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.

The other thing that make 40k WHFB get more expensive over the years is the the larger model count from edition to edition.
And the increase in the frequency and price of larger, more special minatures.(Characters, monsters,and vehicles.)

Some one looked at their 7th ed Marine force and realized it was practically the same as the Epic (SM) Marine force they used to play in 6mm!

It may be better to list the cost of a complete 2000 pt force from 1997.(Including rule and codex book.)
And a comparable cost of a present day 2000 pt force.(Using similar unit where practical,eg plastic to plastic rather than metal to plastic.)

 Talys wrote:

Also, keep in mind that PP and Wyrd's plastics are really expensive too. I recently bought a Nephilim Warrior, and that was a relatively small model for $19. Also, a Shionobi something or the other for Malifaux -- the price escapes me, but it was not cheap.

All of the companies that target tabletop war game players are exorbitantly expensive relative to alternatives. The models from GW/PP/Wyrd/etc., are significantly more expensive than comparable or superior models from companies like Tamiya or Bandai. Paints from GW or Vallejo are typically about 5-6 times as expensive as paints from Reeves or Liquitex (who market to canvas type artists, for example, but are also water based acrylics). Hobby supplies like paint brushes and hobby knives from GW or Army Painter are more expensive than even expensive brands like X-acto. Game supplies such as measuring tapes and dice from GW, Army Painter, or PP are typically at least twice as expensive, if not ten times as expensive, as those you can get just about anywhere else.

It wouldn't be so bad, but a lot of these companies that market to us gamers actually provide inferior products for far more money. I've never had a GW tape measure (I've had three over the last 12 years or so) last more than 12-18 months, but I've had my dollar-store tape measure for five years now, for example.

Depressing, actually.

Lanrak wrote:
The other thing that make 40k WHFB get more expensive over the years is the the larger model count from edition to edition.
And the increase in the frequency and price of larger, more special minatures.(Characters, monsters,and vehicles.)

Some one looked at their 7th ed Marine force and realized it was practically the same as the Epic (SM) Marine force they used to play in 6mm!

It may be better to list the cost of a complete 2000 pt force from 1997.(Including rule and codex book.)
And a comparable cost of a present day 2000 pt force.(Using similar unit where practical,eg plastic to plastic rather than metal to plastic.)

Yes, I completely agree with this. When I started 40k (1988), it was almost all infantry, with a very small number of vehicles. Like, ONE vehicle or dreadnought would be rare. Now, it is practically Epic at 28mm. There was a time when I bemoaned, and resisted, the creep towards vehicles, though this largely disappeared when they went to higher quality plastics; and eventually, as the plastic vehicles and giant robots got better, I really looked forward to them.

One could argue, GW is simply giving their fans what they're asking for -- the Imperial Knight was the voted readers' favorite model last year, after all, and all the models that placed highly in votes were large size models (Nagash size and bigger). The great smaller models like Succubus didn't even come close. People can't fall over each other fast enough to buy a bunch of Knights for $150+, but scream murder at a Dominus at $30.

OK, I might be a little crazy.

I went to the shelf and grabbed the WD introducing 3rd edition. There is a 1,500 point battle report in in, and I priced out the army used. This is just going to be an approximation, as I used the 2000 catalog to price things out, as I figured there would be more plastic kits out at the time. Some of the prices here are for metal a/o hybrid kits. Some wargear is approximate, but I tried to keep true. The 1,495 point army would now represent 1,298 points on a modern table; if you wanted to bring the points up to something equivalent, you could probably spend $50-80 to get there, but could be more depending on how concerned you are with dollar efficiency.

