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.

What justifies GW's prices is that people keep paying them.

The reason for the new Starter Bundles, and the return of decent softback books that don't cost a fortune -- the Chaos book -- is that people did stop buying stuff in big enough numbers for GW to have to take notice and address the problem.

Unless of course you believe that the significant drop in sales over the past few years was not due to falling sales.

 Talys wrote:
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, because even at full MSRP, GW models are cheaper per model than Infinity models discounted.

I think your arguments would be less inflammatory if you stopped making sweeping statements like this.

example: even at full MSRP, GW models are cheaper per model than Infinity models discounted - Your statement is demonstrably untrue.

refined example: even at full MSRP, comparing squad boxes, GW models are cheaper per model than Infinity models discounted - Squad boxes are not always cheaper, and unless you have definitive discounting numbers, this is potentially untrue.

try: even at full MSRP, comparing squad boxes, GW models are usually cheaper per model than Infinity models at 10% discount of MSRP.

 Vermis wrote:
More fool me for not thinking of this earlier. Peter Berry's already said it all. There's this:

https://www.baccus6mm.com/includes/index/i_want_you/i_want_you_text.inc.php

Which leads on to this:

https://www.baccus6mm.com/includes/news/28mmmyth.inc.php

(Seriously, look at the photos there)

And then there's this for good measure:

https://www.baccus6mm.com/howtoguides/HOWTOPaint6mmfigures/

Oh, and my complaint about non-GW 6-10mm was a bit premature. I should have added that a lot of new stuff is better and getting better, and some of the old stuff isn't too bad either. I have a few bags of Heroics & Ros colonial British that should be acting as Epic praetorian guard some day. They don't even have faces, and they're brilliant.

I think I'm in love.

Roll on the return of Epic and all 6mm goodness I say.

Also, to those grumbling about Epic and 6mm looking like blobs, bugger off:


You can clearly see these are Marines and don't forget that these were sculpted in the 90's. Some of the modern 6mm (including some garage casted 6mm not-marines inspired by the HH) are astonishing.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What justifies GW's prices is that people keep paying them.

The reason for the new Starter Bundles, and the return of decent softback books that don't cost a fortune -- the Chaos book -- is that people did stop buying stuff in big enough numbers for GW to have to take notice and address the problem.

Unless of course you believe that the significant drop in sales over the past few years was not due to falling sales.

Nope, it's completely due to GW being some special unicorn that is immune to price pressures and other facts of business that affect literally every other business in the world. Talys is able to buy GW at a 25% discount so therefor pricing must be discussed with this 25% discount factored-in or the entire conversation will devolve into convoluted explanations as to how it's very reasonable to compare Talys' 25% discount against whatever discount is offered (or not) on any other product in the world.

The drop in sales was obviously due to constant currency issues and has nothing to do with GW selling less product. BUT if they are selling less product, that obviously means that they are doing so intentionally because they only want to cater to their most dedicated collector customers.

See? It's all very reasonable if you base your entire conversation on fallacies created to justify how you assume businesses operate rather than how the business world actually does operate while also assuming that the price that you pay is the same as everyone else in the world pays.

/sarcasm

keezus wrote:
example: even at full MSRP, GW models are cheaper per model than Infinity models discounted - Your statement is demonstrably untrue.

Pretty much every non-clampack GW model is cheaper than Infinity models of a similar size, on MSRP... Infinity models come in squad boxes, just like GW models. GW squads cost less than Infinity squads.

If you want to argue that Infinity models are cheap and GW models aren't, please do so. I think they're both fairly priced.

agnosto wrote:Nope, it's completely due to GW being some special unicorn that is immune to price pressures and other facts of business that affect literally every other business in the world. Talys is able to buy GW at a 25% discount so therefor pricing must be discussed with this 25% discount factored-in or the entire conversation will devolve into convoluted explanations as to how it's very reasonable to compare Talys' 25% discount against whatever discount is offered (or not) on any other product in the world.

Talys gets a bigger than 25% discount because he buys a lot of stuff and contributes to his local store in other ways. That's not worth talking about, because it's not generally available.

But anyone in the USA can mail order from Frontline Gaming and get 25% discount off their entire order by adding a GW pre-order item to their order. And as I've said, if you're in Western Canada, I'm happy to point you to a couple of stores that can net you 25% and better discounts. They will mail order stuff to you too. In the EU, I believe you can get 20%+ right off of websites, where GW isn't able to block them from selling online.

