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.

GW should sell their models at a fair and competitive price.

The fact that I can buy similarly sized models in the same material and at a greater quantity per dollar means that the value is greater. Also please consider that historical minis, for example, have even greater value as they are rules agnostic and may be used for more than one game. I would submit that sci-fi figures could also be considered rules agnostic as familiar tropes such as power armor, flak vests, gribbley/buggy aliens, laser guns, hovercraft, war-bots, energy swords, etc. Are covered by a wide array of sci-fi rules.

The rules are not dependant on the fluff or the models, nor are the models dependant on the fluff or the rules, neither is the fluff dependant on the rules or the models. These things can all stand on their own and may be mixed and matched at will.

I agree with what you're saying. Keep in mind though, gw seems to think they invented power armour, marines in space, energy swords, etc.

Yes, I think that GW has huge margins and make a ton of money from selling their models. I think they could probably lower prices greatly.

One argument is that when you buy a model, your not just paying for a model, but for the whole system to play the models in. Your paying for the fluff development, the rules development, everything that goes into making warhammer needs to be funded by their model sales. So yes the prices are high, but its also a total systems price for paying for the whole world to play with the models in.

You could probably buy models cheaper, but then again the system behind the models would also be cheap.

Da Stormlord wrote:
I'm back into making threads now guys

So I went into GW on Friday and the prices were ridiculous. One model and two paints costing over £20? I think that GW could lower prices by 20% and actually get a better profit. A battlesuit commander (tau empire) costs £25. Doesn't anyone agree that this could be dropped to £20 and still be considered overpriced? What really pisses me off though is that a model half the size and made of the same materials is just £9.50? I'm tempted to abandon GW and head to the outpost, a store across the street that sells the same models for £15. A much cheaper solution to GW. I recommend you all visit there sight, they do other games such as dystopian wars and dropzone commander too.

Welcome to my world. I have been paying their high prices for 6 years to support this game. After seeing no changes to make the game balanced I no longer support this company. Always buy used on ebay because you will get a better price and you are helping someone recoup their losses. In most extremes, buy from another company that makes mini very similar to wh40k. Exercise your buying power by not giving them your money! Should the company GW go bankrupt, then its their fault, not yours.

Around 15 to 20% reduction would be nice on mist models. but an end to the points pricing relationship they have is a must. It has caused the ridiculous price imbalances that we have. Guard are still fairly reasonable but others are higher point value models are just crazy. Also needed is a return to black library being a normal book company with normal book prices.

 Smitty0305 wrote:


One argument is that when you buy a model, your not just paying for a model, but for the whole system to play the models in. Your paying for the fluff development, the rules development, everything that goes into making warhammer needs to be funded by their model sales. So yes the prices are high, but its also a total systems price for paying for the whole world to play with the models in.

That might be true if you'd get the rules and the fluff for free

 prowla wrote:

 Smitty0305 wrote:


One argument is that when you buy a model, your not just paying for a model, but for the whole system to play the models in. Your paying for the fluff development, the rules development, everything that goes into making warhammer needs to be funded by their model sales. So yes the prices are high, but its also a total systems price for paying for the whole world to play with the models in.

That might be true if you'd get the rules and the fluff for free

Hell, some of the rules systems that are free are superior to GW products - better balanced, tighter rules, fewer exceptions. Kings of War is immensely better than Warhammer Fantasy Battle, in my opinion, and is free.

Mantic miniatures are not as expensive, and are arguably not as attractive - but despite having less expensive models Mantic has created the superior rules system - and puts effort into keeping the game balanced.

So, in what way, beyond price, is the game 'cheaper' than the bloated, exception ridden, unbalanced mess that is the most recent edition of Warhammer Fantasy Battle?

The Auld Grump - that mess was the nicest thing that GW could ever have done for Mantic....

xraytango wrote:I would submit that sci-fi figures could also be considered rules agnostic as familiar tropes such as power armor, flak vests, gribbley/buggy aliens, laser guns, hovercraft, war-bots, energy swords, etc. Are covered by a wide array of sci-fi rules.

The rules are not dependant on the fluff or the models, nor are the models dependant on the fluff or the rules, neither is the fluff dependant on the rules or the models. These things can all stand on their own and may be mixed and matched at will.

Oh yes. Yes.

Yes.

