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.

 Throt wrote:


It's like saying Mercedes should charge less so I can afford one.
IF you feel the price is too high, that is ok...

How about this:



That's about $110 kit that stands eye to eye with a Reaver Titan in multi-colored plastic and probably a bajillion times the sprues of a Wraithknight or Riptide. And utterly crushes either of them in detail, articulation, etc.

But nah, them being of poor value is entirely subjective if you don't compare them to anyone else... Oh, wait...

Or should we forget this being just $33 a year or so ago:


Now it's $35 for five. NOPE.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Throt wrote:

In a nut shell, variety.

One Warhammer 40k army that could go from good to bad to good again based on $50~$85 rules changes or armies in four other games with different play styles to master.

I ask, which one is more variety, aesthetics and fluff aside?

*shrug* We like 40k, but Games Workshop is a terrible mess. No reason to support that terrible mess until we see a positive change.

I'm not sure I understand the first sentence but I'll try.
Price is subjective as well. And if you don't feel you are getting the desired value I can see you not buying.
I have been playing since 1991. IF the game never changed people would complain that it is old and stale. People complained that they weren't releasing things, now they complain that they are releasing them too fast. We all have a camp that we are part of. I am part of the I enjoy this and will do it for as long as that continues'.

Again not sure what you mean as far as which is more variety..
I'm guessing you mean what variety not including different army options and stories.
I can play a game from 500-3000 points.
I have rules to pay tens of thousands of points.
I can play just vehicles, infantry,. This versus that.
Scenario's, campaigns.etc.

What is the positive change you are looking for?.

 Throt wrote:

I'm not sure I understand the first sentence but I'll try.
Price is subjective as well. And if you don't feel you are getting the desired value I can see you not buying.
I have been playing since 1991. IF the game never changed people would complain that it is old and stale. People complained that they weren't releasing things, now they complain that they are releasing them too fast. We all have a camp that we are part of. I am part of the I enjoy this and will do it for as long as that continues'.

Again not sure what you mean as far as which is more variety..
I'm guessing you mean what variety not including different army options and stories.
I can play a game from 500-3000 points.
I have rules to pay tens of thousands of points.
I can play just vehicles, infantry,. This versus that.
Scenario's, campaigns.etc.

What is the positive change you are looking for?.

Price is not subjective. You have folks in the modeling industry who create and produce miniatures that state directly that Games Workshop is highway robbery.

I really don't know how to address your other statements as they are seriously left field. And left field baseball when everyone else is playing football. And there is plenty of evidence that the "as long as that continues" portion of your statement will be not much longer; all dependent on the next financial statement and how Games Workshop reacts.

If you want to really dig into why people would be upset, take the words from someone who has played 40k just as long as yourself, or longer, has been a corporate executive for an international company, and produces his own products for the miniatures hobby:

http://masterminis.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-future-of-games-workshop-part-14.html

This also ties strongly into what has killed Fantasy, primarily the rules and the ever expanding cost of starting the game. The game doesn't work until 2000+, something that Warhammer 40k is approaching, and requires you to buy multiple boxes of the same model to just make one effective unit. Fantasy tanked with 7E and never really recovered in 8E.

 Throt wrote:
Price is subjective as well.

No, it really isn't in this case. Producing injection-molded plastic model kits is a subject that is pretty well understood by now, and when you compare GW kits to other manufacturers the GW kits are incredibly expensive for their size and level of detail. They're, at best, adequate gaming models where you're willing to put up with lower quality and higher prices because you enjoy the game and they're game pieces, not display kits.

People complained that they weren't releasing things, now they complain that they are releasing them too fast.

You're missing the reason WHY people are complaining: the increase in the speed of releases has come at the cost of a decrease in the quality of new releases. Even ignoring blatant DLC-style spreading of the same content into multiple $50 books and reduction of page counts in each new codex there's a general feeling that GW is rushing out half-finished products in a desperate attempt to keep sales numbers up.

