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.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Wasn't their reasoning for that some BS about how a sale would reduce the perceived quality?

Kirby speak for: "I think full price is what the market can bear and I do not want consumers holding off on a purchase waiting for a "sale" so I will not give it to them."

Wow... to quote Bugs Bunny: What a maroon. So instead, people hold off on a purchase forever (and, more likely, to to a competitor) since the sale will never come, even though a bundle is not the same as a sale.

Sales can often be a bad idea. Once a year, twice a year, maybe, but if you regularly hold sales, it devalues the whole industry. We can not like it, but it's true. Video Games with digital distribution is proof of that. It's gotten to the point game developers can't make money selling games, so they release unplayble products "for free" and require microtransactions. It's an unsustainable model as an industry and I don't see it lasting. Development costs are rising for video games faster than the rate at which it pulls money back in. "Freemium" games with AAA budgets can still flop, and often do.

So, I don't blame Kirby for something that's actually true.

Now, as you said, a bundle is not a sale. Bundling can be great business. Bundling is essentially "wholesale", on a retail level. Giving people incentives for buying in bulk often gets people to invest more than they would have total otherwise. Going back to the video games analogy, I've purchased Developers Bundles on Steam during holiday sales, and really only wanted 1 or 2 games out of the bundle that were less than the bundle price, but getting 3 other games for just a little bit more, even though some of them I still haven't and probably will never get around to playing, was enough for me. Technically, they get more money out of me than if they had got me on each one of them individually.

I think the proof for GW should be in the few bundles they actually have. How many people here have ever bought a Battleforce of some kind? I'm willing to bet most people with a sizable army did somewhere along the line.

 carlos13th wrote:
Tge cost of computer games really hasn't gone up much at all. Especially not compared to the budgets put into video games.

I remember snes games being around £40. PS1 games were about £40 on release too.

£35 if I recall it correctly. I worked for SCEE from 1996 until recently. The "Platinum" range was introduced at £20 when the N64 was launched.

A £35 game in 1997 would cost more now due to inflation, about £56 in fact, not including the increase in VAT, assuming 3% a year inflation, which is a reasonable Fermi estimation.

However this is all off the point. People will pay £100 for a game if it's worth it to them. The question is how quickly GW games stop being worth it to you and other people.

For me personally, the models got too expensive in early 2011, and the books got too expensive when they switched to hardcover to justify doubling the price after the launch of 6th edition (40K.)

That is anecdotal of course.

 Murdius Maximus wrote:
People constantly complain about the price of models, yet still pay the price to play. The only way that GW goes down is if enough people stop playing the game due to those prices. I don't think that we will ever see a drop in price on any product.

Take the video game industry for example. Back when I was young a video game (brand new) cost $20. When the average price of the game became $30, many players said OMG THAT IS CRIMINAL THIS INDUSTRY IS DEAD! Low and behold, the industry continued to thrive and thus game developers began charging $40 per game, then jumped dramatically to $60 per game. And now there are online subscriptions to contend with as well. Yet that industry still thrives despite the complaining about the price of the products. The games have gotten prettier, but on the whole there hasn't been anything really "new" in roughly ten years as far as a game goes. Sure we get new interactive ways to play the games, but they are really the same old, rehashed crap with new, fancy labeling and ways to play it.

Now with GW they are merely doing the same thing. And like the video game industry there are still a GREAT MANY people willing to pay those prices and hock $140 for the new Imperial Knight which says to GW, "How can we do more?" I'm sure their company is fine despite lower sales in recent years. They will be around for a long time yet.

Don't know where you're getting this idea from. If anything, video game prices have gone DOWN over the years. Check out how much new N64 games were back then, and remember that inflation was nowhere near as bad.

They hit a low point in the Xbox and Ps2 era and then slowly climbed up by $10 for the 360. Of course, now they just nickle and dime with DLC.