There are few independents in these parts of the world that sell GW products at 100% MSRP. This doesn't cover everyone in the world -- significantly, not Australia or Asia -- but it's a huge percentage of GW regional customerbase.

Discussing street price is not crazy talk, especially when street prices are commonly lower than MSRP. If you're buy buying a video card or automobile, magazines will talk about both street price vs sticker price, because that's what smart shoppers will pay.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What justifies GW's prices is that people keep paying them.

Less and less people every year. There is no justification for the huge mark up that GW enjoys.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
As I said in the half that it was not quoted, they are way overpriced (and the market seems to reflect it), but, there are reasons why they can be more expensive than historicals and I would find it acceptable.

And please do not paraphrase me, I do mean I find acceptable fantasy and sci fi miniatures to be more expensive than historicals, I do not find GW's prices acceptable.

The reasons that you gave have been echoed all over the place, including this very thread, I simply don't accept them as a valid reason for the monumentally inflated prices for GW's little bits of plastic. Something that requires a lot of conceptual work may well be more expensive than something that can be essentially copied from somewhere else but that price difference disappears rapidly (at least it should) when these things are produce on a large scale.

 Talys wrote:
It's a different market. There isn't any justification, nor is one necessary

Its artificially a different market, largely due to GW and its 'hobby' fabrication. Its little plastic or metal men, designed and made using the same methods, for use in games which are designed and built using the same methods.

Its analogous to genre A of books somehow being 3, 4 or 5 times more expensive (if not more) than genre B despite both being printed on the same paper, in the same printing press and often written by the same author.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Its artificially a different market, largely due to GW and its 'hobby' fabrication. Its little plastic or metal men, designed and made using the same methods, for use in games which are designed and built using the same methods.

Its analogous to genre A of books somehow being 3, 4 or 5 times more expensive (if not more) than genre B despite both being printed on the same paper, in the same printing press and often written by the same author.

Your analogy is apt. If an author writes a college textbook, it can be $50-$100. if the same author writes a nonfiction book for general consumption, it can be $15.

It's not just GW, though. Practically everyone in the scifi / fantasy wargaming industry has significantly higher prices than historical wargaming. It's just what the market will pay.

I've made this argument before: while 40k as a game is pretty expensive (in the range of a many hundreds to close to a thousand dollars to complete an army), this is because the game is generally played with many more models than its counterparts. Looking at the price per model, 40k (or AoS) models are really in the same ballpark as its direct competitors -- products that sit beside them on store shelves -- or in many cases, cheaper per model. I'm talking about PP, Wyrd, Corvus Belli. Even Mantic models, which most scifi wargamers consider to be inexpensive, are a lot closer to GW prices than they are to historical models. Look at Maelstrom's Edge, too -- or most kickstarters that succeed; they won't be priced anywhere near the PPM of historicals. Heck, even Reaper minis, considered some of the most affordable stocked at independent retailers, are a lot closer to GW prices than historicals.

 Talys wrote:
Pretty much every non-clampack GW model is cheaper than Infinity models of a similar size, on MSRP... Infinity models come in squad boxes, just like GW models. GW squads cost less than Infinity squads.

The 40mm base ones aren't cheaper, and clampacks weren't mentioned in your original statement. I understand what you are getting at, but your statement is still demonstrably incorrect.

 Talys wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Its artificially a different market, largely due to GW and its 'hobby' fabrication. Its little plastic or metal men, designed and made using the same methods, for use in games which are designed and built using the same methods.

Its analogous to genre A of books somehow being 3, 4 or 5 times more expensive (if not more) than genre B despite both being printed on the same paper, in the same printing press and often written by the same author.

Your analogy is apt. If an author writes a college textbook, it can be $50-$100. if the same author writes a nonfiction book for general consumption, it can be $15. .

Yes but the reason for the price difference above if applied to GW it just makes GW look even more like they are price gouging.

 Talys wrote:


Your analogy is apt. If an author writes a college textbook, it can be $50-$100. if the same author writes a nonfiction book for general consumption, it can be $15.