I can play a game from 500-3000 points.
I have rules to pay tens of thousands of points.
I can play just vehicles, infantry,. This versus that.
Scenario's, campaigns.etc.

Any game can do this. Praising 40k for having a range of point values makes about as much sense as praising it for letting you play on a 6x4 table or a 6x4 space on the floor.

 Throt wrote:


They do charge quite a bit but the idea that they are obligated to charge a lesser amount doesn't make any sense. It's like saying Mercedes should charge less so I can afford one.

Comparison is inadequate. Mercedes puts a lot of effort into new car designs, manages a huge team of (quality!) employees and produces products at a very high quality level. Even if we, for a second, look over the fact that the two industries are vastly different, there's the huge difference to GW: quality. GW simply asks for a premium yet fails to deliver a premium. This isn't completely subjective either. Poor editing, poor rules-writing, no (!) or extremely late reaction to glaring problems, rushed products - etc. It's different for models as those usually come at a good quality and therefore a higher-than-usual price is appropriate. The rules, however, are extremely lacking.

Thereis a difference between disliking a part of the game and it actually not working.

Precisely. And nobody claimed that it isn't actually working. People complain about a lack of quality - which is there, as much as some might want to wish it away.

Can you help me to see what part of the game is just a rough guideline?

You made the claim in your previous posts...

 Lobomalo wrote:

Have you considered that the reason why other games run better is that they are smaller? Warmachine for instance is much easier to manage, it's small scale skirmishes and while fun, get old rather fast and tend to favor certain things.

From one of my earlier replies in this very thread:

Someone made a count a few months ago, Warmahordes has something like 180 different and distinct spells alone and approximately as many Warcasters / Warlocks each with its distinctive and unique Feat (a kind of one use only super-spell), across its 12 different factions.

Each individual faction has, on average, 50+ distinct units, counting warcasters, warjacks, units, solos, battle engines and unit attachments. Since Warmahordes is a skirmish game, each of those entries will have a fair amount of special rules attached to them.

And to add to all the simplicity of balancing warmahordes, you have two distinct ways of actually playing the game but that still need to be balanced against each other in Warmachine and Hordes and the Focus mechanic versus the Fury mechanic.

You think that all of that is somehow easier to balance than 40k because you can't change a melta-gun for a plasma gun or add frag grenades to a unit?

Also, Warmahordes also has allies, flyers and vehicles.

Also Warmachine and 40k have a very similar number of distinct units on the table. Despite whatever GW says, 40k is also a skirmish game in scope and rules, only the model count has risen dramatically but those models are more often then not, just wound counters that have almost no practical impact in the game...

So please stop making posts about something that you obviously know nothing about. Every single one of your claims about lack of balance in any game has been clearly disproved by simple google searches. Do you even understand the concept of balance in any game?!

The bottom line is this:

1) GW's rules *are* bad. This is an objective fact. It may or may not impact *your* gameplay, but the rules are pretty crap by any stretch of game design. The proliferation of random charts that serve no purpose other than to add a random element, the unclear and often ambiguous rules, the complete lack of caring any lick towards a balanced force, these all mean that in the context of game design 40k would rank pretty low. However, keep in mind that this does *NOT* mean the game can't be fun.

2) Telling people who are negative/criticize the company to "just stop playing" is not only useless, it's also rude and insulting. Many of us who complain used to play, likely longer than the people who think everything is sunshine and roses, and maybe, just maybe, wish that GW would finally clean out their ears and come down from their ivory tower to see what is wrong with the game, and address it. Dismissing all complaints as "Don't like it? Don't play it!" is bullgak. The fact GW has stuck its head in the sand like an ostrich and ignores all communication and feedback just infuriates peole more, because it is an outright ridiculous way to act for a modern business.

