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.
I look at the arms and faces of those ogre-sized abyssals, the clumsily mincing, BDSM not-daemonettes, the weird triangular bodies and stiff arms on the werewolves, and the hats on the abyssal dwarfs that somehow don't look much more than a blob of plastic painted gold; and not for the first time I feel very discouraged that the main fantasy plastic army-building choices are Games 'ALL THE MONIES' Workshop, and...
... Mantic.
When did 'cheap' (or, cheaper) have to mean 'has absolutely no clue about the human/oid form whatsoever', among other things? I made some recent remarks about the level of design needed for fantasy concepts and miniatures, these days. They were meant as a sarcastic counter to comments about history research, but all the same, after the feast for the eyes laid out here, I feel like hunting down Dakka's servers and eating the bit those remarks were on.
Vermis wrote: I look at the arms and faces of those ogre-sized abyssals, the clumsily mincing, BDSM not-daemonettes, the weird triangular bodies and stiff arms on the werewolves, and the hats on the abyssal dwarfs that somehow don't look much more than a blob of plastic painted gold; and not for the first time I feel very discouraged that the main fantasy plastic army-building choices are Games 'ALL THE MONIES' Workshop, and...
... Mantic.
When did 'cheap' (or, cheaper) have to mean 'has absolutely no clue about the human/oid form whatsoever', among other things? I made some recent remarks about the level of design needed for fantasy concepts and miniatures, these days. They were meant as a sarcastic counter to comments about history research, but all the same, after the feast for the eyes laid out here, I feel like hunting down Dakka's servers and eating the bit those remarks were on.
Complains about the human form on a companies models... defending GW models...
Come on dude, unless it's a scaled model it's likely not to be very true to human form.
Everything else you mentioned is you simply don't like the design of them. For example those werewolves are really awesome models in my opinion, quality of the model is fine. Some people don't like the look but the model itself is fine.
On other words, you too did not read my post properly.
I was simply saying the only reason to buy from GW is because you like them, it's a rip off every way you look at it unless you like them for X reason or can't find an alternative.
What is a rip off? Going to a bar for a drink drinks? That is a rip off, at least in Canada. So much cheaper to go to the liquor store and stay home. How about eating and dining out? So much cheaper to eat at home. How about going to the cinema? So much cheaper to see a movie at home. That is one of the biggest rip offs. How about buying automobiles?
Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's a rip off, because for other people they enjoy it and is not a rip off. Yours is opinion, not fact, but you talk as if it was fact. I am sure something you like or enjoy, someone will say it's a rip off. Don't try and make other people feel bad for something they enjoy just because you don't agree with them.
Woosh, missing the point.
Th only thing that GW has got going for them is that people like their design enough to by them and overlook their absurd cost (and even then most people buy them while complaining). Other than that they aren't much different from any other company. Like I keep saying, the only reason to buy from them is because you happen to like their look and there is no alternative. In every other way GW prices are a rip off when you compare them to most other models.
Take your example, going to the cinema has obvious benefits over seeing it at home (huge screen etc), buying a GW empire swordsmen over a normal swordsman has nearly no advantage other than you happen to like the empire swordsmen since the GW swordsmen is like 4X the price or more over any normal model that makes GW a rip off in every way other than you got the look you wanted.
I don't really see your point here. The only reason anyone buys ANY miniature is because they like the look. How much you like it will determine how much more you're willing to pay for it compared to a substitute. Most GW models, unlike historicals, don't really have close substitutes, which raises the price people are willing to pay. When you say buying the empire swordsman has "nearly no advantage" other than liking that particular model, well, that's not "nearly no advantage", that's a HUGE advantage for people who buy it. In fact it's the only thing that matters for them.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/22 09:30:46
Seeing a film in the cinema or at home are functionally different experiences in several important respects.
A wargame dwarf figure is a wargame dwarf figure whatever company it comes from. The real difference is whether the aesthetic appeals to your personal taste.
People buy GW despite the cost because they want to buy GW figures.
The cost argument cuts both ways. If you think a FyreSlayer is worth £5 than you will pay £5 for it and count it money well spent.
However you could buy five Mantic dwarves for the same money. There's no denying that the GW ones are more expensive from a functional angle.