Except there are perfectly understandable reasons that an academic text may sell for a lot more. For instance, my friend has recently qualified as an Ed Psych, while studying she was required to purchase a book for study that cost something, IIRC, in the region of £200. Thing is, that specific text retails around a dozen copies a year to a very narrow market, so in order to make the book worth writing, it needs to be expensive, and it the book isn't written, people cannot learn to carry skills and knowledge into the future.

An HQ model selling for ~10x that of very similar products has no such justification in a market where other companies have no such issue, it's either greed or a flawed business model.

It's not just GW, though. Practically everyone in the scifi / fantasy wargaming industry has significantly higher prices than historical wargaming. It's just what the market will pay.

Except GW is a significant outlier while everyone else seems to have found a level.

I've made this argument before: while 40k as a game is pretty expensive (in the range of a many hundreds to close to a thousand dollars to complete an army), this is because the game is generally played with many more models than its counterparts. Looking at the price per model, 40k (or AoS) models are really in the same ballpark as its direct competitors -- products that sit beside them on store shelves -- or in many cases, cheaper per model. I'm talking about PP, Wyrd, Corvus Belli. Even Mantic models, which most scifi wargamers consider to be inexpensive, are a lot closer to GW prices than they are to historical models. Look at Maelstrom's Edge, too -- or most kickstarters that succeed; they won't be priced anywhere near the PPM of historicals. Heck, even Reaper minis, considered some of the most affordable stocked at independent retailers, are a lot closer to GW prices than historicals.

You've made the argument before, I've been shooting holes in it since before you registered. Cost per model is largely an irrelevance, to anyone wishing to play the game. The cost to start and finish an army is where the most valid comparison lies, because there's a huge number of variables and pressures on different companies which may influence the production cost and retail price of a finished miniature - yet, despite operating in a market full of small businesses who aren't able to leverage any sort of economic advantage in production or design, GW remain one of the most expensive, in fact let's call it, the most expensive game to start in 40K, in the industry.

Nobody cares what the price differential to historicals is, they are what they are. In terms of price to start, or price vs % of army, which is a good way of drawing comparisons, GW suffer badly against many competitiors exclusively on price, and those that compare on price frequently have an edge in quality or some other mitigating factor which generates a favourable outcome for the competition.

 Talys wrote:


Your analogy is apt. If an author writes a college textbook, it can be $50-$100. if the same author writes a nonfiction book for general consumption, it can be $15.

It's not just GW, though. Practically everyone in the scifi / fantasy wargaming industry has significantly higher prices than historical wargaming. It's just what the market will pay.

Yes, college textbooks are demonstrably more expensive than other fiction or non-fiction books. The difference is that such textbooks have a guaranteed market in students are required to purchase them for their classes thus being immune to price pressures, especially when the professor teaching the class wrote the book. GW products, on the other hand, are demonstrably not immune to price pressures thus price elasticity causes dips in sales volume; no one is forced to buy GW products so if they charge too much, sales decline.

I agree with your final statement.

 Talys wrote:
I've made this argument before: while 40k as a game is pretty expensive (in the range of a many hundreds to close to a thousand dollars to complete an army), this is because the game is generally played with many more models than its counterparts. Looking at the price per model, 40k (or AoS) models are really in the same ballpark as its direct competitors -- products that sit beside them on store shelves -- or in many cases, cheaper per model. I'm talking about PP, Wyrd, Corvus Belli. Even Mantic models, which most scifi wargamers consider to be inexpensive, are a lot closer to GW prices than they are to historical models. Look at Maelstrom's Edge, too -- or most kickstarters that succeed; they won't be priced anywhere near the PPM of historicals. Heck, even Reaper minis, considered some of the most affordable stocked at independent retailers, are a lot closer to GW prices than historicals.

This argument is disingenuous and you well know it from prior conversations on the topic. The argument doesn't stand because those other games require much fewer miniatures to play so the other game systems wind-up being cheaper than 40K (as an example). The laughable thing is that GW moved some kits to 5-man kits but then still raised the price while simultaneously continuing to require high amounts of these miniatures. Sure, I can spend $50 (no discount) for a 10-man unit of Bane Thralls but that's all I need for an average size game. Alternatively, I can spend $40 for a tactical squad but I'll need another 2 or 3 for a typically sized game. Yes, you can pick whatever unit you like but troop vs troop, GW's prices lose simply because you need so many of them. Mantic might be the closest comparison but their minis suck so I don't like to talk about them but, yeah, the model volume required for Mantic games is similar to GW which shouldn't be surprising since it's run by ex-GW employees.

