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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The beakies were £10 for a box of 30 including some missile launchers, power fists, pistol hands, and spare parts like ammo boxes, knives and pistols to customise individual figures.

Shark Missile Launchers... Rhinos 3 to a box. Aspect Warriors, 5 to a blister.. for $7

 Smacks wrote:

Are we also comparing metal with plastic here?

One of the events that really soured my feelings towards GW, was when they started charging metal prices for plastic. For the longest time I wanted them to switch over to plastic to make the hobby more affordable (I actually used to believe their BS about fluctuating tin prices). But when they finally did start making the transition, the price of plastic kits suddenly shot up to be the same price as the old metal kits, and then exceeded it. Brazenly refusing to pass any of their savings onto customers, is when I stopped seeing them as a friendly grass-roots hobby company, and started to see them as the greedy soulless corporate gits that I see them as today.

Agreed.

There was a time when they said that plastic kits would be cheaper than metal and passed that on to the player. armies got bigger because it was more affordable and easier to build. But prices went up and some years ago they claimed that customers were now prepared to pay for plastic the same as metal. And that sealed the end of plastics being economical for mass army building.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 keezus wrote:
@John Wirral: Can you check a few items and add to the original post?

I believe the following items are EXACTLY THE SAME as back in 1997 (finecast aside). Lord Azrael (already posted) is a good example.

1. Eldrad, Phoenix Lords
2. Space Marine Bike

Not sure if Rhino MKII was released by 1997. It might not have been. Khorne Berserkers, Catachans are also very old kits that have not seen an update.

The SM Bike has had a teeny tiny update to make the Rider's torso and legs and ball and socket joint like the rest of the SM line. Other than that it's exactly the same kit.

The current Rhino was released in.... I want to say 2001-2002. Berserkers and Catachans were released in 1999.

I'm struggling to think of things that haven't been updated since then. Some of the Space Wolf characters I know go back that far (Ragnar, Ulric and the PA Njal). There might be more stuff in WHFB that goes back that far but still not a lot, the Wolves that Goblins ride on go back to 1992, but the riders might be newer. The Goblin Wolf Chariot I think goes back to the mid 90's but I could be wrong.

Ork buggy - I bought this kit in the late 90s for £10. It's now £18.50 for the exact same plastic kit:
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Ork-Warbuggy

According to figures I could find for cumulative UK inflation since 1997 it seems to be about 27% - which would mean the kit has gone up by around 45% in real terms.

That's pretty scandalous in my view.

 Wafflecakes wrote:
Ork buggy - I bought this kit in the late 90s for £10. It's now £18.50 for the exact same plastic kit:
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Ork-Warbuggy

According to figures I could find for cumulative UK inflation since 1997 it seems to be about 27% - which would mean the kit has gone up by around 45% in real terms.

That's pretty scandalous in my view.

You might be surprised. It's not that far apart. I put GBP10 into the Inflation Calculator in the Bank of England site:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/resources/inflationtools/calculator/flash/default.aspx

GBP10 in 1997 = GBP16.25 in 2014. Average rate according to Bank of England is 2.8% between 1997 and 2014

Doing the math, GW's average rate of inflation 1997-2015 was 3.47% per annum based on 10 -> 18.50, by the way (versus CP 2.80% according to bank of England). With the caveat that this is terrible math, because now, what GW tends to do is heap all of its price increases onto its new products, and leave its old products priced the same. And that puzzle is pretty hard to figure out.

I mean, it's nice to say, "raise all the prices of stuff the same and spread out the love", but I don't think anyone wants to pay the same price for a box of space marine scouts as they do for tempestus scions (which are a way better model).

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
I am a collector, but my price elasticity has been surpassed a while. Now i am looking for a lot of proxies, and buy second hand, although the idea of plastic 30k marines may open my wallet again

I'm both a painter and a player and it has been surpassed around the time Finecast and 6th ed hit. The price of the rules compared to the new price of the models (which is, for me, expensive enough at the time but still tolerable) did it for me.

 Wafflecakes wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 keezus wrote:
@John Wirral: Can you check a few items and add to the original post?

I believe the following items are EXACTLY THE SAME as back in 1997 (finecast aside). Lord Azrael (already posted) is a good example.

1. Eldrad, Phoenix Lords
2. Space Marine Bike

Not sure if Rhino MKII was released by 1997. It might not have been. Khorne Berserkers, Catachans are also very old kits that have not seen an update.

