they have cut back much like I have, and for the same reasons.

Common sense also says that vets who already have two or three armies are less likely to buy more armies, than a newb who needs to buy a complete first army and maybe start a second.

However there isn't any real proof one way or the other.

**NAVARRO**

There is a good reason small skirmish games are growing and no its not GW and their prices, It's more the today informed gamer that looks at things in a wider perspective.

The companies and their games sell you a package. This package needs to be evaluated to see what you get in the end and when you can spend say 100 and get the full package and compare with more expensive companies that 100 would buy you 20% the final decision is easier.

By package I mean, Rules, Paints, Minis, Fluff and all you need to have a game... So in this perspective the price of 1 mini is totally irrelevant.

Speaking of data or the lack of it... there was some reports on dakka that claimed that the Hobby is growing in general but when you see GW "growth" you can see the light at the end of the tunnel and make your own conclusions... I see vets migrating to other packages and see GW not investing in the long therm and dropping the ball on many old school projects that is enough data for me.

WIth this said today I buy miniatures everywhere for any game I fancy because I despise the anal philosophy that you can only play X game with X brand minis... that BS must be expurgated from all gamers for the sake of a better industry.

**Jack_Death**

What? I have a theory now? I am responding to fact-based arguments without facts? The incoherence proceeds unabated.

TheAuldGrump wrote:
Jack_Death wrote:
I think I said something about overdone and moot. I think you are missing the point after all

I'd bet GW set a target for their gross margins and price accordingly. In fact I think I've read that somewhere (in a financial report published by GW, of all places). But carry on, very entertaining.

azreal13 wrote:
Jack_Death wrote:
I'm missing what point? You are repeating my point back to me. Did you miss the part where I said "GW is not focused on competitive pricing"?

Saldiven wrote:
Jack_Death wrote:
I think the relevant point here is that GW does not consider Tamiya et. al. to be competition for their customers. Clearly, they are not focused on competitive pricing. This conversation is overdone and moot.

You're missing the point.

GW claims they make the best models out there and charge a premium for the quality of their product.

Other companies make better models for half the price.

GW doesn't charge what they do because of the "quality" of their product; they charge it because they haven't yet gotten to a point where their pricing policy hurts their profit margin by a figure larger than what they can adjust for through internal cost-cutting measures.

His point was that GW base their pricing on a false assertion.

They claim to make the best toy soldiers in the world. While its impossible to disprove that objectively, many people disagree.

The factual claim would be "we make reasonable kits at a higher price than we can reasonably justify, but if anyone tries to undercut us with a similar product, we'll litigate them to feth."

Which isn't as catchy.
Overdone?
Moot?

Possibly.

But also... most likely not untrue.

Which, if correct, means that the basic premise of 'not overpriced' is.
Optimistic.
Naive.

And untrue.

If the premise of the thread is untrue then there can be no true reply within the context of that thread.

Which means that it is the thread has missed the point, not the replies thereto.

You are complaining because people are cluttering up your beautiful theory with ugly facts.

Which... worked so well for Aristotle....

The Auld Grump, there is a reason that Newton discarded Aristotle....

**Azreal13**

Jack_Death wrote:
What? I have a theory now? I am responding to fact-based arguments without facts? The incoherence proceeds unabated.

TheAuldGrump wrote:
Jack_Death wrote:
I think I said something about overdone and moot. I think you are missing the point after all

I'd bet GW set a target for their gross margins and price accordingly. In fact I think I've read that somewhere (in a financial report published by GW, of all places). But carry on, very entertaining.

azreal13 wrote:
Jack_Death wrote:
I'm missing what point? You are repeating my point back to me. Did you miss the part where I said "GW is not focused on competitive pricing"?

Saldiven wrote:
Jack_Death wrote:
I think the relevant point here is that GW does not consider Tamiya et. al. to be competition for their customers. Clearly, they are not focused on competitive pricing. This conversation is overdone and moot.

You're missing the point.

GW claims they make the best models out there and charge a premium for the quality of their product.

Other companies make better models for half the price.

GW doesn't charge what they do because of the "quality" of their product; they charge it because they haven't yet gotten to a point where their pricing policy hurts their profit margin by a figure larger than what they can adjust for through internal cost-cutting measures.