2000 price ($) - unit - modern price ($)
6.50 - Chaplain - 16
7.50 - Captain - 22.25
30 - 5 man terminator squad - 50
23 - 10 tactical marines - 40
20.25 - 5 man scout squad - 25
32 - 8 man assault squad - 65
40 - 3 bikes - 40
25 - Land Speeder - 30
33 - Pred (TLLC/LC) - 57.75
20 - rhino - 37.25
33 - dreadnought - 46.25
----------------
$270.25 - Total - $434.50

If you want to count rules:
15 - Codex - 58
76 - Starter box - 110

It’s worth noting that if you are counting the starter boxes, the 3rd ed on came with a tac squad and a LS on the marine side ($48 value) while DV comes with tacs, terminators, bikes, and 2 HQs ($168.25 if we sub the librarian for the chaplain). On the flip side, the 3rd box came with a full size rulebook.

A quick check of a random inflation calculator tells me that something bought for $270 in 2000 would cost $375 today.

Wow, Nevelon, props for the effort

$375 vs $434 isn't that egregious, IMO. It touches a good subject, though: I don't think the pricing issue that gamers have are, strictly speaking, the price of the models.

Among other things -- I don't know about other areas, but in my area, the discounts for GW product have gone up and up through the years; for instance, in 1988, the best discounts were 10% discount, and today, the best discounts are 30% (or a little more).

The bigger problem for some players is that with the arms race that's occurred, the described army by today's standards would be squashed like a bug (ok, fine, it would have sucked then too, but still, a competitive list back then would not have cost a lot more).

So you need to buy titans, centurions, librarians, character models and all that kinda jazz that can really add up quickly. It's not the tactical squads, the scouts, or even the assault marines that kill the pocket book.

 Talys wrote:
$375 vs $434 isn't that egregious, IMO.

Why would it be? You're the guy casually spending $5k on your latest project.

"Don't care. Got mine!" - Talys

 Talys wrote:
Wow, Nevelon, props for the effort

$375 vs $434 isn't that egregious.

15% over inflation, when the UK has been experiencing <1% inflation for several years of the time frame in question, and by all accounts the tech has got cheaper (and GW have either paid it off or had many years of writing it down) and production methods more straightforward is pretty bad.

 Talys wrote:
Wow, Nevelon, props for the effort

$375 vs $434 isn't that egregious, IMO. It touches a good subject, though: I don't think the pricing issue that gamers have are, strictly speaking, the price of the models.

Among other things -- I don't know about other areas, but in my area, the discounts for GW product have gone up and up through the years; for instance, in 1988, the best discounts were 10% discount, and today, the best discounts are 30% (or a little more).

The bigger problem for some players is that with the arms race that's occurred, the described army by today's standards would be squashed like a bug (ok, fine, it would have sucked then too, but still, a competitive list back then would not have cost a lot more).

So you need to buy titans, centurions, librarians, character models and all that kinda jazz that can really add up quickly. It's not the tactical squads, the scouts, or even the assault marines that kill the pocket book.

The list is a standard WD kitchen sink list. Little bit of everything. Lots of expensive wargear as well.

Bikes remaining the same price was a bit of a shock. The box back then was a hybrid kit that came with a sarge, plasma and melta gunner. The rules/points for them blew chunks, but the minis were basically the same ones as today.

The assault marines doubling in price was a bit painful. If my foggy memory is accurate though, you didn’t get the spare torsos/backpacks back then, so there is significantly more stuff in the new box.

Which can be said for just about everything. You pay more, but you do get more. The old tactical box just gave you a ML/F. If you wanted other specials/heavies, you bought them in blisters.


One of these days I’m going to sit down and do a dollar to point comparison, see what’s “average"

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Talys wrote:
$375 vs $434 isn't that egregious, IMO.

Why would it be? You're the guy casually spending $5k on your latest project.

"Don't care. Got mine!" - Talys

Because a lot of other things for entertainment, like movie tickets, novels, and video games, have also gone up a lot more than inflation.

"Can't have. Whine more!" - H.B.M.C.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Wow, Nevelon, props for the effort

$375 vs $434 isn't that egregious.

15% over inflation, when the UK has been experiencing <1% inflation for several years of the time frame in question, and by all accounts the tech has got cheaper (and GW have either paid it off or had many years of writing it down) and production methods more straightforward is pretty bad.