I don't agree that a wargame dwarf figure is a wargame dwarf figure no matter the company. Yes, they are both short, bearded people, but that's like saying a painting of a lady is a painting of a lady no matter who painted it. They are not substitutes for most people.
Mymearan wrote: I don't agree that a wargame dwarf figure is a wargame dwarf figure no matter the company. Yes, they are both short, bearded people, but that's like saying a painting of a lady is a painting of a lady no matter who painted it. They are not substitutes for most people.
So, out of curiosity, what wargaming company that you know of produces wargame dwarves that aren't wargame dwarves?
Mymearan wrote: I don't agree that a wargame dwarf figure is a wargame dwarf figure no matter the company. Yes, they are both short, bearded people, but that's like saying a painting of a lady is a painting of a lady no matter who painted it. They are not substitutes for most people.
I think what hes trying to say is that..if you need a war game dwarf and DON'T care how good it looks like as long as its a dwarf..than any miniature that's a dwarf works. Some look great..some look awful, but conceptually they all still work as a representation of dwarves together in an infantry block.
Technically if you say "I need a painting of a lady", them my hastily slopped together pic of lady and the mona lisa are the same thing. If you want a great picture of a lady....then you cant use my painting at all.
Snoopdeville3 wrote: I don't know what the rules are for these guys are but my guess they are good.
Basing the price of something mostly around the rules rather than quality and quantity of models and the cost of manufactre/distribution is an ass-backwards way of doing things.
'I have a plain 1" disc of plastic on sale for $200 - comes with fantastic, must have rules for your free ruleset game!!!'
..... I was being sarcastic ... dont get you panties in a bunch...
He says with his panties in a twist after multiple pages of discussion?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Mymearan wrote: I don't agree that a wargame dwarf figure is a wargame dwarf figure no matter the company. Yes, they are both short, bearded people, but that's like saying a painting of a lady is a painting of a lady no matter who painted it. They are not substitutes for most people.
I think what hes trying to say is that..if you need a war game dwarf and DON'T care how good it looks like as long as its a dwarf..than any miniature that's a dwarf works. Some look great..some look awful, but conceptually they all still work as a representation of dwarves together in an infantry block.
Technically if you say "I need a painting of a lady", them my hastily slopped together pic of lady and the mona lisa are the same thing. If you want a great picture of a lady....then you cant use my painting at all.
I'm kind of saying that, but also bear in mind that if player X likes the look of the GW figures, and dislikes the Mantic figures, this is not an objective judgement, it's a personal opinion based on aesthetic preferences, and only justifies the price to that one person. For other people they are still a shocking waste of money.
People are comparing the mantic dwarves and saying "see, GW gives you a better product, of COURSE they cost more! " The thing is using mantic is disengenious. For my money not only are avatars of war dwarves far far cheaper per box, but they also look superior. I haven't seen a thing that would make me pay GW prices just to have my old dwarves look like midgets compared to the new ones. And yes, on the scale they are in that is like your average human soldier going from 5'9" to 6'4". Noticeable and out of place.
warhammer 40k mmo. If I can drive an ork trukk into the back of a space marine dread and explode in a fireball of epic, I can die happy!
Mymearan wrote: I don't agree that a wargame dwarf figure is a wargame dwarf figure no matter the company. Yes, they are both short, bearded people, but that's like saying a painting of a lady is a painting of a lady no matter who painted it. They are not substitutes for most people.
I think what hes trying to say is that..if you need a war game dwarf and DON'T care how good it looks like as long as its a dwarf..than any miniature that's a dwarf works. Some look great..some look awful, but conceptually they all still work as a representation of dwarves together in an infantry block.
Technically if you say "I need a painting of a lady", them my hastily slopped together pic of lady and the mona lisa are the same thing. If you want a great picture of a lady....then you cant use my painting at all.
I'm kind of saying that, but also bear in mind that if player X likes the look of the GW figures, and dislikes the Mantic figures, this is not an objective judgement, it's a personal opinion based on aesthetic preferences, and only justifies the price to that one person. For other people they are still a shocking waste of money.
I'm kind of saying that, but also bear in mind that if player X likes the look of the GW figures, and dislikes the Mantic figures, this is not an objective judgement, it's a personal opinion based on aesthetic preferences, and only justifies the price to that one person. For other people they are still a shocking waste of money.