GW has raised the price consistently over the years, AND started nickle and diming us on top of that with "DLC".People would be fine with these expansions if they were reasonably priced, but $50 for a knight codex with 2 units and roughly 30 pages of background? $140 for a knight model that is smaller, less posable, and roughly the same detail as a competitor's offering (dreamforge)? Plastic infantry models at literally DOUBLE the cost of competitors for minimal increase in quality? The only thing that keeps many around is the background and the fact that they already have models. If GW lost that, their game wouldn't be nearly as popular as it is. Imagine if you saw any other game charge $80 for a main book and $50 for an army book with minimal content, especially with rules "quality" on the level of GW. You would laugh and move on to the next game.

How is GW going from strength to strength these days? Their best releases are hit and miss and the bad ones are almost laughable.The only thing keeping it going is momentum and the fact that so many people are already in. GW has effectively had a monopoly for years, especially in Europe. And like any other monopoly, its the consumers that suffer for it. I'd imagine its part of the reason GW handles Indy stores so badly, it wishes it could just be the only stores around like its used to in England.

 WarOne wrote:


Not enough manpower to go around...

4 dudes, a pizza and a few hours can get every FAQ done with zero problems. Hand off to web guy, bam, done. Repeat every 3 months.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

drbored wrote:


Let's be real here. We're 25-60 year old gentlemen playing a game that GW is trying to market to 14-20 year-olds. The way the novels are written, the way the release schedule is going, the way the WD is worded, the way the tutorials are detailed, they're aiming at a younger demographic.

And then pricing it so high it prohibits those 14 - 20s from buying consistently.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:
Tge cost of computer games really hasn't gone up much at all. Especially not compared to the budgets put into video games.

I remember snes games being around £40. PS1 games were about £40 on release too.

£35 if I recall it correctly. I worked for SCEE from 1996 until recently. The "Platinum" range was introduced at £20 when the N64 was launched.

A £35 game in 1997 would cost more now due to inflation, about £56 in fact, not including the increase in VAT, assuming 3% a year inflation, which is a reasonable Fermi estimation.

However this is all off the point. People will pay £100 for a game if it's worth it to them. The question is how quickly GW games stop being worth it to you and other people.

For me personally, the models got too expensive in early 2011, and the books got too expensive when they switched to hardcover to justify doubling the price after the launch of 6th edition (40K.)

£35 sounds about right actually. Yeah I remember platinum being £20.

I made the same point earlier that games have risen in price lower than inflation too making them cheaper in real terms.

I totally agree with you that the important thing is what they are worth to you. I remember being told in another thread I was greedy because I probably would need a close to 50% price cut for me to seriously consider collecting GW models again(Or double the number for the same cost whatever). The people who called me that didn't seem to realise that this was what I felt they were worth for me and me alone not what I thought was a universal constant.

Well in DnD terms going from 18 Strength to 8 Strength (because of a spell or whatever) is still Strength to Strength....

What the white knights constantly ignore is that there are many companies out there that have a better price/quality. The stuff from wargames factory may not be as detailed as GW's plastic but it is way cheaper then again the stuff from Dreamforge is easily at the same level as GW, Don't even start about the Kingdom of the dead stuff.

Metal/resin wise there are a lot of small companies that make good quality at reasonable prices. Anvil industries, Victoria miniatures, Curious constructs and so on.

And then there are GW's real competitors which they just seem to ignore, Mantic, Privateer press, X-wing, Bolt action etcetera.

GW must stop acting like they are the only one on the block they are losing markets share because of these "non-existing" threats.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
What the white knights constantly ignore is that there are many companies out there that have a better price/quality. The stuff from wargames factory may not be as detailed as GW's plastic but it is way cheaper then again the stuff from Dreamforge is easily at the same level as GW, Don't even start about the Kingdom of the dead stuff.

Metal/resin wise there are a lot of small companies that make good quality at reasonable prices. Anvil industries, Victoria miniatures, Curious constructs and so on.

And then there are GW's real competitors which they just seem to ignore, Mantic, Privateer press, X-wing, Bolt action etcetera.

GW must stop acting like they are the only one on the block they are losing markets share because of these "non-existing" threats.