3) The old "They've been in business 30 years, they must be doing something right!" argument is a fallacy. While not on GW's scale I've worked for companies that were in business for 10 or more years, and they still collapsed quickly and spectacularly when all their bad business decisions caught up with them. GW had almost no competition for years, while now there are a ton of competition and the internet allows for more startups to chip at the market via things like Kickstarter. GW's business model is not in any way, shape or form sustainable.

4) A big part of the problem with 40k's rules is that the rules are still designed for a skirmish game, despite everything being pushed larger. The ruled have not had a significant change since 2nd to 3rd edition in I believe 1998 (I forget the specific date), and even then 3rd edition was still largely a smaller-level game. Armies went up, this is true, but it was still like a platoon-level game. All the little nuances in the rules have zero place in a large-scale game and bog things down to an enormous scale. There's a reason why virtually every other large-scale game does not use model removal or umpteen special rules for each army: Speed and ease of learning the game. 40k takes the opposite approach, trying to cram as much gak as possible in the game so games are an all-day affair; the conspiracy theorist in me wants to say this is deliberate to push the "investment" that 40k players have in the game, similar to how casinos don't have clocks so you aren't aware of the time you spend in them, which equates to spending more money.

I love 40K, but it is really hard to be positive and not feeling disappointed. I got into the game by starting Dark Angels and despite the encouraging drivel by the local 40K Guru that they were a good codex, they sucked. Against Tau? They sucked. Against Imperial Guard? They sucked. Against the new Space Marine codex? They sucked. That expensive,but glorious Nephilim Jetfighter? It sucked, especially against the units it was supposed to be good against. Those iconic and awesome terminators? Sure, they sucked. In the beginning it was easy to chalk all this up to my inexperience, but in truth, the power gap between the factions was huge. So my interest in the game waned and I stopped playing altogether.

I got into the game again by buying a Tyranid army second hand in the eve of the codex release, thinking that it would be on par with the latest releases. Guess what? Well, it sucked less than the Dark Angels. Actually I loved the 'nids I started collecting,playing and painting vigorously . I bought two of the 40 quid Hive Crone kit, just to have some decent answer to armor. And then 7th edition arrives prematurely and nerfs vector stike, smash, shadow in the warp and my only semi-reliable unit that can cope with AV13+, due to the addition of psychic phase. And makes Landraiders scoring... Maybe it is just unfortunate turn of events and bad planning on my part, but it is hard not to feel bitter, especially when you play against two Riptides on Hammer and Anvil.

I won't be selling my army. I will continue playing , as I owe it to the great guys from my club . I love the Tyranid models and the core rules of the game are decent, despite being archaic and baroque. But I won't be buying any GW models soon. Especially when the are great companies like Hawk Miniatures, who actually make an effort to balance their game (Dropzone Commander) . I've just bought 2000pts Scourge army for 170 pounds, including paints and terrain, due to the great starter. Yes, the models are smaller, but most of them are high-quality resin and their detail is phenomenal. Just saying...

WayneTheGame wrote:
The bottom line is this:

1) GW's rules *are* bad. This is an objective fact.

Just curious. Was there evidence to back it up? It sounds like an opinion, if I may say so.

There are incidents within the game where there just isn't any way of resolving a situation,mor where the rules as written simply fail to work.

The Legion Of The Damned codex being a good one, where the whole army is obliged to start in reserve, but has no exception to the "lose if nothing on the table" rule, or permission to arrive on turn 1 in some capacity, therefore making a pure LotD army automatically lose at the end of it's first turn, every time.

Another would be where the number of powers a Psyker can cast per turn is "dependent on their mastery level" but that relationship is never explicitly defined.

Now, nobody is arguing these things can't be fixed easily, or logical assumptions be made as to intent, what the argument is, is that a company that has been in the business of rules writing since the 80s, and that is charging the highest price on the market for it's rules, should not be relying on it's players to fix such elementary mistakes, and should certainly be acting quickly to errata/FAQ the things that do slip through the net.