The SM Bike has had a teeny tiny update to make the Rider's torso and legs and ball and socket joint like the rest of the SM line. Other than that it's exactly the same kit.

The current Rhino was released in.... I want to say 2001-2002. Berserkers and Catachans were released in 1999.

I'm struggling to think of things that haven't been updated since then. Some of the Space Wolf characters I know go back that far (Ragnar, Ulric and the PA Njal). There might be more stuff in WHFB that goes back that far but still not a lot, the Wolves that Goblins ride on go back to 1992, but the riders might be newer. The Goblin Wolf Chariot I think goes back to the mid 90's but I could be wrong.

Ork buggy - I bought this kit in the late 90s for £10. It's now £18.50 for the exact same plastic kit:
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Ork-Warbuggy

According to figures I could find for cumulative UK inflation since 1997 it seems to be about 27% - which would mean the kit has gone up by around 45% in real terms.

That's pretty scandalous in my view.

Not sure where you got the inflation estimate from, it seems more like 60-70% inflation since 1997, compared to GW's 85%.

Though with that kit.... it actually feels like something that should have gone down in value The Warbuggy no longer matches the aesthetic of the rest of the Ork force, it feels like something you should be grabbing out of a bargain bin rather than paying a premium to get.

Prices have gone up a huge amount....

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Stormcast-Eternals-Lord-Castellant

heartserenade wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
I am a collector, but my price elasticity has been surpassed a while. Now i am looking for a lot of proxies, and buy second hand, although the idea of plastic 30k marines may open my wallet again

I'm both a painter and a player and it has been surpassed around the time Finecast and 6th ed hit. The price of the rules compared to the new price of the models (which is, for me, expensive enough at the time but still tolerable) did it for me.

Finecast drastically reduced my GW spending, and not particularly because I hated it as much as a lot of other people (though I certainly didn't love it). Ironically, it's because finecast takes a LOT longer to prep, so I was painting WAY, WAY fewer models.

Plus, during that transitionary period, I didn't really love a lot of the plastic kits that much either. It was around the time of the last space hulk (3e) that my interest in GW plastics really perked up.

Hückleberry wrote:Prices have gone up a huge amount....

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Stormcast-Eternals-Lord-Castellant

Yeah, but you could say they went down a huge amount too...

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Sylvaneth-Dryads

Some models are just 16x more expensive than other models. With GW, any model you're only going to own 1 of is going to be expensive, any that you'll own several of is going to be cheaper, and any you'll own a tons of will be a lot cheaper -- all in relative terms of course.

By the way, I have many unpainted $10 character models still from 1988 that are cast in lead or white metal. To put the models in comparison: if GW had come out with the Lord Castellant then, and offered it for $20 (that would be the inflation adjusted price of about $40 today), it would have been sold out instantly.

But best deal ever for GW models... the old beakie Mk 4 plastics box!!

 Talys wrote:
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Sylvaneth-Dryads

These went down... but I'd be hard pressed to say they went down by HUGE amount. They went from $2.91/model to $2.56/model (13% decrease per model, but there is an 17% increase in capital cost to get the benefit). Rather than say... selling 12 Dryads for $31, you are essentially buying 14 dryads at the old cost and getting two free.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
By the way, I have many unpainted $10 character models still from 1988 that are cast in lead or white metal. To put the models in comparison: if GW had come out with the Lord Castellant then, and offered it for $20 (that would be the inflation adjusted price of about $40 today), it would have been sold out instantly.

I suspect the Castellant wouldn't have been $20 back then. I'd hazard he'd be around the same price as the old 2nd Ed Hive Tyrant, Lictor, or the old metal Verminlord. Scale creep on the big beasties is a thing, and its easy to forget how small the monsters were back in the late 80's early 90's.

I think GW have realised their prices are a problem and are finding ways to make things a bit cheaper without doing obvious price cuts across the board. For example, battalion boxes are bundles in all but name.

The problem is once you look beyond the starters the prices ramp up agains quickly. AoS is a good value starter set with nearly 50 models for £75 and includes full rules and a fluff book, but then the add-on figure sets and books are suddenly hugely expensive.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The problem is once you look beyond the starters the prices ramp up agains quickly. AoS is a good value starter set with nearly 50 models for £75 and includes full rules and a fluff book, but then the add-on figure sets and books are suddenly hugely expensive.