I have a theory they have noticed but can't admit it and don't really know how to respond.
A couple of years ago the phrase 'the GW hobby' seemed more prevalent and now I keep hearing 'we make the best models in the world'.
There is a subtle shif there from 'we are all' to 'we are best', which is not good from GWs perspective.

They continue to claim to make the world's best even after producing Finecast which gives them no credibility. They wouldn't even acknowledge the problems beyond producing the liquid green stuff to fill all the holes.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
The only thing that keeps many around is the background....

GW doesn't seem to understand what makes its background good and continually seems to want to make it 'cooler' thereby turning it in a parody of itself (GRIM DARK!1!). FFG produce far better 40k fluff these days with its RPG range (which I have spent far more on than actual GW products in the last few years).

40k is a very interesting and deep setting but that is purely due to the efforts of past writers, GW is squandering that heritage.

I strongly suspect that the next 5 years will make or break GW.

It'll be interesting how long they renew a licence to FFG. Collaborations with GW don't seem to last long before GW decide they don't like someone else doing a better job than them and take their toys back.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
What the white knights constantly ignore is that there are many companies out there that have a better price/quality. The stuff from wargames factory may not be as detailed as GW's plastic but it is way cheaper then again the stuff from Dreamforge is easily at the same level as GW, Don't even start about the Kingdom of the dead stuff.

Metal/resin wise there are a lot of small companies that make good quality at reasonable prices. Anvil industries, Victoria miniatures, Curious constructs and so on.

And then there are GW's real competitors which they just seem to ignore, Mantic, Privateer press, X-wing, Bolt action etcetera.

GW must stop acting like they are the only one on the block they are losing markets share because of these "non-existing" threats.

The thing is that the biggest company on the list of "competitor"s (PP) you list if at about 10% of GWs turnover and other pays GW hefty licence fees to produce RPGs based upon their IP, Mantic, Battlefront and Bolt Action are all run by former GW employees. Its hard to see how you wouldn't feel like be Jonny Big Bananas in that situation, I can't see why anyone would take offence at that.

As for market share I can't believe that GW are ignorant of lowering turnover. I don't think we will see GW sales; it's too desperate and would just cannibalise independent retailers without increasing profit enough to make up further lost indie turnover. I'm hoping they react with a return to some old Specialist lines once the LotRs/Hobbit licence expires.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
They continue to claim to make the world's best even after producing Finecast which gives them no credibility. They wouldn't even acknowledge the problems beyond producing the liquid green stuff to fill all the holes.

It wasn't just Finecast in my opinion, GW is releasing a lot of stinkers design-wise. For every good sculpt like the knight (which is still not a great kit because of the lack of posability, and there's the price, too) there's at least one or two bad ones (like the taurox and new ogryns), and considering GW claims all of their models are the best and prices them accordingly, that's not really good. For the prices they're charging every model should be the highest-quality they're capable of and that just isn't happening. I've literally seen kids toys at Wal-Mart that look better than GW's $50 taurox that's coming out.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Whether you like the idea or not, it's pretty self-evident that kids are a major, and quite plausibly the major market for 40k. Dakkadakka is self-selecting and gives a biased view of who is actually buying stuff in the stores. That said, I did hear that the Young Bloods tournament last year had smaller numbers than the previous year, so it is possible that higher prices are having a detrimental effect on recruitment of younger players.

In my area, there has been a MASSIVE shift away from GW in just the last four months. Younger players (16-25 range) don't even get started with GW (more on that in a moment). Of the 16 veteran players in the area, only 2 remain (myself and 1 other). The others have already sold their armies and moved on to other systems, so they are out of GW for good. My local FLGS used to have 12 tables to accommodate games, and the majority of time 2/3 of that was 40k. Now there are 18 tables (so overall gaming has grown in our area) and a grand total of NONE are 40k or WHFB (those have to be done at home now or arranged in advance).