I would not say that GW rules are "bad". They are "lacking". There is an underlying concept at work, but it gets muddied by poorly written rules.

Then I think perhaps its not all bad. Please hear me out on this.

"Bad" is not a very precise term so a statement that something is bad, I feel should be qualified. For example, I agree that GW rules are bad in terms of precision. There are some vague areas which make it difficult to resolve and encourages rule lawyering.

However, it is good that it has a forge the narrative "rule" because it allows the player to have multiple types of play and replayability, with the same army. I could, for example, play renegade sisters who have broken off in disillusion and developed their own psychic prowess. That is quite bizarre but with unbound or allies, I can try to make that happen.

Unbound has its bad sides too I'll admit. My point is that it is not so clear cut to say "it is 100% bad and other games are better in every way."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I believe, by looking at the number of disappointed players here, that GW has run out of good will, thus supporting the statement from the op that even if they have changed their styles, they might not be given another chance because they have cried wolf probably hundreds of times but this time, they are telling the truth.

One has to consider the qualities that are necessary for a set of rules to be considered "good" surely?

Wouldn't clarity and precision be right at the very top of what is desired from a ruleset (alongside playability and flexibility?)

So, while, yes, you could suggest that GW rules aren't "bad" in every sense, but I think you'd struggle to prove that they weren't lacking in areas that are key to a "good" ruleset, essentially making it a distinction without a difference.

Please don't fall for the "forge the narrative" spiel either, there is nothing inherent to 40K over any other ruleset that allows or encourages this style of play, as it 99% depends on the player generating it regardless. It is just a catchphrase that was generated in 6th edition, largely to hand wave away the lack of precision and clarity in the rules.

In fact, I'd contend forging the narrative is harder in a game when you have to look up rules all the time, and repeatedly stop playing in order to discuss with your opponent about how something is supposed to work.

Once I stepped away from GW and tried other games, I saw how "bad"* 40k rules really were. Now I doubt even a proper Sisters of Battle release would bring me back unless there were improvements to the core rules and a change in corporate behavior.

GW going after fan sites, independent stores and serious IP paranoia needs to change.

*unnecessarily complex, vague, RANDOM and unfluffy.

I feel I should, at this point, before someone pops up and starts yelling "you're just a negative hater!!1!!" In my face, say I think 7th is actually, despite no real, substantive changes outside of the psychic phase, a big improvement over 6th, I think the cumulative effect of all the smaller changes has had a real impact in a positive sense.

That said, it still isn't perfect, but if I could say to my gaming group "give me 10 wishes" for rules or units that I wanted to adjust, I could probably get something close to a very playable and fair game.

Of course, if I wanted it perfect, I'd need to start from the ground up, but I really think 7th has moved in the right direction, just perhaps not far enough (and obviously, core rules can't always do anything about OP stuff in the codexes)

I highly agree with the point about taking a step away from GW. As can be seen with special individuals in this very thread, if you stick too close to one set of rules, you lack the overall perspective.

When I picked up Flames of War, I was completely flashed - insanely complex but pretty darn well balanced. Takes a lot of time to get into because you can see that the developers actually thought about what they're doing and thought of anything possible that might happen. It's the little details that really make an awesome ruleset.

I actually did read up on Flames or War and Warmachines. Mostly just for interest in gaming and also, I wanted to be able to see both sides of the argument. However, I problem is lack of players in my group. We are all pretty much tied for time most days so what time we have is 40k. Starting another miniature games takes time to assemble and paint, which is a premium these days as well.

A little off topic but I actually wanted to start Flames of War. but unless my play group/area has a good distribution of early vs late war and different countries, I can't really start the army I like. I may be constrained in my choice so I wasn't keen on that. In 40k, I find that it doesn't matter which army I pick, I can still play a game.

Still I probably will pick up a Warmachine rulebook once I get the chance. Just to get a good read.