Which seems counter to what was said about one of the reasons for the Old world being scrapped in favor of AoS: the high cost of entry into the game for new players. It seems as though they're setting the stage for the whole thing to start all over again. Except this time, it won't take 30 years to get there.

John Wirral wrote:
Just got a copy of the 1997 GW price guide - thought I would do a comparison of a few items - sorry if this exists already somewhere...

I started 40k in 1992, when I was 12... I couldn't afford much then, which made me think about people (including me) who find the prices today rather expensive.

(please ignore GW expecting you to have a bigger army etc - it's just an interesting comparison - personally I just enjoy making and painting the models).


Blood Claws (10 models)____________20_______23_______0.78%
Wolf Guard Terminators (5 models)_____25_______28_______0.63%
Blood Angel Dreadnought____________25_______28_______0.63%
Tactical Squad (10 models)___________20_______25_______1.25%
Azrael_____________________________7______12.3______3.18%
40k Box Set________________________50_______65_______1.47%
Codex Tyranids_____________________15_______25_______2.88%
Yarrick____________________________7________11_______2.54%
Codex Orks_________________________15_______30_______3.93%
Razorback__________________________20_______25_______1.25%
Basic Paint pot_____________________1.25_______2.55_____4.04%
Metallic Paint pot___________________1.75_______2.55_____2.11%
Spray Paint Undercoat________________5________10.4_____4.15%


I was really surprised by this - the prices have not really gone up at all, especially taking inflation into account.

The last column here is the annual price increase. I.e. average annual inflation.

As I said in the first post, sure - these models are metal, and GW expects you to have/want more models.

My observation is that the models that we have today are far far better quality (regardless of the material they are made from) than those of my youth, and yet the annual inflation on these products is really not too bad.

The models I picked were purely some I am interested in... no agenda there. I like space marines.

Sure - single figure clam packs are absolutely mad prices, books seem pricey and swapped too often...

For me as a (bad) painter, it seems like I'm not too badly treated.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
To an earlier poster:

1. Eldrad Ulthran 1997 £7----------- 2015 £12.50
2. Space Marine Bike 1997 £5----------- 2015 £8
3. Rhino 1997 £10----------- 2015 £22.50
4. Khorne Berserkers x10 1997 £10----------- 2015 £23 (the models today are multipart and far better)
5. Catachans x10 1997 £17----------- 2015 £18


Two interesting things from 1997...

6 plastic marines = £5 while 10 plastic marines = £10
1 marine bike = £5 while 3 marine bike = £20

Aye, though I suspect that the price increases in those two cases are that the squad boxes either included metal components (IIRC the whole upper bodies for the bikers) or an additional upgrade sprue. Though didn't the Space Marines comes in boxes of five? That's how the sprues were done, but I may be wrong, or are you talking about the metal tactical marines which were discontinued around the time that the plastic kit came out?

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Aye, though I suspect that the price increases in those two cases are that the squad boxes either included metal components (IIRC the whole upper bodies for the bikers) or an additional upgrade sprue. Though didn't the Space Marines comes in boxes of five? That's how the sprues were done, but I may be wrong, or are you talking about the metal tactical marines which were discontinued around the time that the plastic kit came out?

GW has often sold different sized packs of marines. Like a 3 man push-fit box, a 5 man combat squad, and a full 10 man tac. The price per marine goes down in the larger boxes. I don’t recall the specifics of the time, but it might just be that.

The bike box did include extra metal bits. Sarge with a power sword, and both a melta and plasma gunner torsos. So while you paid more for for the 3 bike box, you also got more.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Aye, though I suspect that the price increases in those two cases are that the squad boxes either included metal components (IIRC the whole upper bodies for the bikers) or an additional upgrade sprue. Though didn't the Space Marines comes in boxes of five? That's how the sprues were done, but I may be wrong, or are you talking about the metal tactical marines which were discontinued around the time that the plastic kit came out?

Good point on the bikers getting extras.

These were the boxes of 6:
http://www.teef.net/oddsandsods/woti.jpg

I can't find a picture of the 10 boxed guys.... I guess they were the same as the ones in the 3rd ed box set.

One of things that gets me sometimes is the prices on some of the 'moldy oldies'. I have still in a 2000 copyright blister, price code 'F' metal Commander Dante for $12.99. Note the figure was not new at that point; had already been out for a while.

Now 15 years later they want $19.25 for what amounts to a resin copy of that metal fig....