But you could say the same thing about printing costs for fiction, right? After all, the printing costs in China are teenie tiny, yet a new release hardcover now is crazy expensive, compared to 1988 or 2000. Comic books, too -- have you seen the cover price of an Extraordinary X-Men these days, compared with Uncanny X-Men of the past? It's $4 an issue, I think, and there are so many crossovers you have to buy a kazillion comics to follow 1 plot line now. The fact is, entertainment prices have FAR outstripped CPI, a measurement of necessities. If you actually take fuel out of CPI, inflation is even lower.

I have a feeling Space Marines are actually probably one of the more stable armies as far as price rises are concerned. I don't remember too many OMGWTF moments when looking at Space Marine price rises.

Though I understand using them as a baseline since they are the most common army. I'd be interested to see how the comparison would look for Orks or Imperial Guard or Tyranids where you've had decreasing box sizes to go along with the increasing prices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
Because a lot of other things for entertainment, like movie tickets, novels, and video games, have also gone up a lot more than inflation.

I'm not sure about novels, but movie tickets and video games haven't gone up more than inflation.

Video game prices have only had a few small price increases over the years, far less than inflation. I believe the consoles themselves have remained pretty constant relative to inflation, but the games have definitely dropped.

Movie tickets feel like they've gone up heaps, but when you look in to it, they've been reasonably constant vs inflation.

 Talys wrote:
Also, if the cost of tooling good plastic kits is something that isn't expensive of difficult to come by, I wish other companies would improve their plastic kits and move things to plastic. I actually RETURNED a nephilim warrior just last week (new PP release), because the tooling was so bad on the plastic model that I couldn't bear keeping it as a $19 infantry piece. I say tooling, rather than production, because there were 3 boxes, and all 3, frankly, sucked.

I'd be curious which one you were talking about. The only individual Nephilim is Nekima, and aside from some fragile parts (Wyrds stuff aren't Mr Potato Head proportioned, so you get some thin peices) it's a fantastic model. Mine had no mold lines or soft detail, which is what is usually cuased by bad tooling.

Actually, Az, I found the article I was thinking of:

http://comicsalliance.com/minimum-wage-price-of-comics/

The price of comics has increased by a (stunning) factor of 379.2% relative to the minimum wage. The link has a really nice regression chart that shows the growth of price of comics versus minimum wages, from 0.24% of a week's wage per issue to 1.15% of a week's wage per issue.

In 2010, the average cover price for a typical 32 page superhero comic was $2.99 (1). In other words, to purchase ONE comic would cost 1.15% of someone’s weekly income.

The US Federal Minimum Wage in 1961 was $1.15 per hour and, figuring the same 36 hour work week, a person would have earned $41.40 per week. To purchase the first issue of Fantastic Four, a person working minimum wage would have spent only 0.24% of their pay cheque. That is a stunning difference in price. To put this even more plainly: it represents a 379.2% increase in the price in relation to minimum wage from 1961 to 2010.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
@AllSeeingSkink - To buy a "complete" video game today, it's what, a $60 game plus another $60-$100 of DLC? The price increases beyond inflation are simply hidden from the initial purchase by making the original purchase less than half the play time of the complete game.

The cost of movies has definitely gone up in my area. I recall movie tickets of $8, maybe less? Tuesdays, they were half price from that. Just bought tickets for Pixels, and it was $14 (each). Popcorn and a drink in the theatre will be $11 (per person!)

Edit -- here, In 1948, a movie ticket was $0.36, and in 1989, a movie ticket was $4.

http://www.examiner.com/article/40-years-of-movie-ticket-history

 Talys wrote:
Actually, Az, I found the article I was thinking of:

http://comicsalliance.com/minimum-wage-price-of-comics/

The price of comics has increased by a (stunning) factor of 379.2% relative to the minimum wage. The link has a really nice regression chart that shows the growth of price of comics versus minimum wages, from 0.24% of a week's wage per issue to 1.15% of a week's wage per issue.