These little onesie codecs like inquisition, knights, legion of the damned, temptus, etc should have been condensed into one book ie chapter approved. Fluff should go to white dwarf

Kal-El wrote:
These little onesie codecs like inquisition, knights, legion of the damned, temptus, etc should have been condensed into one book ie chapter approved. Fluff should go to white dwarf

And supplements should be things that change the faction's playstyle. Black Legion and Crimson Slaughter are too similar to the CSM for me to care.

 azreal13 wrote:


Another would be where the number of powers a Psyker can cast per turn is "dependent on their mastery level" but that relationship is never explicitly defined.

This was solved in the locked thread in YMDC, it just wasn't widely accepted by this forum.

Also, to the poster who says I am not here to discuss the game, pros and cons wise, I have been and I have asked numerous questions that only a few have answered.

Also, the google searches for balance in other games, inherently skewed. Specifically for the local tournaments that both the players looked up. You don't look at the regular season and see how things are as they are constantly in flux with patches and fixes. Also seeing as I still play those games myself, I can attest real world knowledge.

Moving on.

Warmachine is definitely more stable, no argument there, but it is designed for small scale skirmishes with a handful of units on either side so it becomes much easier to run and manage, 40k is significantly larger and when you have larger games, you get serious issues.

And supplements should be things that change the faction's playstyle. Black Legion and Crimson Slaughter are too similar to the CSM for me to care.

Definitely something that should be done. There are plenty of ways that GW could improve the game and it would help them if they did, but as someone said earlier in answer to one of my own posts, if you fix one problem players find in a game, chances are you'll create an entire new one. It's why you never really have true balance as players will consistently want something changed so it is in their favor which is also why no company will ever be able to satisfy all players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TychoTerziev wrote:
I love 40K, but it is really hard to be positive and not feeling disappointed. I got into the game by starting Dark Angels and despite the encouraging drivel by the local 40K Guru that they were a good codex, they sucked. Against Tau? They sucked. Against Imperial Guard? They sucked. Against the new Space Marine codex? They sucked. That expensive,but glorious Nephilim Jetfighter? It sucked, especially against the units it was supposed to be good against. Those iconic and awesome terminators? Sure, they sucked. In the beginning it was easy to chalk all this up to my inexperience, but in truth, the power gap between the factions was huge. So my interest in the game waned and I stopped playing altogether.

My roommate got into this game with DA, I got in with Tyranids. He won most of his initial games against Tau, albeit close ones, destroyed IG and broke even with SM. You'll have bad games and some armies will have inherent advantages, but you change your play style, invest in different unit types and try again. Also, Nephilim is absolute garbage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Throt wrote:


It's like saying Mercedes should charge less so I can afford one.
IF you feel the price is too high, that is ok...

How about this:

Spoiler:

That's about $110 kit that stands eye to eye with a Reaver Titan in multi-colored plastic and probably a bajillion times the sprues of a Wraithknight or Riptide. And utterly crushes either of them in detail, articulation, etc.

But nah, them being of poor value is entirely subjective if you don't compare them to anyone else... Oh, wait...

Or should we forget this being just $33 a year or so ago:

Spoiler:

Now it's $35 for five. NOPE.

Different time. New players have trended away from Metal models actually. Don't think anyone likes the prices of GW models which seems to be one of your biggest issues. There's a simple fix though, everyone stop buying new models and buy used or buy from 3rd party sources. Like other games, they'll notice sales have dropped and prices will drop.

One of the LGS I frequent sells all GW merchandise at %20 less than retail, not a bad deal at all. Another one gives you %10 off and gives you a %10 bonus towards membership points for buying GW. Then there is Amazon, Ebay and other places you could easily shop from. Bought 2 Vindicators yesterday for $50. Sure they're used, but some Simple Green, some paint, good as new and nobody would ever be able to tell the difference.