John Wirral wrote:



Two interesting things from 1997...

6 plastic marines = £5 while 10 plastic marines = £10
1 marine bike = £5 while 3 marine bike = £20

Not sure about the bikes but if I remember correctly the 6 marines box were all similar/the same bolter dudes while the 10 man box had at least sergeant bits and at least one special and one heavy weapon.

gota factor in inflation....

At the end of the day, people need to ask, "Beyond inflationary forces, am I willing to pay more for more sophisticated, more detailed and cleaner cast models?"

If you pick a non-character space marine released 2015 (say a devastator) to like plastic and metal space marines of the 1990s, or 2000's the difference is striking. I mean, it's not like you're paying for the same thing. Same thing with a character model: take a librarian from 1995, 2005, and 2015 -- they may be equivalent game pieces, but they are not equivalent product.

Games Workshop is essentially marketing their models to people who answer the question, "I'm willing to pay more for something that I perceive is better; please give me updated models like new devastators and new librarians!", whereas there are some people who answer, "I'm not going to spend that much time working with the model anyways. They're all going to look pretty similar anyways; a librarian is a librarian is a librarian. Please just give me cheaper gaming pieces."

I do not know *anyone* who has bought the new librarian, one of the old finecast librarians, and spent 10+ hours painting one (much less 20, 30, or more hours) who would say, "I'd rather have the old one cheap". On the other hand, I know plenty of people who play with "tabletop" standard models who could really care less what the models were made of and would happily buy an old Finecast for cheap.

Of course a lot of people aren't so black-and-white. They're excited by better models, but they don't want to pay more, or at least not a LOT more.

It is simple i am not prepared to pay more for a product that has not changed or hasn't improved over the years, the tactical plastic marine squad box hasn't changed for years, it should get cheaper not more expensive, the molds have been payed of bulk etcetera.

What really grinds me is the absurd prices for single character these days, i am willing to pay 25$ for a limited run kingdom of the death miniature but not for a space marine mono pose figure, before you at least got several options to gear out your characters and now even that is gone.

 Talys wrote:
At the end of the day, people need to ask, "Beyond inflationary forces, am I willing to pay more for more sophisticated, more detailed and cleaner cast models?"

Absolutely. Which is why I rarely buy GW and instead prefer actual boutique companies, not just boutique prices

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Talys wrote:
At the end of the day, people need to ask, "Beyond inflationary forces, am I willing to pay more for more sophisticated, more detailed and cleaner cast models?"

Absolutely. Which is why I rarely buy GW and instead prefer actual boutique companies, not just boutique prices

i own a ton of boutique minis, and they are not any more detailed than GW's minis...
the only noticable difference, is that they are usually limited edition, and proper resin...

GW has pushed the limits with their plastic casting with each new generation of their plastics...
i can set the new Tech-Priest Dominus next to any model on the market, and they are both of equal quality...
the only difference is that the Dominus is not limited edition, and is plastic, both things that i would say are an advantage of the Dominus...


@Jehan-reznor: if you think that the SM Tactical Squad has not changed or improved over the years, i would have to ask if you have even looked at the latest box, which came out only two years ago...
the sculpts are miles ahead of the previous edition...
there are also more weapon options than ever before, as well as tweaked helmets, torsos, legs, and backpacks...
just the fact that we finally have some straight leg options, and striding legs, versus the old squatting legs would have been enough for me...
even two years later, i still get excited by the new look...
it is so much better than the previous box...

then there is the new Blood Angel Tacticals and Terminators, the new Assault Squad, new Devastators, and new Dark Angels Terminators, all of which are less than two years old (so are still paying themselves off) and a huge improvement on anything we have had before for Marines...
of course, not liking the price is fine, but saying nothing has changed is just not true...
not caring for them is a different matter entirely...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Talys wrote:
At the end of the day, people need to ask, "Beyond inflationary forces, am I willing to pay more for more sophisticated, more detailed and cleaner cast models?"

Absolutely. Which is why I rarely buy GW and instead prefer actual boutique companies, not just boutique prices

i own a ton of boutique minis, and they are not any more detailed than GW's minis...
the only noticable difference, is that they are usually limited edition, and proper resin...

GWs plastics yes.
But Plastics simply can't match resin or metal imo.

I've never seen a GW model with sculpted toenails, and rarely even with individual fingers instead of all of them together around a weapon or in a fist (or with just one pointing).