His point was that GW base their pricing on a false assertion.

They claim to make the best toy soldiers in the world. While its impossible to disprove that objectively, many people disagree.

The factual claim would be "we make reasonable kits at a higher price than we can reasonably justify, but if anyone tries to undercut us with a similar product, we'll litigate them to feth."

Which isn't as catchy.
Overdone?
Moot?

Possibly.

But also... most likely not untrue.

Which, if correct, means that the basic premise of 'not overpriced' is.
Optimistic.
Naive.

And untrue.

If the premise of the thread is untrue then there can be no true reply within the context of that thread.

Which means that it is the thread has missed the point, not the replies thereto.

You are complaining because people are cluttering up your beautiful theory with ugly facts.

Which... worked so well for Aristotle....

The Auld Grump, there is a reason that Newton discarded Aristotle....

Firstly, could you please start following the board convention of posting your response under the quote, I know it isn't always the way, but it throws my addled old brain right off. Thanks.

Secondly, you really do seem to be rather sure of yourself, given your tiny post count. I've already run across you in one other thread where you simply mocked my posts, until someone who (claimed at least) was eminently qualified to know, pointed out that I was correct. After that you kinda...disappeared? from the discussion.

You're not the first person I've said this to recently, but you seem to mistake telling other people they're wrong with actually putting forward an argument. If you disagree with those who think GW prices are excessive, kindly put forward your arguments as to why they are not. Simply saying "you're wrong, yah boo sucks to you" is a debate technique best left in the playground.

**Brother Gyoken**

Kilkrazy wrote:
However there isn't any real proof one way or the other.

That's mostly my point. People shouldn't be saying that tidbit is true without proof.

My gut personally says that minors are a REAL small part of GW's profits. But without proof either way, we can't make assertions.

**Grimstonefire**

I've scanned through the thread, so apologies if it's been mentioned already (I'd be surprised if it hasn't), but the reason GW may seem about the industry standard (according to OP), is because they set the market prices.

Historically because GW were completely dominant whenever they raised their prices the other large companies did over time as well. Because they knew the market was willing to pay.

Obviously not as much, but most of the biggest companies did.

Some of them reached the point where they could see they were damaging their growth, whilst GW keeps on rising.

**TheCustomLime**

Every time I see a "Little Timmy" in my FLGS they either never get anything or just get one thing. It's usually the teens or adults that buy stuff. I very much doubt that "Little Timmies" make up most of GW's audience. GW charges way too much for your average parents to be willing to pay.

**Lanrak**

Going back to the original topic.

if we define insanity as repeating the same actions while expecting different outcomes.
Then GW plc pricing IS insane.

They raise prices, and sales volume shrinks, so they raise prices and sales volume shrinks.(8 years running now.)
ALL logic dictates that to actually GROW their market share and sales volumes. GW plc has to do something other than just increase RRP, and restrict sales outlets.
But they keep doing the same things year on year.

Therfore GW plc pricing is insane!

**Jack_Death**

azreal13 wrote:
Jack_Death wrote:
What? I have a theory now? I am responding to fact-based arguments without facts? The incoherence proceeds unabated.

TheAuldGrump wrote:
Jack_Death wrote:
I think I said something about overdone and moot. I think you are missing the point after all

I'd bet GW set a target for their gross margins and price accordingly. In fact I think I've read that somewhere (in a financial report published by GW, of all places). But carry on, very entertaining.

azreal13 wrote:
Jack_Death wrote:
I'm missing what point? You are repeating my point back to me. Did you miss the part where I said "GW is not focused on competitive pricing"?

Saldiven wrote:
Jack_Death wrote:
I think the relevant point here is that GW does not consider Tamiya et. al. to be competition for their customers. Clearly, they are not focused on competitive pricing. This conversation is overdone and moot.

You're missing the point.

GW claims they make the best models out there and charge a premium for the quality of their product.

Other companies make better models for half the price.

GW doesn't charge what they do because of the "quality" of their product; they charge it because they haven't yet gotten to a point where their pricing policy hurts their profit margin by a figure larger than what they can adjust for through internal cost-cutting measures.