I know some will say that 40k has never been better in their areas, but it seems that is becoming the case with GW now - a few good pockets of veterans, but most of the pockets are losing players as evidenced by their financials. GW used to dominate in all areas, not just pockets. One has only to look at pictures online of 40k tournaments versus those of Warmahordes, Flames of War or others to see the GW base is a much tighter band of age group (30s-50s) than these other systems. In other words, the next generation of gamers is NOT starting with GW.

Now a quick personal example I encountered fairly recently. I was in my local FLGS one night on a Tuesday. There was myself, the store owner and a younger wargamer (probably around 19-21 years old). After an hour of talking and doing pretty much nothing, I asked if he wanted to play a game of 40k. I had two armies and would let him use an army. He had no interest whatsoever. I asked why and he offered to show me. He picked up a $30 plastic Space Marine Librarian and a nearby Hell Dorado character model priced at $10.99. He looked at me and said something to the effect "$11 for metal and $30 for cheap plastic?" This GW company is seriously whacked with what they charge for cheap plastic and I have no interest. You older guys waste your money on this junk, but it is your money. Me and my friends won't go near this game." I told him about it being a character model, explained how troops were cheaper, etc. How fun it was to play with such variety. All the typical drivel we have used for years. His response after my drivel was (and I will never forget this line), "Dude, no game is that good to pay so much money for cheap plastic models."

So, there you have it, the opinion of a young gamer and GW. No one cares about the wonderful fluff and IP if they can't get past that last line - no game being so good to pay such a premium for "cheap" plastic models. Which means, GW has little choice but to squeeze more money out of an ever dwindling customer base (ala TSR in the final days) until eventually they push that far enough to even exceed that. Once that happens, mark my words, the collapse happens fast as it did with TSR.

In the last decade, Kodak went from a $15 billion company to bankruptcy once film sales collapsed (and I do mean collapsed). They thought they had longer because it started as an 8%-12% decline. Quickly followed by a 30% quarter to quarter decline, then 70%, then finally them getting out of the film business. All this happened in less than two years. I see a similar situation with GW - but Kirby only needs to get another year or two out of it then he can leave the rotting husk that was once GW to some other poor soul to try and save.

 SRSFACE wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Wasn't their reasoning for that some BS about how a sale would reduce the perceived quality?

Kirby speak for: "I think full price is what the market can bear and I do not want consumers holding off on a purchase waiting for a "sale" so I will not give it to them."

Wow... to quote Bugs Bunny: What a maroon. So instead, people hold off on a purchase forever (and, more likely, to to a competitor) since the sale will never come, even though a bundle is not the same as a sale.

Sales can often be a bad idea. Once a year, twice a year, maybe, but if you regularly hold sales, it devalues the whole industry. We can not like it, but it's true. Video Games with digital distribution is proof of that. It's gotten to the point game developers can't make money selling games, so they release unplayble products "for free" and require microtransactions. It's an unsustainable model as an industry and I don't see it lasting. Development costs are rising for video games faster than the rate at which it pulls money back in. "Freemium" games with AAA budgets can still flop, and often do.

So, I don't blame Kirby for something that's actually true.

Now, as you said, a bundle is not a sale. Bundling can be great business. Bundling is essentially "wholesale", on a retail level. Giving people incentives for buying in bulk often gets people to invest more than they would have total otherwise. Going back to the video games analogy, I've purchased Developers Bundles on Steam during holiday sales, and really only wanted 1 or 2 games out of the bundle that were less than the bundle price, but getting 3 other games for just a little bit more, even though some of them I still haven't and probably will never get around to playing, was enough for me. Technically, they get more money out of me than if they had got me on each one of them individually.

I think the proof for GW should be in the few bundles they actually have. How many people here have ever bought a Battleforce of some kind? I'm willing to bet most people with a sizable army did somewhere along the line.

So much this. I've done the performance analysis at various high street retailers in the UK and it's very easy to get locked into a cycle with the customers whereby they expect certain sales at certain times of the year and if you don't do it revenue collapses for that time period.