It doesn't take any extreme effort to find cheaper models, just need to accept that they'll be used.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Throt wrote:


It's like saying Mercedes should charge less so I can afford one.
IF you feel the price is too high, that is ok...

How about this:

Spoiler:

That's about $110 kit that stands eye to eye with a Reaver Titan in multi-colored plastic and probably a bajillion times the sprues of a Wraithknight or Riptide. And utterly crushes either of them in detail, articulation, etc.

But nah, them being of poor value is entirely subjective if you don't compare them to anyone else... Oh, wait...

Or should we forget this being just $33 a year or so ago:

Spoiler:

Now it's $35 for five. NOPE.

The first image is a beautiful model.
But it doesn't have rues to play in my game, with all the articulation it is probably too fragile to be moved around in a case and all over my gaming table, doesn't fit the theme of any of my armies, probably takes 20 times as long to assemble, is prepainted when I want to paint my own etc.
So $110 is priced way too high for me.
Comparison pricing need to be within the scope of what you are using. You can't accurately compare a drinking glass to a swimming pool.

Yep Dire Avengers did go up. If you want Dire Avengers they are going to cost you. I would suggest forgetting about it.
Personally I don't concern myself with what was because it is in my control whether or not I buy it. You are not happy with it so you wont buy, but I wonder what the sales of Dire Avengers are..if its 'x' thousand units, people are buying them.

 Throt wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Throt wrote:


It's like saying Mercedes should charge less so I can afford one.
IF you feel the price is too high, that is ok...

How about this:

Spoiler:

That's about $110 kit that stands eye to eye with a Reaver Titan in multi-colored plastic and probably a bajillion times the sprues of a Wraithknight or Riptide. And utterly crushes either of them in detail, articulation, etc.

But nah, them being of poor value is entirely subjective if you don't compare them to anyone else... Oh, wait...

Or should we forget this being just $33 a year or so ago:

Spoiler:

Now it's $35 for five. NOPE.

The first image is a beautiful model.
But it doesn't have rues to play in my game, with all the articulation it is probably too fragile to be moved around in a case and all over my gaming table, doesn't fit the theme of any of my armies, probably takes 20 times as long to assemble, is prepainted when I want to paint my own etc.
So $110 is priced way too high for me.
Comparison pricing need to be within the scope of what you are using. You can't accurately compare a drinking glass to a swimming pool.

Yep Dire Avengers did go up. If you want Dire Avengers they are going to cost you. I would suggest forgetting about it.
Personally I don't concern myself with what was because it is in my control whether or not I buy it. You are not happy with it so you wont buy, but I wonder what the sales of Dire Avengers are..if its 'x' thousand units, people are buying them.

I used to live in Japan and bought an obscene amount of Gundam models. They are not fragile and are quite posable without fear of breaking. My Turn A has an insane amount of posability and is very sturdy. It takes a heck of a lot to make them, but that's half of the gundam model hobby. Also, they come in the basic colors but painting is essential to make them look how they're supposed to.

But that's not really the point of what he was saying. He wasn't saying "hey, use this in your 40k games" he was saying "Hey, look, here's a much more posable, articulated, complex, more detailed model that's higher quality in very objective way......and its cheaper." He's saying that the value of GW large models are a rip off and there's no reason they should cost so much.

And you can absolutely compare plastic models to plastic models.

The reason they cost so much is that people will that much for them.

Plastic to plastic yes, quality to quality of the stuff becomes an issue. Beautiful models though, love Gundam. But we've already established that GW are greedy bastards who want money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The reason they cost so much is that people will that much for them.

This right here.

As long as people continue to pay the prices for them, there is no reason to change the prices.

Not everyone but apparently enough to keep GW afloat.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Not everyone but apparently enough to keep GW afloat.

True enough. Not to mention all the other products they sell as well including fantasy, books, audiobooks, paints. Stuff adds up fairly quickly. And with no real competition for the genre, they can take a massive hit in their stocks and still bring in more of a profit than any other wargaming company

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The reason they cost so much is that SOME people will pay that much for them.