Smitty0305 wrote:One argument is that when you buy a model, your not just paying for a model, but for the whole system to play the models in. Your paying for the fluff development, the rules development, everything that goes into making warhammer needs to be funded by their model sales. So yes the prices are high, but its also a total systems price for paying for the whole world to play with the models in.

You could probably buy models cheaper, but then again the system behind the models would also be cheap.

Ugh no. No.

No.

What Auld Grump said. And on the minis side of thing, as is often said, the Perrys and others can turn out great historicals plastics and sell them for about 50p each, even without GW's in-house mouldmaking and other infrastructure advantages, and arguably without as big and... 'enthusiastic' a fan base.

 Smitty0305 wrote:


One argument is that when you buy a model, your not just paying for a model, but for the whole system to play the models in. Your paying for the fluff development, the rules development, everything that goes into making warhammer needs to be funded by their model sales. So yes the prices are high, but its also a total systems price for paying for the whole world to play with the models in.

You could probably buy models cheaper, but then again the system behind the models would also be cheap.

That's the point though. GW rulesets are poorly developed, receive almost no updates, do not go through any QA and are not playtested. Why would I want to pay them for doing a bad job?

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Smitty0305 wrote:


One argument is that when you buy a model, your not just paying for a model, but for the whole system to play the models in. Your paying for the fluff development, the rules development, everything that goes into making warhammer needs to be funded by their model sales. So yes the prices are high, but its also a total systems price for paying for the whole world to play with the models in.

You could probably buy models cheaper, but then again the system behind the models would also be cheap.

That's the point though. GW rulesets are poorly developed, receive almost no updates, do not go through any QA and are not playtested. Why would I want to pay them for doing a bad job?

I dare say they don't even bother with spellcheck. The codices in 6th ed. that I have read were full of spelling errors, even in cases where the dumbest version of spellcheck should have found the mistake.

 Smitty0305 wrote:

One argument is that when you buy a model, your not just paying for a model, but for the whole system to play the models in. Your paying for the fluff development, the rules development, everything that goes into making warhammer needs to be funded by their model sales. So yes the prices are high, but its also a total systems price for paying for the whole world to play with the models in.

This argument isn't completely false, though - with GW what you are paying for is the 'GW brand', and ' brand' in general is a loose term for all the immaterial benefits, in their case high quality, well-known IP, large number of players, good vendor network and so on. So if your 'brand' is strong, it brings extra perceived value to the customers, and you can charge more money for it - and part of that money can be used to further boost your brand.

Unfortunately, GW is grossly overestimating the current value of the 'GW brand', especially compared to the competition. It seems they are lacking even the basic market research, and stuck on the image they had 10-20 years ago. They make good kits, but the competition is very close on their heels, quality-wise. They used to have the best sales network, but the internet has affected that a lot. Nowadays, the FLGS's are often better stocked and more player-friendly than the GW stores. Simply put, the market is changing, and the company should be reacting to things.

They did a bunch of good decisions 10-20 years ago, with production etc., but since then they have stalled a bit. GW still has a lot of potential to be the big market leader, but at the moment they are losing their gains.

What should GW sell their models for?

Less. A lot less.

156 USD for 9 warplock jezzails.

Mind = Blown

If GW cut it's prices by 25% and didn't do a yearly price increase for a few years (barring massive inflation of course) I would purchase tons of models from them, and recommend the game to 4+ of my friends who would buy tons of models from them.

However... as their current prices stand it is painful to purchase more than one kit at a time, every few months, and I can't in good faith recommend the game to anyone because of the fact that this game will inevitably get more expensive.

I honestly think they are hurting themselves with these prices. If they made an effort to make the game affordable, they would have tons of new players, which in turn would equal more money.

In summary: Competitive Pricing = More Buyers = More Money.

...and I know that what I just said above has already been said by numerous other people... just venting at this point.

I was wondering about this over the Christmas break. I felt perfectly fine putting Warmachine and X-Wing kits on my wish-lists, but I felt reluctant about GW models. I was trying to figure out why that was.

One conclusion that I came to was that you can buy a much larger change in game experience in X-Wing or Warmachine with a much smaller purchase than you can for Warhammer/40k. Additionally, many Warhammer/40k purchases require multiple other purchases to actually be 'useful'.
A single WMH Warnoun is a complete purchase package which on its own introduces a huge change in how you play a game. A heavy beast/jack represents 20% of your force on its own, again significantly changing the way you play. When most X-Wing fleets have 2-4 ships, a single additional ship represents a 25% change in your game. But most 40k purchases were 10% or less of a 40k force. The purchasing itself is less satisfying because the item doesn't make a big difference to you. For the ones which required additional purchases (ie, you need 2 boxes of witch elves, or 3 individual broadsides) people seemed reluctant to get those as gifts because they know they're getting you something incomplete.