You make it sound like a possibility that an objective judgment exists. We're buying tiny little sculptures that we then paint. It's ALL about the aesthetic.
Let's just acknowledge that "worth the price" is also subjective and differs from person to person based on a variety of criteria, both universally objective and personally subjective. There is no way to definitively say whether or not GW models are "worth the price". You can say that GW has expensive models relative to their contemporaries, or that GW's prices are unsustainable in a shrinking field with increased competition, but you can't objectively state the worth of the models themselves.
Well looking objectively at the transition from 8th edition to AOS: Ordinarily one can get away with charging more per model for a skirmish game than a game with large armies (In fact it's probably neccessary to, as your customers will be buying far less models. The problem with AOS is that they were already charging a high amount per model before the transition, so the prices are now seen as extortionate by many (myself included).
I can see the game having more success with new players, while on the other hand driving away veterans players of Fantasy Battle that now have hundreds of euros worth of excess troops that they have no use for, and are faced with shelling out €27 for a single cavalry model.
thegreatchimp wrote: Well looking objectively at the transition from 8th edition to AOS: Ordinarily one can get away with charging more per model for a skirmish game than a game with large armies (In fact it's probably neccessary to, as your customers will be buying far less models. The problem with AOS is that they were already charging a high amount per model before the transition, so the prices are now seen as extortionate by many (myself included).
I can see the game having more success with new players, while on the other hand driving away veterans players of Fantasy Battle that now have hundreds of euros worth of excess troops that they have no use for, and are faced with shelling out €27 for a single cavalry model.
To be fair there have been lots of 23€ cavalry models for WHFB for years (normal-sized ones even), so the jump isn't that big.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/22 21:11:14
I'm kind of saying that, but also bear in mind that if player X likes the look of the GW figures, and dislikes the Mantic figures, this is not an objective judgement, it's a personal opinion based on aesthetic preferences, and only justifies the price to that one person. For other people they are still a shocking waste of money.
You make it sound like a possibility that an objective judgment exists. We're buying tiny little sculptures that we then paint. It's ALL about the aesthetic.
Let's just acknowledge that "worth the price" is also subjective and differs from person to person based on a variety of criteria, both universally objective and personally subjective. There is no way to definitively say whether or not GW models are "worth the price". You can say that GW has expensive models relative to their contemporaries, or that GW's prices are unsustainable in a shrinking field with increased competition, but you can't objectively state the worth of the models themselves.
An objective judgement would be what the average man in the street thinks different models cost based on a "blind taste test" kind of situation. I mean, you would set up a stall with a dozen figures from different manufacturers and ask passers-by what they think the prices are.
What you choose to spend your money on is entirely subjective; we all have reasons for buying what we buy. For me, models are game counters; I would be just as happy with paperclips or Airfix green army men. I have friends who both enjoy and are very good at painting and modeling but for me that entire side of the wargaming hobby is not something that I enjoy in the least.
I don't really understand the need to justify how you spend your money to strangers on the internet. I do understand the desire to compare apples to apples in an effort to determine whether something has sufficient value, on a personal level, to pay the asking price. For some people GW prices are reasonable, for others they're atrocious; I can understand and appreciate arguments from both sides.
In the end, if there's value in it for you, spend your money how you like. There's no right or wrong here in my opinion.
That said, on a business level, I believe GW management are suffering from their dislike of market research and the company as a whole is suffering from their inability to expand marketshare. The dependance upon a retail chain as the main and nearly only form of customer recruitment is dated and obviously failing by looking at their financials.
Don't get me wrong; I own GW stock and I'm happy that people are willing to pay so much for their models.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
To be fair there have been lots of 23€ cavalry models for WHFB for years (normal-sized ones even), so the jump isn't that big.
Your comment had me searching the GW site.-forigve me if I'm missing something obvious, but I don't see any cavalry units even approaching that price. Blood knights €81 for 5, Dragon ogres €45 for 3, but nothing even approaching €80 for 3...
An objective judgement would be what the average man in the street thinks different models cost based on a "blind taste test" kind of situation. I mean, you would set up a stall with a dozen figures from different manufacturers and ask passers-by what they think the prices are.