Yeah, because practically the end of the Second World War to today is exactly the fething same as the last ten years.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Actually, Az, I found the article I was thinking of:

http://comicsalliance.com/minimum-wage-price-of-comics/

The price of comics has increased by a (stunning) factor of 379.2% relative to the minimum wage. The link has a really nice regression chart that shows the growth of price of comics versus minimum wages, from 0.24% of a week's wage per issue to 1.15% of a week's wage per issue.

Yeah, because practically the end of the Second World War to today is exactly the fething same as the last ten years.

At least click on the link before you make a snippy comment. I quoted it because that's what the author wrote. The regression chart shows that in 1974, the percentage was still about 0.24%, meaning that from 1938 to 1974, the price basically kept pace with minimum wage. From there, it rose to the current level of 1.15% on an almost straight line, representing a 379% growth over minimum wage, in that period, evenly distributed.

Incidentally, since this article was written (2011), and as was correctly forecast at the end of the article, the price of comic books has gone up to $4 / comic, which represents 1.53% of minimum wage (that's going up from 1.15% to 1.53%, or TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT in just FOUR YEARS). Which is accurate, as they went from $3 to $4.

Which is to say, comic books, which are often sold in the same hobby shops as Games Workshop products, have far, far outstripped GW in terms of price growth. Keep in mind that most comic book customers don't buy one comic book, but often 5, 10, 15 or more per week. If you wish to follow the crossover story lines, it's almost impossible not to now. 10 comics = $40 per week = $2,080 per year.

Now all you've got to do is tie that to a different product, with different costs, a different customer base, different commercial pressures over a different time period and you might have a point.

As it is you're just spouting random facts.

GW have increased prices well in advance of inflation, even in periods where inflation was low to non existent, while comparable products from other companies have not increased nearly as much, and are much lower, despite GW being best placed to out compete rivals on price.

Comparing it to comics isn't any sort of rebuttal, it's just strawmanning.

 Talys wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
@AllSeeingSkink - To buy a "complete" video game today, it's what, a $60 game plus another $60-$100 of DLC? The price increases beyond inflation are simply hidden from the initial purchase by making the original purchase less than half the play time of the complete game.

You're moving the goal posts a bit on that one. DLC didn't exist back then and even now it's not in all games by any stretch and many games it's only aesthetic.

VERY few games will cost $60 + $60-100 of DLC.

$60 (assuming you're paying full retail) is the equivalent to $43 in 2000, $40 in 1996 (when the N64 came out), $34 in 1991 (around when the SNES came out).

Even if you account for a few dollars of DLC ($60 of DLC is insane and not representative at all), it's still cheaper now than it was back then.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/why-retail-console-games-have-never-been-cheaper-historically/

The cost of movies has definitely gone up in my area. I recall movie tickets of $8, maybe less? Tuesdays, they were half price from that. Just bought tickets for Pixels, and it was $14 (each). Popcorn and a drink in the theatre will be $11 (per person!)

$8 when? $14 today is the same as about $8 in 1991.

You asserted that movie ticket prices increased more than inflation, here's a website that compares movie tickets directly to inflation...

http://collider.com/movie-ticket-price-inflation-statistics/

Part of the shock with GW is that when compared to probably the most common shared hobby for table top gamers, Video/computer gaming, the price increase is devastating, but only because of how flat video game prices are. Sure, DLCs eat into that, but Video Games are probably cheaper against inflation over time.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Wow, Nevelon, props for the effort

$375 vs $434 isn't that egregious.

15% over inflation, when the UK has been experiencing <1% inflation for several years of the time frame in question, and by all accounts the tech has got cheaper (and GW have either paid it off or had many years of writing it down) and production methods more straightforward is pretty bad.

I dunno.... a 15% price increase over 15 years, independent of inflation? That's not nothing, but It's not exactly a massive price increase either. I think we're so used to the price of household consumer goods (aka, plastic crap made in China) to trend down, and not up.