 Balance wrote:
Your apparent hatred of Spelljammer makes me a little sad and does make me question a few of your points even if the overall idea may be valid.

Spelljammer was awesome, despite a few rough points! I think i saw a comment by one of the designers (Jeff Grubb?) that it was intentionally an effort to get a bunch of cool stuff in under the management radar. It'd be kind of like if GW somehow produced a cool side-game or variant that had a lot of weird fan-appeal (which was pretty much how I heard Apocalypse described by some here when it first came out).

Buck Rogers products were pretty inevitably tainted at TSR (from what I've heard) as they got seen as a way to keep milking Lorraine William's family-owned IP instead of focusing on TSR's own properties.

Sorry, didn't mean for Spelljammer to come off as a bad product, it was meant as an example of senior management forcing down their views ti the detriment of an established brand.

Lorraine Williams family owns the Buck Rogers IP. As a result, she forced it into the D&D world to promote more science fantasy - like Buck Rogers. Something that should have stayed very limited in D&D (like in Expedition to the Barrier Peaks).

Secondly, there is plenty of write ups how NO ONE at TSR wanted to work on the product. The designer eventually took the helm, but everyone knew the product was most likely going to fail (and it did).

 Baragash wrote:

 SRSFACE wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Wasn't their reasoning for that some BS about how a sale would reduce the perceived quality?

Kirby speak for: "I think full price is what the market can bear and I do not want consumers holding off on a purchase waiting for a "sale" so I will not give it to them."

Wow... to quote Bugs Bunny: What a maroon. So instead, people hold off on a purchase forever (and, more likely, to to a competitor) since the sale will never come, even though a bundle is not the same as a sale.

Sales can often be a bad idea. Once a year, twice a year, maybe, but if you regularly hold sales, it devalues the whole industry. We can not like it, but it's true. Video Games with digital distribution is proof of that. It's gotten to the point game developers can't make money selling games, so they release unplayble products "for free" and require microtransactions. It's an unsustainable model as an industry and I don't see it lasting. Development costs are rising for video games faster than the rate at which it pulls money back in. "Freemium" games with AAA budgets can still flop, and often do.

So, I don't blame Kirby for something that's actually true.

Now, as you said, a bundle is not a sale. Bundling can be great business. Bundling is essentially "wholesale", on a retail level. Giving people incentives for buying in bulk often gets people to invest more than they would have total otherwise. Going back to the video games analogy, I've purchased Developers Bundles on Steam during holiday sales, and really only wanted 1 or 2 games out of the bundle that were less than the bundle price, but getting 3 other games for just a little bit more, even though some of them I still haven't and probably will never get around to playing, was enough for me. Technically, they get more money out of me than if they had got me on each one of them individually.

I think the proof for GW should be in the few bundles they actually have. How many people here have ever bought a Battleforce of some kind? I'm willing to bet most people with a sizable army did somewhere along the line.

So much this. I've done the performance analysis at various high street retailers in the UK and it's very easy to get locked into a cycle with the customers whereby they expect certain sales at certain times of the year and if you don't do it revenue collapses for that time period.

There is a big difference between not wanting to do regular, predicable sales and believing ever allowing a single sale on your luxury, ferrari-of-wargaming products will utterly undermine the value of them.

 jonolikespie wrote:
There is a big difference between not wanting to do regular, predicable sales and believing ever allowing a single sale on your luxury, ferrari-of-wargaming products will utterly undermine the value of them.

Given that was the very first line of SRSFACE's post, and I'm endorsing his post........

Let's take it a step further:
What goals might GW achieve by holding a sale?

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Baragash wrote:

 SRSFACE wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Wasn't their reasoning for that some BS about how a sale would reduce the perceived quality?

Kirby speak for: "I think full price is what the market can bear and I do not want consumers holding off on a purchase waiting for a "sale" so I will not give it to them."

Wow... to quote Bugs Bunny: What a maroon. So instead, people hold off on a purchase forever (and, more likely, to to a competitor) since the sale will never come, even though a bundle is not the same as a sale.