In my mind, GW needs to move to a pricing model where a single mid-level purchase produces the same level of game changing experience that other game do. A $50 (AUD) model/unit should be 15-25% of the points value of an army. They need to reduce the incentive for people to purchase duplicate units. And they need to move to a pricing model which allows people to experience any faction with only a single, non-prohibitive cost.

A significant part of this would be to give away starter rules in battleforce boxes, and unit stat cards with all other purchases. PP manages to still sell their Rulebooks and faction books while still doing both of the above. Put the army fluff, special formations etc in the faction books, but don't make them a required buy. Otherwise, people begin to resent being 'forced' to buy expensive books.
Adding a character in to the battleforces and making them a single $150 AUD purchase for ~750pts would be an appropriate price level. A 1500pt army should be max $500 AUD.

Trasvi wrote:
In my mind, GW needs to move to a pricing model where a single mid-level purchase produces the same level of game changing experience that other game do. A $50 (AUD) model/unit should be 15-25% of the points value of an army. They need to reduce the incentive for people to purchase duplicate units. And they need to move to a pricing model which allows people to experience any faction with only a single, non-prohibitive cost.

That's never going to happen because of the scale of the game. FFG can sell you 25% of an X-Wing fleet for $15 because a whole fleet is four models. You aren't going to match that when you have armies with 10+ tanks, several hundred infantry models, etc.

I, after many years, have been priced out of GW too.

It happened when I came to update my IG, only to find that the new codex cost £30 (as opposed to £12 when I began) and that I was expected to pay over £20 for 10 men with only 3 of the total of 9 weapon upgrades available to them supplied. I can buy better quality miniatures from Warlord games at the same scale and with all the weapon upgrades included at £24 for 25 Infantry. Thats less than £1 per man as opposed to GW's pricing of £2.30 per man.

I also looked at updating my Skaven as I have been after some Warplock Jezzail snipers for some time now. At £10 per figure I would be needing to spend at least £90 on a single unit. For me that just is not worth it.


GW either needs to increase the quality of there mini's and decrease the size of the games or they need to drastically cut there prices by at least 50%, preferably 60%.

 Peregrine wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
In my mind, GW needs to move to a pricing model where a single mid-level purchase produces the same level of game changing experience that other game do. A $50 (AUD) model/unit should be 15-25% of the points value of an army. They need to reduce the incentive for people to purchase duplicate units. And they need to move to a pricing model which allows people to experience any faction with only a single, non-prohibitive cost.

That's never going to happen because of the scale of the game. FFG can sell you 25% of an X-Wing fleet for $15 because a whole fleet is four models. You aren't going to match that when you have armies with 10+ tanks, several hundred infantry models, etc.

I don't think that your argument invalidates what Trasvi says. GW prices for models are overblown compared to other models of similar size and the least they could do is make a single kit large enough to form a full unit and not just minimal size. Compare 40k to say Bolt action. For less than 100€ you get a crapton of infantry, several support weapons and a tank or two, enough for 1000-1500 points. Or, you know, 20 guardsmen, one Leman russ and some single HQ choice. Yes, a 40k army will never be as cheap aas a skirmish-sized game, but it may be at least similarly priced to historical games where you can expect model prices of less than 0,50€ per model and not close to 10€ (looking at you, flash gitz).

The thing is GW are running at a margin of between 10-13% most years so a price reduction of any significant amount would cut into their margin dramatically.

At a basic level reducing price by 20% requires an increase in sales of over 30% to maintain margin position and mitigate the extra overhead (assuming only 5% cost uplift and a 10% margin position).

That's hell of a lot of effort and a bigger risk just to break even. I'm no salesman but I'm not sure the extra sales are possible given such a reduction. It would be a massive roll of the dice to try and put this into action.

As a business trying to please shareholders there is zero chance of a Chairman putting his cock on the block for numbers like that.

Realistically I think the best GW could offer is holding prices for an extended period of time. The move to resin and the paring down of shops/staff makes this possible.