His point was that GW base their pricing on a false assertion.

They claim to make the best toy soldiers in the world. While its impossible to disprove that objectively, many people disagree.

The factual claim would be "we make reasonable kits at a higher price than we can reasonably justify, but if anyone tries to undercut us with a similar product, we'll litigate them to feth."

Which isn't as catchy.
Overdone?
Moot?

Possibly.

But also... most likely not untrue.

Which, if correct, means that the basic premise of 'not overpriced' is.
Optimistic.
Naive.

And untrue.

If the premise of the thread is untrue then there can be no true reply within the context of that thread.

Which means that it is the thread has missed the point, not the replies thereto.

You are complaining because people are cluttering up your beautiful theory with ugly facts.

Which... worked so well for Aristotle....

The Auld Grump, there is a reason that Newton discarded Aristotle....

Firstly, could you please start following the board convention of posting your response under the quote, I know it isn't always the way, but it throws my addled old brain right off. Thanks.

Secondly, you really do seem to be rather sure of yourself, given your tiny post count. I've already run across you in one other thread where you simply mocked my posts, until someone who (claimed at least) was eminently qualified to know, pointed out that I was correct. After that you kinda...disappeared? from the discussion.

You're not the first person I've said this to recently, but you seem to mistake telling other people they're wrong with actually putting forward an argument. If you disagree with those who think GW prices are excessive, kindly put forward your arguments as to why they are not. Simply saying "you're wrong, yah boo sucks to you" is a debate technique best left in the playground.

Ok, posting at the bottom.

I am not "sure of myself", I am simply quoting published financial data in response to wild speculation about motives and hoped-for outcomes. If that seems overtly cocksure or snarky, it is meant to be matter-of-fact.

What on earth does my "post count" have to do with anything? Do you imply that I should give a rat's ass what some piece of software thinks my "rank" should be? That is not a question I would expect from someone that I assume (based on your moniker) is close enough to my age to know better.

You'll have to give me a better idea what conversation I disappeared from. Usually, when I am quoting facts and figures and the other parties are repeating the same sophomoric nonsense that is true because another equally misinformed forum member agrees, I don't start arguing I just stop posting. Many of the threads on this forum that have anything to do with financial data in the real world vs. in the posters imaginations quickly pass the "why bother responding" threshold. Had you simply repeated your assertions (again) that GW's pricing policy is "insane" I would not be responding now. What would be the point?

I have backed up the points I have made with actual financial data or by referencing statements from GW's annual reports. What I haven't done is pile on the psycho-analytical BS bandwagon. Sorry for that ;-> I didn't say anything about whether GW's prices are "excessive" as it is a meaningless term. Excessive to whom, and compared to what? That point I have given a reasoned opinion about. Re: playground debate techniques, well, let's just agree to disagree on that one after your ad-hominen, argumentum ad populum, and appeal to accomplishment/authority based on, of all things, post count.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

azreal13 wrote:
Secondly, you really do seem to be rather sure of yourself, given your tiny post count.

What does post count have to do with anything?

**Azreal13**

Ooh, splendid, a response with no real content masquerading as an argument!

I refer to your post count, not because its any gauge of real world experience, that would be ludicrous, but if someone is 'new' to any social situation, online or IRL, it seems highly counterproductive to come in swinging when you have absolutely no idea of the personalities you are dealing with. You obviously disagree.

The conversation I was referring to was the "what is GW worth thread" where you not only disagreed with my statements, you flat out mocked me for posting them. That was until an actual financial analyst posted I pretty much was in the right.

I have yet to see you quote one actual fact, merely criticise other people for daring to venture an opinion, but I look forward to being contradicted. You do realise the 'facts' you claim to refer to are highly subjective and while the financial data they are based on is stone cold fact, how GW, or any organisation, choose to represent them are open to interpretation, or psycho-analytical BS as you put it.

Again, your post attacks my points, but "the argument is stupid and beneath me" is still not a counter argument to the relative insanity or otherwise of GW's pricing.

Banana, ship, custard, dinosaur.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
Secondly, you really do seem to be rather sure of yourself, given your tiny post count.

What does post count have to do with anything?