Noir wrote:Yes but the reason for the price difference above if applied to GW it just makes GW look even more like they are price gouging.

Never once have I said that GW doesn't gouge us (players, hobbyists, collectors, whatever) on prices. To the contrary, I think GW charges as much as they possibly can.

Azreal13 wrote:You've made the argument before, I've been shooting holes in it since before you registered. Cost per model is largely an irrelevance, to anyone wishing to play the game. The cost to start and finish an army is where the most valid comparison lies, because there's a huge number of variables and pressures on different companies which may influence the production cost and retail price of a finished miniature - yet, despite operating in a market full of small businesses who aren't able to leverage any sort of economic advantage in production or design, GW remain one of the most expensive, in fact let's call it, the most expensive game to start in 40K, in the industry.

40k is by far the most expensive game in the industry. It's not even close, not even by a country mile. There are people who will in a lifetime spend tens of thousands of dollars (or even six figures) on GW models, which isn't even possible in any other setting. It also requires the most models of any game in the industry, which can be both a plus and a minus. If you feel like playing a scifi game with 200 models, you're going to probably play 40k.

The price per model is not irrelevant, because miniatures themselves have a value and a cost beyond the cost of the game. Nobody expects to pay as much for a game that fills an 8x12 table with 24" tall models as a game that fits on a small kitchen table with 20 models per side.

You're also ignoring that there are collectors/hobbyists who buy models simply to own model miniatures and will only rarely (if ever) game with them. Many people have reported that Games Workshop identifies this subsegment as a primary target customer. It's perfectly alright to say, "that's the furthest thing from me, so they're not going to get any of my business as long as they think that way," but it's unreasonable to pretend that those people don't exist and that they don't collectively spend a lot of money on models.

agnosto wrote:This argument is disingenuous and you well know it from prior conversations on the topic. The argument doesn't stand because those other games require much fewer miniatures to play so the other game systems wind-up being cheaper than 40K (as an example). The laughable thing is that GW moved some kits to 5-man kits but then still raised the price while simultaneously continuing to require high amounts of these miniatures. Sure, I can spend $50 (no discount) for a 10-man unit of Bane Thralls but that's all I need for an average size game. Alternatively, I can spend $40 for a tactical squad but I'll need another 2 or 3 for a typically sized game. Yes, you can pick whatever unit you like but troop vs troop, GW's prices lose simply because you need so many of them. Mantic might be the closest comparison but their minis suck so I don't like to talk about them but, yeah, the model volume required for Mantic games is similar to GW which shouldn't be surprising since it's run by ex-GW employees.

Pretty much my response to Azreal13. I'm not trying to say that 40k in the way that most people play it is comparable in price as a game to its competitors. I'm saying that the models are about the same price.

Again, quite to the contrary, 40k is a game that can cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars to play with in its envisioned size. 30k is even much more expensive than that. Unless you're willing to consider used models (which can be very cheap), 40k is not a game/hobby that can be successfully enjoyed for a couple of hundred dollars, as opposed to its direct competitors.

Every wargamer needs to ask themselves: do they want to play a 2x2, 4x4, 4x6, or 8x12 table? Do they want to build an army that will be many months or years to achieve, or something that can be ready in a weekend? Clearly, 40k/30/AoS are not games that will appeal to the latter.

Equally, there is clearly a premium market for those who wish to work on armies, modelling and painting them, over a very long span of time. You see one every month from a different hobbyist in Visions, where they feature a different player Army of the Month.

So you've established that a mass produced, machine cast, low cost material product has the same approximate cost (at RRP I assume) as metal and resin, hand cast product from smaller companies that benefit from far fewer economies of scale.

Now what?

You can't possibly be going to argue that you can use more models in 40K to play a game of bigger scope, just like you can with every other fething game on the market? Or buy more models just like you can with...

Oh, you are?

Whoops.

 Azreal13 wrote:
So you've established that a mass produced, machine cast, low cost material product has the same approximate cost (at RRP I assume) as metal and resin, hand cast product from smaller companies that benefit from far fewer economies of scale.