Sales can often be a bad idea. Once a year, twice a year, maybe, but if you regularly hold sales, it devalues the whole industry. We can not like it, but it's true. Video Games with digital distribution is proof of that. It's gotten to the point game developers can't make money selling games, so they release unplayble products "for free" and require microtransactions. It's an unsustainable model as an industry and I don't see it lasting. Development costs are rising for video games faster than the rate at which it pulls money back in. "Freemium" games with AAA budgets can still flop, and often do.

So, I don't blame Kirby for something that's actually true.

Now, as you said, a bundle is not a sale. Bundling can be great business. Bundling is essentially "wholesale", on a retail level. Giving people incentives for buying in bulk often gets people to invest more than they would have total otherwise. Going back to the video games analogy, I've purchased Developers Bundles on Steam during holiday sales, and really only wanted 1 or 2 games out of the bundle that were less than the bundle price, but getting 3 other games for just a little bit more, even though some of them I still haven't and probably will never get around to playing, was enough for me. Technically, they get more money out of me than if they had got me on each one of them individually.

I think the proof for GW should be in the few bundles they actually have. How many people here have ever bought a Battleforce of some kind? I'm willing to bet most people with a sizable army did somewhere along the line.

So much this. I've done the performance analysis at various high street retailers in the UK and it's very easy to get locked into a cycle with the customers whereby they expect certain sales at certain times of the year and if you don't do it revenue collapses for that time period.

There is a big difference between not wanting to do regular, predicable sales and believing ever allowing a single sale on your luxury, ferrari-of-wargaming products will utterly undermine the value of them.

Yeah, that's the problem with corporate - they are just so full of themselves. These aren't top-of-the-line sports cars or jewels we're talking about; they're pieces of plastic. They are very well designed and crafted pieces of plastic, but that still doesn't warrant the whole "they are top of the line luxury goods, so they shouldn't be on sale!" mentality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Baragash wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
There is a big difference between not wanting to do regular, predicable sales and believing ever allowing a single sale on your luxury, ferrari-of-wargaming products will utterly undermine the value of them.

Given that was the very first line of SRSFACE's post, and I'm endorsing his post........

Let's take it a step further:
What goals might GW achieve by holding a sale?

Increase of customers, and an excuse to get rid off all those OOP models they have stored, instead of throwing them away and losing money.

Increase of customers means new blood. New blood means more armies. More armies means even more money.

 Baragash wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
There is a big difference between not wanting to do regular, predicable sales and believing ever allowing a single sale on your luxury, ferrari-of-wargaming products will utterly undermine the value of them.

Given that was the very first line of SRSFACE's post, and I'm endorsing his post........

Let's take it a step further:
What goals might GW achieve by holding a sale?

Gathering some goodwill from a customer base that is abandoning them?

*edit*

Hang on why am I justifying why sales are a good thing in retail?
That seems to be an absolute fundamental of retail with very few exception. Selling product = good. If you do so at a lower price now and then but sale more units that you otherwise wouldn't have you're coming out ahead.
That's just the way the retail world seems to work and I don't understand why GW would be an exception.

 Baragash wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
There is a big difference between not wanting to do regular, predicable sales and believing ever allowing a single sale on your luxury, ferrari-of-wargaming products will utterly undermine the value of them.

Given that was the very first line of SRSFACE's post, and I'm endorsing his post........

Let's take it a step further:
What goals might GW achieve by holding a sale?

Working to eliminate the feeling of being cheated? When you offer a "one click bundle" and it is the same as retail it leaves a sour taste in a customer's mouth since it literally saves nothing but a few seconds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Gathering some goodwill from a customer base that is abandoning them?

Also this. GW acts like they're the only company that sells miniatures, and while that might have been true 20 years ago it's not anymore, so they can't keep pretending like they're the only ride in town and that gives them the ability to charge what they want because people will buy it. Besides, they used to have sales years ago so it's not like they never had them, they used to (when the company was more profitable, what a surprise?) and only recently have gone with this line of crap to justify not doing it. I could see their line of BS if they had never offered deals or sales ever during their history (although I'd still think it was asinine).