@AllSeeingSkink - in the video game community, many people are very unhappy that an initial, $60 game purchase does not constitute the entire game. Often, core parts of the game already written when the game launched is simply unlocked by paying more money (look at Forza or Call of Duty). I would argue that the DLC isn't some future-maybe-expansion, but a planned part of the game's core revenue stream (and something you have to pay if you want to play multiplayer with your friends), because on Day 1, you can purchase the "Complete Season Pass" for $100++.

DLCs did not exist in the 90s, but this was because the price of the game was under what people would spend. DLCs are just a way to get people to increase the total price in a clever way (at least, the vast majority of PC gamers think so).

Now, personally, I would argue that video games are WAY better today than 20 years ago, so it's not like you aren't getting more for your money. The contrarian would argue, "yes, but they're all mostly knockoffs of a few successful concepts."

But to give you an example, just look at how many DLCs there are for NFS (Need for Speed) or Forza Motorsport. For heavens sake, they charged you extra for *movie packs* for NFS, and if unless you want to play for a bazillion hours, you had to pay to unlock most of the coolest cars in Forza, lol.


Re, movie tickets: in 1989, movie tickets were $4
http://www.examiner.com/article/40-years-of-movie-ticket-history

Re, comic books: In 1986, cover price was $0.75 ($4 today)
http://comicsalliance.com/minimum-wage-price-of-comics/

I picked these dates because this was around the time of Rogue Trader, when I personally started playing 40k and became involved in miniature wargaming hobby.

@Polonius - yeah, video games are probably one of the best ways to spend your entertainment budget, along with television -- hence, the very wide appeal. It helps them that digital distribution is almost free now, so marginal cost of a sale is almost zero. Plus, if you're willing to play last year's games, you can get them WAY, WAY cheaper.

 Talys wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Talys wrote:
$375 vs $434 isn't that egregious, IMO.

Why would it be? You're the guy casually spending $5k on your latest project.

"Don't care. Got mine!" - Talys

Because a lot of other things for entertainment, like movie tickets, novels, and video games, have also gone up a lot more than inflation.

"Can't have. Whine more!" - H.B.M.C.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Wow, Nevelon, props for the effort

$375 vs $434 isn't that egregious.

15% over inflation, when the UK has been experiencing <1% inflation for several years of the time frame in question, and by all accounts the tech has got cheaper (and GW have either paid it off or had many years of writing it down) and production methods more straightforward is pretty bad.

But you could say the same thing about printing costs for fiction, right? After all, the printing costs in China are teenie tiny, yet a new release hardcover now is crazy expensive, compared to 1988 or 2000. Comic books, too -- have you seen the cover price of an Extraordinary X-Men these days, compared with Uncanny X-Men of the past? It's $4 an issue, I think, and there are so many crossovers you have to buy a kazillion comics to follow 1 plot line now. The fact is, entertainment prices have FAR outstripped CPI, a measurement of necessities. If you actually take fuel out of CPI, inflation is even lower.

First of all, paperback novels have not risen very quickly, unless you count novelty formats or forced reprinting a into trade format. Second, genre hardcovers were $25 back in 1997, when I used to actually buy them. Last time I checked, they are about $35 now, however I can usually get the newest Dresden Files book for $15-$18 off Amazon, which didn't exist back then. Comics in 1995 were damn near $3 an issue, what with all the hologram covers and foldout covers and the Cable issue 0/Age of Apocalypse/Death of Superman crap. If they are only $4 per issue now, that sounds great. Still, Amazon has trade paperbacks on discount, so you know...

 Talys wrote:
@AllSeeingSkink - in the video game community, many people are very unhappy that an initial, $60 game purchase does not constitute the entire game. Often, core parts of the game already written when the game launched is simply unlocked by paying more money (look at Forza or Call of Duty). I would argue that the DLC isn't some future-maybe-expansion, but a planned part of the game's core revenue stream (and something you have to pay if you want to play multiplayer with your friends), because on Day 1, you can purchase the "Complete Season Pass" for $100++.