But I don't care what it costs someone to make something. I only care about what I pay out of my pocket. If GW or PP finds a way to make a model cheaper, good for them. If it costs them more, tough luck -- not my problem. I don't expect anyone to pass savings on to me because they saved some money, and if prices are raised beyond the point I'm willing to pay, I don't care if there's a perfectly good explanation for it; I just won't buy the product.

 Azreal13 wrote:
You can't possibly be going to argue that you can use more models in 40K to play a game of bigger scope, just like you can with every other fething game on the market? Or buy more models just like you can with...

Oh, you are?

Whoops.

No, you can't really play a WMH or Malifaux game on an 8x12 table with 200 models to a side. More to the point... you'll never find anyone else who does.

You can play 40k with one Start Collecting box if you want. They even give you a formation to make it game-legal. Or you can play the OOB Dark Vengeance force. The problem is the opposite: you won't find many people who want to play you with only 400 points, or with an army that's fun to play with against just a DV Starter.

So yes, I am arguing that the size of game that you want to play matters. Because you actually have to find people to play against.

 Talys wrote:

Your analogy is apt. If an author writes a college textbook, it can be $50-$100. if the same author writes a nonfiction book for general consumption, it can be $15.

That was not my analogy.

Textbooks are at least 4-5 times larger than a standard novel and require meticulous research. That doesn't sound like GW's standard models.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
As I said in the half that it was not quoted, they are way overpriced (and the market seems to reflect it), but, there are reasons why they can be more expensive than historicals and I would find it acceptable.

And please do not paraphrase me, I do mean I find acceptable fantasy and sci fi miniatures to be more expensive than historicals, I do not find GW's prices acceptable.

I just don't get this idea at all.
For fantasy and sci-fi, you can pretty much get away with any design/sculpt you like - you can even push skulls into its skin and have people buy it.

Historicals though... you have to sculpt them accurately. You have to do research. In fact, make 1 tiny mistake and the "rivet counters" are all over you.

Why should Sci-fi/fantasy cost more? It's just we've been brought up to expect it and continue to pay it. GW push our price boundaries and the other companies keep just below them so we think they're better value.

 Talys wrote:

No, you can't really play a WMH or Malifaux game on an 8x12 table with 200 models to a side. More to the point... you'll never find anyone else who does.

As usual, your sweeping generalisations are as infuriating as they are innacurate.

never heard of unbound?

And FYI, I'd play a game of thst size. And quite happily too. So would my mates. So go ahead and shove that in your pipe and smoke it.

Not that id trust you to listen to the other side though. You got yours after all, screw the rest.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Your analogy is apt. If an author writes a college textbook, it can be $50-$100. if the same author writes a nonfiction book for general consumption, it can be $15.

That was not my analogy.

Textbooks are at least 4-5 times larger than a standard novel and require meticulous research. That doesn't sound like GW's standard models.

And require rigorous fact checking - rather akin to the playtesting and balancing that Games Workshop doesn't do.

The Auld Grump - so GW books are like textbooks written by the Center for Creationist Studies, not for a more informed educational system.

Deadnight wrote:

 Talys wrote:

No, you can't really play a WMH or Malifaux game on an 8x12 table with 200 models to a side. More to the point... you'll never find anyone else who does.

As usual, your sweeping generalisations are as infuriating as they are innacurate.

never heard of unbound?

I'm coming to the conclusion that a person can only be this resolutely dense on purpose.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Your analogy is apt. If an author writes a college textbook, it can be $50-$100. if the same author writes a nonfiction book for general consumption, it can be $15.

That was not my analogy.

Textbooks are at least 4-5 times larger than a standard novel and require meticulous research. That doesn't sound like GW's standard models.

Did I say "novel"? I could swear, it says, "nonfiction book for general consumption" Many required textbooks written by university courses are written by the professor of that class and cost a fortune for TINY books. I remember buying a philosophy textbook for $80, that was probably a 50 page softcover.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:

 Talys wrote:

No, you can't really play a WMH or Malifaux game on an 8x12 table with 200 models to a side. More to the point... you'll never find anyone else who does.

As usual, your sweeping generalisations are as infuriating as they are innacurate.

never heard of unbound?

And FYI, I'd play a game of thst size. And quite happily too. So would my mates. So go ahead and shove that in your pipe and smoke it.

Not that id trust you to listen to the other side though. You got yours after all, screw the rest.