Explained in my other post, and I liked that it sounded a bit like he had a tiny... post count.

**Jack_Death**

azreal13 wrote:
Ooh, splendid, a response with no real content masquerading as an argument!
I refer to your post count, not because its any gauge of real world experience, that would be ludicrous, but if someone is 'new' to any social situation, online or IRL, it seems highly counterproductive to come in swinging when you have absolutely no idea of the personalities you are dealing with. You obviously disagree.
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
Secondly, you really do seem to be rather sure of yourself, given your tiny post count.

What does post count have to do with anything?

Explained in my other post, and I liked that it sounded a bit like he had a tiny... post count.

Uh, whatever. I could care less about the "personalities" I am "dealing with". Nothing personal, I am engaging the argument.

You seem to have an awful lot of ego invested in the discussions on this board. I assure you, I do not. Perhaps that explains the difference ...

**Azreal13**

You aren't engaging the argument, you're just telling people they're wrong!

I have no ego, I assure you, but I do have a problem with posters who seem to do nothing but criticise other people's opinions without putting up their own for similar treatment.

**Buzzsaw**

Flippa wrote:
It's not a question of missing the point, the point is you can play WFB/40k without spending $500 per army on it and it will be a perfectly enjoyable game.

Sure it's designed to get you into the hobby and therefor spend more money but isn't that what all business is about.

Compared to other stuff it's not hugely expensive my RC cars cost more. I spend more than $100 on 1 night out with my friends so again it's not hugely expensive and if you do what you claim GW want you to do it's to buy something for your army, paint it up pick something new for your army, buy it, paint it up etc.

Spread the cost out over a period of months/years. That's what GW want you to do, not blow all your wad on a $500 army get disheartened at the massive amount of painting you have to do and ebay it.

Not to belabor the point, but is it actually possible to play using the Island of Blood set? I remember when I picked one up being shocked that there were no rules for the units included (no army/unit specific rules), has this changed?

**Jack_Death**

You keep repeating that. I think you are mistaken, and I would point out that you have done a fair bit of criticizing my non-existent position.

Let's agree to disagree, and I will throw in a sincere apology for patronizing you in the other thread. I've just looked it up and my post was rather rude and assumed that a snarky reply was a good stand-in for a nuanced argument. It ain't, sorry about that. In the interest of fair play, I've added the nuanced reply

azreal13 wrote:
You aren't engaging the argument, you're just telling people they're wrong!

I have no ego, I assure you, but I do have a problem with posters who seem to do nothing but criticise other people's opinions without putting up their own for similar treatment.

**Azreal13**

Ok, I have responded in that thread. We'll call it a draw.

**DiabolicAl**

DeffDred wrote:
Slaughtebeast, 2 sprues of plastic, $85

Ork Stompa, 16 sprues of plastic, $115.50

WTF?

That's all I have to say.

Shhhh Delete this post quickly before they put the Stompa up to $650!!!!

**Gman1985**

When you look at the cost for putting an average sized army on the table including painting, some scenery etc, it costs a fortune. If you look at it from the perspective of the amount of enjoyment you get out of it and the amount of time you can invest in what you purchase, it's totally worth the money. That's my humble opinion anyway...

**NAVARRO**

Gman1985 wrote:
When you look at the cost for putting an average sized army on the table including painting, some scenery etc, it costs a fortune. If you look at it from the perspective of the amount of enjoyment you get out of it and the amount of time you can invest in what you purchase, it's totally worth the money. That's my humble opinion anyway...

Good point but the argument is that you can do all that for less money.

**Lanrak**

Hi Gman1985.
Now just work out much LESS money you would spend if you did this table top war gaming hobby with other companies products..

.

**Adam LongWalker**

NAVARRO wrote:
Gman1985 wrote:
When you look at the cost for putting an average sized army on the table including painting, some scenery etc, it costs a fortune. If you look at it from the perspective of the amount of enjoyment you get out of it and the amount of time you can invest in what you purchase, it's totally worth the money. That's my humble opinion anyway...

Good point but the argument is that you can do all that for less money.

Yup doing articles on how to do the hobby on a budget so that people can save money when getting into this expensive 40K hobby.