 Peregrine wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
In my mind, GW needs to move to a pricing model where a single mid-level purchase produces the same level of game changing experience that other game do. A $50 (AUD) model/unit should be 15-25% of the points value of an army. They need to reduce the incentive for people to purchase duplicate units. And they need to move to a pricing model which allows people to experience any faction with only a single, non-prohibitive cost.

That's never going to happen because of the scale of the game. FFG can sell you 25% of an X-Wing fleet for $15 because a whole fleet is four models. You aren't going to match that when you have armies with 10+ tanks, several hundred infantry models, etc.

If you consider a game to be around 1850pts, it's totally realistic to expect 15-25% (25% might be pushing it, depends on the army) for $50. Wargames Factory sells 28mm infantry for as little as 75 cents per model (skeletons, WW2 infantry) up to about $2.20 per model (Eisenkern Stormtroopers).

If GW sold Cadians for $1 each, $50 would buy you 50 models which would be a sizeable chunk of an 1850pt army, even if it was just 30-40 models but including weapons for special weapon squads and what not, that would be in the 15-25% region.

When you pay for GW, you are paying for the retail chain whether you like it or not.

GW will never drop the retail chain as it is what drives their turnover. It is why they are the size they are comparatively to all others wargames companies.

 notprop wrote:
When you pay for GW, you are paying for the retail chain whether you like it or not.

GW will never drop the retail chain as it is what drives their turnover.

Drives their turnover into the ground, amirite? It doesn't seem to be driving their growth or even maintaining what they have, anyway. More people just want to buy minis these days, without supersizing their order to include a shop.

 notprop wrote:
When you pay for GW, you are paying for the retail chain whether you like it or not.

GW will never drop the retail chain as it is what drives their turnover. It is why they are the size they are comparatively to all others wargames companies.

If the retail chain is doing it's job, you aren't paying for the retail chain, the retail chain results in increased sales and thus pays for itself. If the retail chain isn't paying for itself, you're doing it wrong.

 notprop wrote:
The thing is GW are running at a margin of between 10-13% most years so a price reduction of any significant amount would cut into their margin dramatically.

At a basic level reducing price by 20% requires an increase in sales of over 30% to maintain margin position and mitigate the extra overhead (assuming only 5% cost uplift and a 10% margin position).

That's hell of a lot of effort and a bigger risk just to break even. I'm no salesman but I'm not sure the extra sales are possible given such a reduction. It would be a massive roll of the dice to try and put this into action.

*snip*

If it's cheaper, you'll buy more.

Look at Mantic. Yes, they put out some real sh*t, but people go absolutely mental on their KS campaigns. Boxes and boxes of stuff that will likely never be opened!

I think GW could drop to somewhere between their prices and Mantics. As long as they kept the quality they have we'd all be very happy and they'd be raking it in. I'd rather buy a full, viable unit in one box than over two or three.

 Vermis wrote:

 notprop wrote:
When you pay for GW, you are paying for the retail chain whether you like it or not.

GW will never drop the retail chain as it is what drives their turnover.

Drives their turnover into the ground, amirite? It doesn't seem to be driving their growth or even maintaining what they have, anyway. More people just want to buy minis these days, without supersizing their order to include a shop.

Rurite? No.

It drives turnover by creating new players and maintain brand presence. At that point thy are ideally placed to pick up the initial binge spend by the new player and recover it at 100% of RRP. That's the theory anyway and seemingly reaonanbly successful at doing this. It would be be a huge vanity operation if these didn't cover their costs and I've never seen GW shy away from shutting something down if it costs money or doesnt meet targets. I would imagine that HO Overheads are seperate to this.

Existing players then have the option of discounting or continue supporting 'their' shop at full RRP.

 notprop wrote:

 Vermis wrote:

 notprop wrote:
When you pay for GW, you are paying for the retail chain whether you like it or not.

GW will never drop the retail chain as it is what drives their turnover.

Drives their turnover into the ground, amirite? It doesn't seem to be driving their growth or even maintaining what they have, anyway. More people just want to buy minis these days, without supersizing their order to include a shop.

Rurite? No.

It drives turnover by creating new players and maintain brand presence. At that point thy are ideally placed to pick up the initial binge spend by the new player and recover it at 100% of RRP. That's the theory anyway and seemingly reaonanbly successful at doing this. It would be be a huge vanity operation if these didn't cover their costs and I've never seen GW shy away from shutting something down if it costs money or doesnt meet targets. I would imagine that HO Overheads are seperate to this.