That would still be a subjective test - it would just be a statistical way to measure the average opinion. It's like a poll where they ask whether they wear boxers or briefs, and 64% said they wore boxers. It's still a subjective opinion about whether they like boxers or briefs, but you can objectively measure what those in the sample size do (or say, if you don't assume they tell the truth) - and if the sample size is statistically significant, you can extrapolate the data points to calculate where the value would be for a bigger population (with an error margin). But the most you'd be able to say is that more people wore boxers than briefs, not why. Nor could you say objectively that boxers were better simply because more people choose them.
You get a bunch of people who have no idea what the models cost, and ask them what they think they cost. This allows you to get an objective opinion on the average cost of small plastic wargame figures. It isn't related to aesthetic considerations, because the punters don't have any.
Your comment had me searching the GW site.-forigve me if I'm missing something obvious, but I don't see any cavalry units even approaching that price. Blood knights €81 for 5, Dragon ogres €45 for 3, but nothing even approaching €80 for 3...
I think he means the Varanguard - Maybe a bit of an unfair comparison, but they are mounted on (giant, mutated) horses.
To be fair there have been lots of 23€ cavalry models for WHFB for years (normal-sized ones even), so the jump isn't that big.
Your comment had me searching the GW site.-forigve me if I'm missing something obvious, but I don't see any cavalry units even approaching that price. Blood knights €81 for 5, Dragon ogres €45 for 3, but nothing even approaching €80 for 3...
Your comment had me searching the GW site.-forigve me if I'm missing something obvious, but I don't see any cavalry units even approaching that price. Blood knights €81 for 5, Dragon ogres €45 for 3, but nothing even approaching €80 for 3...
I think he means the Varanguard - Maybe a bit of an unfair comparison, but they are mounted on (giant, mutated) horses.
No Matt, I don't think he means it like that at all. I think he's actually defending that there have been cavalry models for 23€ before. And sure, if you want to go for characters, sure there are. But not "rank and file". Only FW has them at that level of expensive via Rhinox Cavalry.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/23 11:46:43
"Let them that are happy talk of piety; we that would work our adversary must take no account of laws."http://back2basing.blogspot.pt/
Kilkrazy wrote: You get a bunch of people who have no idea what the models cost, and ask them what they think they cost. This allows you to get an objective opinion on the average cost of small plastic wargame figures. It isn't related to aesthetic considerations, because the punters don't have any.
I don't understand. If they don't have any idea what models cost, wouldn't it all just be wild speculation anyway? If I asked my parents how much a box of Liberators were, they'd probably say $5. Ha! I'd say, you can't even get the paint for that much! Then they'd disown me.
The only way to get an objective idea of how much they cost is to get a rough idea of how much it costs to produce the figures - how much it costs to design a mold, how much it costs to create one, the cost of plastic, the cost of packaging, the cost of shipping, the cost of labor, etc. GW obviously has a higher cost here, as they don't get their molds created, pressed, packaged, and shipped by Chinese companies (which honestly, tend to violate fair wage standards), and they have additional overhead from the worldwide network of Warhammer stores they run. Whether that costs GW 4x as much as the next guy, I couldn't say, but I'm sure it is (part of) the reason why they are more expensive. It's the same thing with LEGO, and LEGO is the only hobby I've ever had that I had to give up because of price (I had to stop collecting the modulars when they hit $250 each, but I did buy the $400 Death Star... the flesh is weak).
To be fair there have been lots of 23€ cavalry models for WHFB for years (normal-sized ones even), so the jump isn't that big.
Your comment had me searching the GW site.-forigve me if I'm missing something obvious, but I don't see any cavalry units even approaching that price. Blood knights €81 for 5, Dragon ogres €45 for 3, but nothing even approaching €80 for 3...
They are all single models. My point is that it's not a shocking new thing, especially since the Varanguard are basically monstrous cavalry characters (they even have their own novel), more like the Mortarchs than Chaos Knights. They're expensive as feth, yep, no doubt about that... but it's not a shocking new development. Although I doubt they'll sell at that price.
This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2016/01/23 14:05:26
They are all single models. My point is that it's not a shocking new thing, especially since the Varanguard are basically monstrous cavalry characters (they even have their own novel), more like the Mortarchs than Chaos Knights. They're expensive as feth, yep, no doubt about that... but it's not a shocking new development. Although I doubt they'll sell at that price.