But again, you're only looking at very few games that have such expensive DLC. Out of *HUNDREDS* of video games available these days only a few have DLC anywhere near that price.

If you're comparing video game prices from 1990 to now, there's no fething point comparing the absolute most expensive games you can possibly buy now to an average game back then

I could just as equally go on Steam and find a pile of games under $20.

@AllSeeingSkink - Okay, yes, there are very cheap video games available today, including free and free-to-play games, point taken.

But keep in mind that most of the money in the video game industry is not made by most of the games; it's made by a very small number of very successful games. I was really talking about these triple-A titles (compared to like titles "back in the day") -- the ones that people really get really excited about and the ones that people really *want* to play, especially if money isn't a constraint. You know, the GTA's and COD's, that turn into billion-dollar titles.

Taking desirability and hotness out of the equation, you could play most miniature wargames on the cheap with cardboard counters, there are lots of free books, plenty of free comics, and Netflix costs a fixed $8 a month to turn into a vegetable. And that's not even going into piracy. One could say, "I'm so turned off from it and the rules suck so bad that 40k isn't desirable to me at all"... but then... the price and price growth compared to other entertainment forms doesn't really matter

I think prices must have been quite different here in Canada. I know now most things are twice as many Canadian dollars as UK customers pay in £. When I bought my first Tactical Squad in about 2004, it cost $38.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
First of all, paperback novels have not risen very quickly, unless you count novelty formats or forced reprinting a into trade format. Second, genre hardcovers were $25 back in 1997, when I used to actually buy them. Last time I checked, they are about $35 now, however I can usually get the newest Dresden Files book for $15-$18 off Amazon, which didn't exist back then. Comics in 1995 were damn near $3 an issue, what with all the hologram covers and foldout covers and the Cable issue 0/Age of Apocalypse/Death of Superman crap. If they are only $4 per issue now, that sounds great. Still, Amazon has trade paperbacks on discount, so you know...

The problem is, most things that are most desirable (sadly, almost everything I want to read) only come in hardcover first. I'm talking about your George Martin, Ken Follett, Diana Gabaldon, that kinda of stuff.

So yeah, if you want to wait past the initial craze, you can get them a lot cheaper.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Also, if the cost of tooling good plastic kits is something that isn't expensive of difficult to come by, I wish other companies would improve their plastic kits and move things to plastic. I actually RETURNED a nephilim warrior just last week (new PP release), because the tooling was so bad on the plastic model that I couldn't bear keeping it as a $19 infantry piece. I say tooling, rather than production, because there were 3 boxes, and all 3, frankly, sucked.

I'd be curious which one you were talking about. The only individual Nephilim is Nekima, and aside from some fragile parts (Wyrds stuff aren't Mr Potato Head proportioned, so you get some thin peices) it's a fantastic model. Mine had no mold lines or soft detail, which is what is usually cuased by bad tooling.

He mentions PP in brackets, so I assume it is a Warmahordes model. So, different beast. I do agree, the new Wyrd plastics are sharp, but not so if you look at the late 1,5 models in plastic. They had a fast learning curve, though.

 Talys wrote:
@AllSeeingSkink - Okay, yes, there are very cheap video games available today, including free and free-to-play games, point taken.

But keep in mind that most of the money in the video game industry is not made by most of the games; it's made by a very small number of very successful games. I was really talking about these triple-A titles (compared to like titles "back in the day") -- the ones that people really get really excited about and the ones that people really *want* to play, especially if money isn't a constraint. You know, the GTA's and COD's, that turn into billion-dollar titles.

But even then you can't cherry pick the few AAA games that have huge DLC costs when there's also a bunch that don't I'll let you add $10-15 for DLC on average and say video game prices haven't changed (corrected for inflation) but choosing the couple of games that have $60 DLC is like saying car prices have gone up because a 2015 Rolls Royce costs more than a 1960 Chevy Nova

If you want to compare apples to apples, most AAA games are not in the same scope as games back then anyway, they cost a huge amount more money to make these days, they have developer teams around the 100 employee mark.