Existing players then have the option of discounting or continue supporting 'their' shop at full RRP.

That may have been true before the days of one man shops, stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.,

And may still be true, in those places with decently staffed GW shops in decent locations.

But, increasingly, that is no longer the case.

So... GW is heading in a groundward direction, with a pilot that is insisting that everything is fine. ('GW had very good year....')

I think that GW stores could be real moneymakers - but that they need to diversify, carry things that are not GW products. (Even if it is only the RPGs based on GW IP.)

Instead they are a millstone around the neck of the company, while GW is dog paddling like crazy, trying not to sink.

The Auld Grump, I will take my metaphors mixed, not shaken....

 TheAuldGrump wrote:


So... GW is heading in a groundward direction, with a pilot that is insisting that everything is fine. ('GW had very good year....')

Well, yes. The GW stores barely made any profit last year, if you calculate that the operating costs were around 50m and were responsible for 42% of the sales, total profit of the company being 123m. FLGS's sold 40% or so of their product. Revenue dropped almost 10% and profit was worst in 5 years.. Kirby's statements about a great year with solid investment in the future were fairly optimistic, I'd say - especially when their main growth strategy is stated to be opening more stores

 prowla wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:


So... GW is heading in a groundward direction, with a pilot that is insisting that everything is fine. ('GW had very good year....')

Well, yes. The GW stores barely made any profit last year, if you calculate that the operating costs were around 50m and were responsible for 42% of the sales, total profit of the company being 123m. FLGS's sold 40% or so of their product. Revenue dropped almost 10% and profit was worst in 5 years.. Kirby's statements about a great year with solid investment in the future were fairly optimistic, I'd say - especially when their main growth strategy is stated to be opening more stores

The value of GW stores can't be measured purely off what they sell. They are a form of advertising as well. How many people bought their first box from a GW but now buy from an FLGS, how many people play in GW's but buy their stuff from an FLGS, how many people would have quit if it weren't for their local GW, but still buy their stuff elsewhere? Those are the relevant questions. Even going back to the mid 90's when I started out, I bought my first box in an FLGS before I discovered GW existed, but the GW store is most definitely what kept me in the game... but I still bought stuff from the FLGS.

And that 40% from FLGS's as far as I'm aware also includes online discount shops? I'm sure there's a ton of people that play at a GW but buy from online stores, or even GW's own webstore.

Now I don't disagree GW are mismanaging their stores and the stores probably aren't worth it (in some areas definitely, in other areas I'm sure they are doing well) but it's really not possible to tell just based off store sales vs sales through other means.

Also do we know that the stores are loosing sales or is it the webstore or both.

The webstore would seem more likely given that if you can be bothered to fire up a browser your half way to finding a discount store.

GW store could be performing well for all we know; indeed GW continue to open more.

 notprop wrote:
Also do we know that the stores are loosing sales or is it the webstore or both.

The webstore would seem more likely given that if you can be bothered to fire up a browser your half way to finding a discount store.

GW store could be performing well for all we know; indeed GW continue to open more.

By my calcs the webstore sales rose about 10% from 2013 to 2014 (at constant currency) and GW stores fell by around 9%. FLGS sales also fell about 9%. It could simply be more items going to direct only and GW stores stocking less so it's easier to have things shipped to your house directly from the webstore than have your store get it in for you indirectly.

 notprop wrote:
The thing is GW are running at a margin of between 10-13% most years so a price reduction of any significant amount would cut into their margin dramatically.

At a basic level reducing price by 20% requires an increase in sales of over 30% to maintain margin position and mitigate the extra overhead (assuming only 5% cost uplift and a 10% margin position).

That's hell of a lot of effort and a bigger risk just to break even. I'm no salesman but I'm not sure the extra sales are possible given such a reduction. It would be a massive roll of the dice to try and put this into action.

As a business trying to please shareholders there is zero chance of a Chairman putting his cock on the block for numbers like that.

Realistically I think the best GW could offer is holding prices for an extended period of time. The move to resin and the paring down of shops/staff makes this possible.

Agreed; a price cut is risky. But there's almost no risk or cost in increasing value. Doubling the number of sprues in a troop box costs pretty much nothinv but makes the box better value and should increase sales by more than enougb to compensate.