Since they HAVE offered deals in the past (and pretty good ones at that) I don't believe for a minute that rubbish Kirby says. But then again they also claim to market to a target demographic that could never conceivably pay the luxury prices associated with the game in the first place.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Increase of customers, and an excuse to get rid off all those OOP models they have stored, instead of throwing them away and losing money.

Increase of customers means new blood. New blood means more armies. More armies means even more money.

Is there any real evidence of this? I understand our desire, as consumers, to get stuff cheaper, but most businesses that shift product via sales either deal in time-sensitive items - clothes that are replaced each season - or do so to shift excess stock after seasonal humps.

In contrast, GW seem to have shifted to bigger bulk battleforces, like the Eldar set that according to our FLGS sold in large numbers. It will be intriguing to see if this has any effect on revenues over the Christmas period.

GW was never the only company that sells miniatures.

GW's monopoly is being the only company that makes and sells official Warhammer stuff. Actually they used to be a lot more broad-based.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Increase of customers, and an excuse to get rid off all those OOP models they have stored, instead of throwing them away and losing money.

Increase of customers means new blood. New blood means more armies. More armies means even more money.

Is there any real evidence of this? I understand our desire, as consumers, to get stuff cheaper, but most businesses that shift product via sales either deal in time-sensitive items - clothes that are replaced each season - or do so to shift excess stock after seasonal humps.

In contrast, GW seem to have shifted to bigger bulk battleforces, like the Eldar set that according to our FLGS sold in large numbers. It will be intriguing to see if this has any effect on revenues over the Christmas period.

The question of a good selling price depends on various factors. Like you say, "sales" are appropriate for shifting stuff that is time limited in appeal. Go to a supermarket at the end of the day to see the staff putting the reduced price stickers on food that is about to hit its sell-by date.

Non-perishable and high quality goods are different.

When I worked at Sony, we used to sell the PlayStation at a particular price and we didn't ever discount because it would have devalued the brand. What we did was make bundles like some other member said about the Battleforces, which are a way of selling the customer a cheaper overall package without specifically discounting your core product.

Sony also used to drop the base price of the console, which always stimulates more sell-through and there is a very clear link between reduced price and increased sales of consumer electronics. These price reductions were usually co-ordinated with the introduction of a reformed chassis that was cheaper to manufacture. We also used special editions -- different colours and the like -- to stimulate sales.

A lot of what GW are doing is similar. New editions of the rules, new format of the rulebook and codexes, new kits to buy and new add-on rules to support them. Battleforces. But never, ever, clearance sales.

They don't even need "clearance sales" just some common sense of if you have a "special" where you can buy 5 things at once, then there's no way it should be at full retail value. The battleforces are a good example of a discount (although still too expensive IMO), and their bundles should follow the same logic. Basically they should have looked at the reasons why most people bought via online retailers: Because they offered a 20% discount. That should have been an indicator that price is a major factor, and people are more likely to buy where they feel like they are getting a deal than a place that says "No deals, ever. Retail or GTFO", especially when coupled with price increases for any reason or no reason at all, while at the same time lowering costs.

Of course in typical GW fashion they instead felt insulted and have tried ever since to remove independent sellers from stocking anything useful, to force people to pay retail. The issue with that is that nobody likes being forced to do anything, so you have basically the underground "How to get around GW's trade restrictions" from most of the retailers, and GW gets criticism for trying to curb it - they lose out on both fronts: They ticked off the independents by trying to cut off their supply (forcing them to basically circumvent it), and they ticked off their customers by acting like a baby to force people to pay retail (which many still don't). GW gained nothing and lost a lot of respect.

GW is a textbook example of how short sighted and short-term decisions can harm you overall. All they care about is profit so they cut costs and raise prices, take away free and helpful articles to charge for them, take away the hobby aspect to sell plastic terrain, revamp their paints but never offer value, etc. Everything they do has two goals: Cut costs and raise prices, which while they are a business generally when you cut your own costs, you don't also raise prices since you're making more profit by virtue of lowering your cost.