If you're going to compare to "like titles back in the day" you're probably better off looking on Steam at all the indie games that you can pick up for under $10

 Talys wrote:
But keep in mind that most of the money in the video game industry is not made by most of the games; it's made by a very small number of very successful games. I was really talking about these triple-A titles (compared to like titles "back in the day") -- the ones that people really get really excited about and the ones that people really *want* to play, especially if money isn't a constraint. You know, the GTA's and COD's, that turn into billion-dollar titles.

Even among AAA games, very few have quantities of DLC that match the purchase price, if much at all. The majority of games have a few skins or multiplayer maps - for a multiplayer that no one plays. It's generally completely avoidable DLC. There's a few games that turn into DLC vending machines - Rock Band and Evolve come to mind, but they're the exception, not the rule. CoD is the exception on multiplayer DLC since people actually play that games multiplayer.

Your example of GTA is a good one. GTA gets very little paid DLC. GTA 4 had Lost and the Damned and Ballad of Gay Tony, but those were standalone titles more akin to the expansion packs of old. GTA 5 has released a series of free updates for its Online game, but no paid DLC to my knowledge.

@Loki - you're right about GTA. There is one coming out (I think it's called Heist?), but I think it's enough to call it an "expansion" rather than DLC.

Still, you can't deny that there are tons of super popular games that have a lot of DLCs, like Fallout, Mass Effect, Forza, NFS, and Dragon Age. Pick a PS4 or XB1 top tier title, and it probably has some form of expansion (though you're also right, most aren't as expensive as the initial game, though many are two-thirds the price or more).

Eventually, you can buy a bundle that rolls it all together, and it's a lot cheaper, but this is not for the Day 1 players.

Anyways, you and Skink are almost certainly right that video games have grown less in price than tabletop wargaming (though, also more than inflation, methinks). And, I would add, are certainly more efficient ways to spend your entertainment money (which is why they're so popular).

Heists are already out on GTA.

DLC is a touchy topic because there's good stuff like the Elder Scrolls series that falls in the 'Expansion Pack' category and totally worth the money for the content. And there's the likes of Evolve.

But holy feth if there isn't anything more nefarious than free-to-play games that end up suckering you in for way more than you'd ever pay for a AAA game. My World of Tanks days were dark days for my wallet indeed.

 Talys wrote:

Anyways, you and Skink are almost certainly right that video games have grown less in price than tabletop wargaming (though, also more than inflation, methinks).

I seem to recall PS1 games costing around £35 when it first came out, I'm pretty sure acts what I paid for Tomb Raider

£35 in today's money is ~£50

I could order Batman: Arkham Knight right now for £39.. (And that's not the cheapest title by any margin)

So, no, on balance I'd say video games haven't really outpaced inflation at all, unless you start cherry picking titles.

Hell, I can remember paying £10 or so for some 8 bit titles, and that's £25 at today's rates.

@Az - That sounds about right. Most games top tier games are, off the shelf are about $80 here and currency conversion is 2:1 to CAD.

My point, though, was that for many games, this doesn't represent the complete game; the complete game requires you to buy the "Season Pass", too. For example, using your title, Arkham Knight, the game has a Season Pass of GBP 33 - 40 (depending on platform):

http://www.amazon.co.uk/287/dp/B00XASVJRM/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1439514569&sr=8-4&keywords=arkham+knight

(note that it requires the full version of Batman: Arkham Knight in addition to the season pass)

Being pretty involved in the video game community for a great number of years, the vast majority of players in that community think that DLCs are the bane of their existence and simply a way for vendors to double the price of the game (or more). As someone involved in the publisher side of things, about all I can say is "they're right".

Still, I will happily concede the point because it's a whole other discussion we could go on forever about, and we should move past it, because it really doesn't have a lot to do with GW, 40k, etc.