No I doubt it either. €60 would have been pushing it; €80 is just taking the p**s.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/23 15:20:19
I have made this point in the past, and wrote a blog post. If you are reading this again, my apologies.
I have been an avid wargamer for 30 years now. I have purchased, painted and commanded literally thousands of GW miniatures in that time period. About 5 years ago a friend introduced me to digital slot car racing. The hobbies have some similarities. Both are played with models on a large table. Both allow me to build models and customize them. And both allow me to display those models while engaging in a fun social activity.
To me this utterly destroys all plausible defense of GW prices.
I can buy this in my local shop for around $42. Full retail is about $54, but due to a "normal" distribution method almost every online seller offers discounts. As a size comparison it is 1/32 scale. Roughly 54mm in wargames scale. It is beautifully finished. Comes with a computer chip allowing programmable braking, speed and fuel capacity. It has working headlights and taillights and comes with a clear plastic display case style box with extra parts included. It has to cost a massive amount of money to produce, as it requires a license from BMW, an electric motor, steel axles, brass bushings, bulbs, rubber tires, assembly with screws, tampo stamping of all parts, etc.
It has become impossible for me to buy GW products anymore. Every time I think of adding a new regiment of elves to my too large to admit collections it just makes me stop and think. Do I want to spend that much money on fluff? Because the actual plastic costs virtually nothing. Almost all of the price is branding, fluff, and support of stores in the UK I will never step foot in to.
I am having a blast with racing. We have even moved up to the $65 cars that are even larger- (1/24 scale) I do miss being a part of wargaming. Every pay day I would cash my check and head to the comic store to buy something to add to the armies I was building. Now most of my hobby money goes to Carrera. I buy some odds and ends for gaming, the last major army I picked up was a Nippon plastic army when it was on sale. I also got a couple of Chaos guys from the AoS starter from a bits seller on e-bay.
At this point I am just working on my 6th edition era of WFB armies and shaking my head in disbelief at where this hobby has gone. It seems that if you do not want to pay the huge prices you are branded as some type of loser who can not be part of the club because you are a low life peasant.
In the meantime I think it is still a valid comparison between 2 hobbies. And one last thing before someone argues about gaming being a niche hobby. Slot car racing is a smaller niche. There are more stores selling gaming products and gaming conventions are much larger and more numerous. So a smaller hobby with less customers is selling superior products for a lower price while interacting in a very positive way with retailers and customers.
GW has fluff.
Here is our gang in action-
And in my spare time I have been slowly adding tools to my shop to allow me to create my own plastic models. The new EDM machine should be operational in the near future. My goal is to someday be able to make whatever I want and sell it at prices that are not ludicrous.
The slot car racing thing doesn't appear to be completely comparable:
1) If you don't care about digital slot car racing, then it doesn't matter at all what the price difference is.
2) I looked up digital slot car racing, and it isn't a cheap hobby at all. You can get a $100 starter set for AoS/40k and have decent sized game. For two slot cars and a fairly small track, it looks like $250 is the bottom price level, with some starter kits reaching as much as $400. If you want a decent sized track, you are looking at GW-level investments. I admit that I'm hardly an expert on this field (see #1), but $54 seems a bit cheap compared to most of the cars available on Carrera's website (77 euro is roughly $83).
3) Most likely, many of the parts included in the slot cars are built in China and ordered in bulk at a significant discount. GW does not produce many of their plastic kits in China, nor outsource labor and services much at all.
4) Because of the digital/physical nature of play, no doubt the cars break or become obsolete faster than model kits do, requiring fans to purchase/upgrade more often.
5) It could be that they gain less profit from some parts of the hobby in order to make higher profits from other aspects of the hobby. For instance, the cars could be a loss leader for the $125 race track pieces.
And so on. To me, it looks like an expensive hobby comparable to GW as a whole, even if individual piece of it don't compare pricewise.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you compare GW with other wargames, it's a lot more expensive.
But it's not nearly as expensive a hobby as driving luxury cars off piers so until it is no one should compare GW's prices to Mantics or PPs.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
8k points
3k points
3k points