@jonolikespie - Sorry, I disagree about metal. GW plastics are way, way better than metal. By separating a single model into many pieces, you have the ability to layer details that are otherwise impossible with a single piece (or a small number of pieces).

Regarding fingers, Dark Elf Sorceress and Turmiel from Dark Vengeance is an obvious example of fingers not together:


Most GW models are holding weapons or items in both hands (or 2-handed items), which is why you don't see it a lot. I think the Frodo/Bilbo models have toenails. But I mean, this isn't exactly something you're going to find desirable in any of the races in AoS/GW armies Shoeless Space Wolf for the win.

If you're into things that are bigger than infantry, plastics are just a ton easier to work with. not to mention, they don't fall apart.

The problem with resin is consistency. If you buy a model when the mold is new, it's awesome. If you get a model made near the end of the mold's life, it sucks. I just had to toss 30 resin bases from SWM because the molds were at EOL, but they shipped the bases anyhow - the result was a (severely) pitted surface. Plus, plastic survives drops a lot better than resin. But I will agree: resin offers more resolution than plastic. Just not enough to make me feel that it's more desirable a material to work with, considering these other factors.

@Jah-Joshua
"not caring for them is a different matter entirely... "
Ah, doing your passive aggressive thing again.

It is because i care, i forgot about the new tactical squad box, so i concede that point, still think it is too expensive though.
What i am trying to say is that as technology improves in most manufacturing area's the price decreases per unit, prices for making molds have dropped.
Plastic extruding technology has improved, that is why companies like bolt action, Dreamforge games and wargames factory can offer their kits for reasonable prices.
Except GW off course.

@Talys

Sorry, depending on the technology used, Resin and metal still give better detail than plastic, plastic has become better but there are still limitations.

 Talys wrote:
@jonolikespie - Sorry, I disagree about metal. GW plastics are way, way better than metal. By separating a single model into many pieces, you have the ability to layer details that are otherwise impossible with a single piece (or a small number of pieces).

Regarding fingers, Dark Elf Sorceress and Turmiel from Dark Vengeance is an obvious example of fingers not together:
*snip*

Both good examples that I didn't think about, I'll concede the point about the fingers but separating models into a lot of pieces is only really a good thing for people who value being able to make the same model into 3,265 different combinations of arms, legs and weapons. You don't need to cut them down to get the same and better detail on metal or resin. perhaps a better example would be knifes on Infinity models, those things are thin as hell, just like a knife should be. A space marine knife is really more of a pointy club when you look at it because it's plastic so there is a minimum thickness.

 Talys wrote:
If you're into things that are bigger than infantry, plastics are just a ton easier to work with. not to mention, they don't fall apart.

I'd say resin is best for monsters, plastic is the obvious choice for vehicles and inorganic things though. But on that subject why are GW charging more for their blocky tanks with huge, unrealistic details like bolts and armour plates and plastic tracks than other companies are for larger, more finely detailed vehicles with rubber tracks, working parts and brass etch? (solid metal cylinder gun barrels FTW)
As for the monsters, I just can't stand how obvious some of the joints are.

 Talys wrote:
The problem with resin is consistency. If you buy a model when the mold is new, it's awesome. If you get a model made near the end of the mold's life, it sucks. I just had to toss 30 resin bases from SWM because the molds were at EOL, but they shipped the bases anyhow - the result was a (severely) pitted surface. Plus, plastic survives drops a lot better than resin. But I will agree: resin offers more resolution than plastic. Just not enough to make me feel that it's more desirable a material to work with, considering these other factors.

I've found this to be a bigger problem with old Lord of the Rings plastics and Finecast more than anything else ever tbh. I picked up some of those wonderful old LotR models and you could really tell they haven't replaced the moulds recently, then there was finecast with bits of the mould coming in the packaging. Other companies I haven't had to deal with failing moulds before and I absolutely consider the higher resolution worth it.

John Wirral wrote:

5. Catachans x10 1997 £17----------- 2015 £18

Weren't they 20 to a box in 1997?

Herzlos wrote:

John Wirral wrote:

5. Catachans x10 1997 £17----------- 2015 £18

Weren't they 20 to a box in 1997?

Yes, and when they were originally released they were £12 IIRC. Hmn, or was it £15? So rather the 2015 price is £36.

I certainly remember around that time plastics mini's for about 50p/each was the norm.