Fixed that for you.

The "they charge because people will pay" is only half the equation. There's plenty of people who won't. Who knows what the curve actually looks like, I don't think GW themselves know what the curve looks like. It wouldn't surprise me if the sales of Dire Avengers dropped massively with the price hike. It also wouldn't surprise me if back in the day when GW had sales in the mid 90's, they actually made more money off the sales than they would have if they'd held the price constant.

To an extent, I'm sure many people spend the same on GW products regardless of the price of the models as they have fixed spending money and/or fixed time to paint/play with them. But there's also a large element of people who have quit the game because they felt it was getting too expensive and a large element of people who buy elsewhere.

The "they charge what they do because people pay for it" is like saying "everyone is just whining". It's a massive over simplification of a multifaceted discussion. I think GW went well past the "because people pay for it" wall with Australian pricing... so many people have quit 40k in my area that I can barely find a game at the local FLGS's anymore.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The reason they cost so much is that SOME people will pay that much for them.

Fixed that for you.

The "they charge because people will pay" is only half the equation. There's plenty of people who won't. Who knows what the curve actually looks like, I don't think GW themselves know what the curve looks like. It wouldn't surprise me if the sales of Dire Avengers dropped massively with the price hike. It also wouldn't surprise me if back in the day when GW had sales in the mid 90's, they actually made more money off the sales than they would have if they'd held the price constant.

To an extent, I'm sure many people spend the same on GW products regardless of the price of the models as they have fixed spending money and/or fixed time to paint/play with them. But there's also a large element of people who have quit the game because they felt it was getting too expensive and a large element of people who buy elsewhere.

The "they charge what they do because people pay for it" is like saying "everyone is just whining". It's a massive over simplification of a multifaceted discussion. I think GW went well past the "because people pay for it" wall with Australian pricing... so many people have quit 40k in my area that I can barely find a game at the local FLGS's anymore.

Such prices are a huge barrier for new players. Last year GW trimmed everything that could be trimmed, came out with Space Marines and still their report wasn't good. This year they had knights and a new lackluster edition, only they have nothing left to trim. And GW most certainly has stiff competition.

 MWHistorian wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The reason they cost so much is that SOME people will pay that much for them.

Fixed that for you.

The "they charge because people will pay" is only half the equation. There's plenty of people who won't. Who knows what the curve actually looks like, I don't think GW themselves know what the curve looks like. It wouldn't surprise me if the sales of Dire Avengers dropped massively with the price hike. It also wouldn't surprise me if back in the day when GW had sales in the mid 90's, they actually made more money off the sales than they would have if they'd held the price constant.

To an extent, I'm sure many people spend the same on GW products regardless of the price of the models as they have fixed spending money and/or fixed time to paint/play with them. But there's also a large element of people who have quit the game because they felt it was getting too expensive and a large element of people who buy elsewhere.

The "they charge what they do because people pay for it" is like saying "everyone is just whining". It's a massive over simplification of a multifaceted discussion. I think GW went well past the "because people pay for it" wall with Australian pricing... so many people have quit 40k in my area that I can barely find a game at the local FLGS's anymore.

Such prices are a huge barrier for new players. Last year GW trimmed everything that could be trimmed, came out with Space Marines and still their report wasn't good. This year they had knights and a new lackluster edition, only they have nothing left to trim. And GW most certainly has stiff competition.

I imagine GW came out with 7th edition primarily to ward off a bad financial statement, so we'll have another year of customers abandoning GW but them maintaining good numbers as they milk the ones who stay... however it really doesn't seem like a sustainable business model, it's not irreparable, but if they continue on their merry way I think a lot of people are predicting a collapse.

Everyone can have their opinion but at the end of the day last year people spent £130 million on GW stuff.

(I wasn't one of them FWIW.)