What goals might GW achieve by holding a sale?

Numbers totally made up but will illustrate my point.

The current cheapest way to buy product.
- GW sells to a distributor at 40% of MSRP
- Distributor sells to FLGS at 60% of MSRP making 20% to cover operating costs and some profit.
- FLGS sells to individual at 100% of MSRP making 40% to cover operating costs and some profit. Online retailer sells at 80% of MSRP because they can do higher volume and lower overhead.

In this scenario, GW makes 40% to cover operating costs and profit.

GW direct, the most expensive way to buy product
- GW sells directly to the customer at 100% MSRP, putting the extra 60% into their pocket that they wouldn't normally get. However, they must spend an additional portion of the 60% to support direct sales to the customer via web or at their store.

GW ends up making more profit per unit, at least in theory

Why should GW hold sales? If GW has a 20% off sale, then there is no incentive to go to online retailers and thus GW can in roads in to that space. While they don't get the extra 60% they do at MSRP, they do get the 40% that they would otherwise NEVER see.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
high

 Kilkrazy wrote:
quality

 Kilkrazy wrote:
goods

 Kilkrazy wrote:
are

 Kilkrazy wrote:
different.

Suuuuuuuuuure

The Lord of Skulls and the Gyrocopter are high quality, actually. They have a great amount of detail.

Whether or not the aethestics are decent, is another matter.

The lord of skulls has bloodcrusher heads decorating for no reason other than its a quick and easy way to add details in CAD if you already have the heads.

Perhaps, but actually casting it is a different matter.

Those LoTR trolls are pretty terrible though. I guess from a technical standpoint it's decent, since they have wrinkles and stuff, but it still looks shoddy.

Now, if you were talking about the quality of their written material, I'd be inclined to agree.

I don't think GW needs sales, but bundling products are not sales. They are a good way to get people to buy more product because they feel they are saving.

Imagine if Mercedes (a true luxury brand) did what GW did. Say ten years ago, an E-class sold for $50k and a top of the line S-class sold for $100k. Let's say, for sake of the example, there is no inflation so 10 years later it should be the same price. What GW has done over time is raise the E-class to $100k, eliminate the S-Calss while also lowering the quality to a C-class $25k car (i.e., going to 10 minis to 5 while also moving the price up) and all the while believing they are still selling an S-Class.

I'm going to say it outright - GW are killing themselves and the management, especially Kirby, are some of the WORST business people I have ever seen in my life (and I have seen some doosies). I am trying to remember a time when there was a company so full of themselves that they literally have done all the idiotic things that GW has done, especially in the last few years. GW management are truly legends in their own minds.

Spaghetti against the wall product release techniques (i.e., just throw a bunch of half-baked stuff out there and hope something sticks) are a historical sign of companies in much deeper trouble than people realize. Apple did this in the Gil Amelio days (just before Jobs came back) and it failed - like it always does. When Jobs came back to Apple, he thought they had a few years to turn it around. He was shocked on his very first day back when he found out they were less than six months from complete insolvency - and thus one of the reasons he demanded the resignation of the entire board at that time. Kodak was doing the same thing two years prior to going into bankruptcy. Microsoft has been doing the same thing for the last ten years - how did that work out for Steve Ballmer? Finally, TSR did it in the last eighteen months of their existence and look where that lead.

Let me give a recent example on the IK codex. While many GW supporters are saying it is nice - no a single one I have read have failed to mention how little there is to the product for the price. 6 pages of rules, 2 units (technically one since it is just a weapon swap, but hey let's fill out that codex). In other words, people are beginning to feel ripped off by what GW is producing. Typical in a spaghetti against the wall environment.

Someone above said GW maybe has five years at this rate... history has shown, as to my OP, that if they make two it will be an accomplishment.

I ignored the trends with TSR. With history repeating itself at GW, I don't see the outcome being any different. All the exact same trends are there just before the collapse of TSR.