Look, if you want to play Malifuax on an 8x12, great. If you want to play 40k with 300 points, fantastic. But this is not generally how these games are played, which makes finding play partners much harder. The games aren't written for these scenarios, the mechanics are not ideal for that, and so on and so forth. People who want to play big games don't usually go to Malifaux, and people who only want to play with a squad don't usually buy into 40k. You can do whatever you want with your models, buy as many as you want and play them any way that's fun, but to say that 200 model WMH games on 8x12 tables are a thing is just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

Besides, if you played WMH with 200 models, it wouldn't be any cheaper than playing 40k with 200 models. If you play 40k with 30 one and a half inch-tall models, it wouldn't really be any more expensive than playing WMH with 30 one and a half inch-tall models.

I mean, if you want to argue that 200 model WMH games are a thing, then WMH is NOT cheaper than 40k to play. But we both know that this isn't so, and in virtually all cases, WMH games require a lot fewer models and smaller gaming space than 40k, making it a cheaper gaming experience.

Is this really that controversial? Is this worth arguing about?!

 Talys wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Your analogy is apt. If an author writes a college textbook, it can be $50-$100. if the same author writes a nonfiction book for general consumption, it can be $15.

That was not my analogy.

Textbooks are at least 4-5 times larger than a standard novel and require meticulous research. That doesn't sound like GW's standard models.

Did I say "novel"? I could swear, it says, "nonfiction book for general consumption" Many required textbooks written by university courses are written by the professor of that class and cost a fortune for TINY books. I remember buying a philosophy textbook for $80, that was probably a 50 page softcover.

Good for you, but when you say textbook, I think of this:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Physics-Scientists-Engineers-Modern/dp/1429202653/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453323044&sr=8-1&keywords=physics+tipler
This textbook, on its own, can get you through the core physics modules in the first year of a physics degree (and well into the second). It is 1356 full colour pages. It costs the same as the warhammer 40k rulebook which is ~500 pages.

Except, aside from some attempts to balance AoS, nobody uses model count as a balancing method.

How about comparing standard game size x any number you wish, using the games points values.

Once again GW comes up the loser.

A 70-100pt WMH army vs a 3000-3700pt 40K army...?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Your analogy is apt. If an author writes a college textbook, it can be $50-$100. if the same author writes a nonfiction book for general consumption, it can be $15.

That was not my analogy.

Textbooks are at least 4-5 times larger than a standard novel and require meticulous research. That doesn't sound like GW's standard models.

Did I say "novel"? I could swear, it says, "nonfiction book for general consumption" Many required textbooks written by university courses are written by the professor of that class and cost a fortune for TINY books. I remember buying a philosophy textbook for $80, that was probably a 50 page softcover.

Good for you, but when you say textbook, I think of this:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Physics-Scientists-Engineers-Modern/dp/1429202653/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453323044&sr=8-1&keywords=physics+tipler
This textbook, on its own, can get you through the core physics modules in the first year of a physics degree (and well into the second). It is 1356 full colour pages. It costs the same as the warhammer 40k rulebook which is ~500 pages.

And Talys has taken hold of the goalpost and is headed for the stands! He's at A level! B level - Ladies and gentlemen, he has passed the refreshment stand and is headed for the exit!

What a magnificent play!

I remember the extremely pricey textbook that we used in one of my classes - The Elements of Style. Less than a hundred pages... and less than three dollars. (And quite possibly one of the best textbooks ever written - old enough that the first edition is now in the public domain.)

There are exceptions in both directions.

The Auld Grump

 Talys wrote:
Many required textbooks written by university courses are written by the professor of that class and cost a fortune for TINY books.

Not in my experience. Textbooks tend to cost about the same as the 40K rulebook while being 2-3 times larger, but that's beside the point which is that there is no reasonable justification for GW's huge mark up. Worst of all it has dragged up the prices from other companies.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Good for you, but when you say textbook, I think of this:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Physics-Scientists-Engineers-Modern/dp/1429202653/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453323044&sr=8-1&keywords=physics+tipler
This textbook, on its own, can get you through the core physics modules in the first year of a physics degree (and well into the second). It is 1356 full colour pages. It costs the same as the warhammer 40k rulebook which is ~500 pages.

Sure. But they serve *totally* different markets, which was my original point. Things are priced based on what people in those markets are willing and able to pay. This is how a capitalist society works.

The C Programming Language (Khernigan and Ritchie) is still a textbook, I think and it's still $60!

 Azreal13 wrote:
Except, aside from some attempts to balance AoS, nobody uses model count as a balancing method.

How about comparing standard game size x any number you wish, using the games points values.

Once again GW comes up the loser.

A 70-100pt WMH army vs a 3000-3700pt 40K army...?

Az, I'm not saying that GW is a winner or loser.

I'm saying that when you buy into 40k, you're buying into a game with the expectation of an army of a certain size, and when you buy into WMH, you're investing your time and energy into a smaller sized game. I genuinely do not think that most people buy into WMH expecting to fill up a 6x4 or 8x6 or 8x12 table. On the balance of typical army sizes, 40k is going to be more models and more expensive. And I think that most people will expect that the game that has more models will cost more.

I don't think I'm being that unreasonable in saying that. I don't even know if I'm disagreeing with you, except in saying that in 40k, there are a lot of people who will own 10,000 or 20,000 points of models in one army, and maybe multiple armies. It's really a thing. I mean, just look at people's signatures. Per model, that would be cheaper than if you replaced all of those models with WMH models. In either case, you can't realistically play with hundreds of WMH or 40k models at the same time, because one turn would take you 1 week.

And I'M trying desperately to stick to the fething topic.

There is an issue with GW, many would point to the prices being intrinsic to that issue, no matter what mental gymnastics you're willing to perform to try and justify them, the falling sales are proving you wrong. Price per model may, in some very specific match ups, be comparable, but SOMETHING is hurting GW while all these other games tick along nicely.

40K is not unique in players owning complete sets of multiple factions either, and it really isn't relevant to the topic.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
And Talys has taken hold of the goalpost and is headed for the stands! He's at A level! B level - Ladies and gentlemen, he has passed the refreshment stand and is headed for the exit!

People like to say this, but forget where the goalposts were to start with.

The initial goalpost was: different market, different prices. The price of a text book is irrelevant to the price of a gaming rulebook, and both are irrelevant to a cookbook or piece of fiction or issue of Popular Mechanics.

Just as the price of a WW2 tank is irrelevant to the price of a Predator.

No, the initial goal posts were GW financials, all the tangents and meanderings are down to the likes of you trying to argue the sky is pink.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And people like to say you're moving the goal posts because you keep moving goalposts.

 Azreal13 wrote:
And I'M trying desperately to stick to the fething topic.

There is an issue with GW, many would point to the prices being intrinsic to that issue, no matter what mental gymnastics you're willing to perform to try and justify them, the falling sales are proving you wrong. Price per model may, in some very specific match ups, be comparable, but SOMETHING is hurting GW while all these other games tick along nicely.

40K is not unique in players owning complete sets of multiple factions either, and it really isn't relevant to the topic.

Az, when have I ever said that the price of the game or the models is not a major factor in fewer people buying GW models? I happen to think that it is. I mean, let me repeat it: a lot of people can't afford to play GW's games because of the prices of the models and rules, including the number of models that are necessary, and therefore, play an alternative game with lower requirements.

To get back to the report and the topic, the only question is whether GW is optimizing its profits or not. We've been around this many times, but it is entirely possible that GW's current pricing structure is optimal for GW, at least in the short and mid-term. It is also possible that GW's current pricing structure is not. We don't have the data to support this either way, but we can certainly speculate.

I think most people would certainly appreciate cheaper models, either way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
And people like to say you're moving the goal posts because you keep moving goalposts.

Actually, people do this because our back-and-forths go on for 4 forum pages, and people don't remember or haven't seen the first goalpost in the series of messages.

 Talys wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
And Talys has taken hold of the goalpost and is headed for the stands! He's at A level! B level - Ladies and gentlemen, he has passed the refreshment stand and is headed for the exit!

People like to say this, but forget where the goalposts were to start with.

The initial goalpost was: different market, different prices. The price of a text book is irrelevant to the price of a gaming rulebook, and both are irrelevant to a cookbook or piece of fiction or issue of Popular Mechanics.

Just as the price of a WW2 tank is irrelevant to the price of a Predator.

Why is the price of a WW2 tank irrelevant? Aren't they roughly equivalent (similar size, similar sculpting)? Both are model kits, no? Both are tank model kits?