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:
If you compare GW with other wargames, it's a lot more expensive.

Ehh... it really depends on how you make the comparison. Taking Warmachine (probably the closest to GW in scale and style): If you do it on a cost per model basis, for example, there are GW sets with great value like the Dryads ($2.50 per model) and worse value like the Prosecutors ($20 per model) and wowzers like Archaon ($165 per model). With Warmachine, you have good value (Winter Guard + Add ons, $3.50 per model, plastic), worse value (Man-O-War Shocktroopers, $9 per model, plastic), to worse value (Ruin, $65, plastic), to wowzers (Prime Axion Colossal, $145). So whatever comparison you use, you can find a case where GW is more expensive OR cheaper than WMH. The end result is that in either case, you are spending a serious wad of cash, even if you can make it a slightly more or slightly less serious wad of cash by choosing your kits wisely. Technically, the AoS starter kit is a much better value than the WMH two player starter kits, and until PP sorts out their plastics, better quality too. The main difference is that it is MUCH easier to find discounts on WMH products (GW's online policy is pure cow droppings)

If other wargames are cheaper, it's almost certainly due to the fact that they aren't market leaders and are taken a lower profit in order to be more appealing against the giants. It's like how all the MMOs went free to play... except World of Warcraft, because World of Warcraft didn't have to compete with World of Warcraft.

That's not how economics work, if GW are the largest by an order of magnitude and are mass producing much larger runs than anyone else their product should be the cheapest and undercutting the competition who do t have economy of scale working in their favour.

Also, when he says cheaper WARGAME I assume he means cheaper to get an average sized army on the table. I can't speak to the average AoS army but the average 40k army is so bloated even with slightly cheaper models on a model to model comparison the GAME is grossly more expensive.

But neither of those are points I wanted to get into, I just posted this to say Ruin is not plastic, he is a glorious new resin body with metal accessories style PP are doing

 jonolikespie wrote:
That's not how economics work, if GW are the largest by an order of magnitude and are mass producing much larger runs than anyone else their product should be the cheapest and undercutting the competition who do t have economy of scale working in their favour.

That doesn't apply if a company has a monopoly or clear leadership, which for the longest time, GW did have. They may still have enough of the marketshare for that to apply. And it also doesn't apply if the cost of goods is more expensive. It could very well be that by not outsourcing to Chinese manufacturers, GW can't compete with lower prices at all.

(Side note, I think it is important for a industry leader to set an upper bound price for the market. Otherwise you end up with the App Store's race for the bottom where cheapness and scale are the ONLY way to make a profit now, and most apps lose money. In that way, GW is similar to Apple, LEGO, and Blizzard. But that's beside the point. If GW didn't set the price scale, some other game would. I think miniatures are expensive enough to produce that you'll never end up with a market flooded with cheap, poor quality products... maybe).

Also, when he says cheaper WARGAME I assume he means cheaper to get an average sized army on the table. I can't speak to the average AoS army but the average 40k army is so bloated even with slightly cheaper models on a model to model comparison the GAME is grossly more expensive.

I can't speak for 40k. I've never played it - largely because I don't want to shell out $200 for rulebooks before I buy my first model. So yeah, I'd agree that 40k is a bunch of stupid. But GW does both AoS and 40k, and AoS isn't significantly more expensive than Warmachine.

But neither of those are points I wanted to get into, I just posted this to say Ruin is not plastic, he is a glorious new resin body with metal accessories style PP are doing

I thought Ruin was one of the new plastics that PP is supposedly going to replace their old resin/plastic mix with. He's the old stuff? That's too bad. I was planning on getting him one day.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you compare GW with other wargames, it's a lot more expensive.

Not anymore. I was with my wife at my not so local friendly store, and said, "I can't believe I would say, GW prices seem normal now". She laughed. Then I showed her a $180 mini not from GW and wife was shocked, thought I was joking. Damn, GW prices seem normal now.

I've seen them all over the place too.

The worst thing is needing so many of them to build an army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Price of playing Tau in 40K since 1999, not including cost of models and dataslates = £252.

Price of playing all the armies in De Bellis Antiquitatis since 1990, not including cost of models = £25.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I thought Ruin was one of the new plastics that PP is supposedly going to replace their old resin/plastic mix with. He's the old stuff? That's too bad. I was planning on getting him one day.

No, the Stormclad, the Farrow battle engine and I think Denny on the new dragon are the more recent on sprue plastics, Ruin is a pure resin with metal parts like the extremes and some of the larger infantry warcasters. Those two appear to be the new manufacturing methods they are aiming for but as they are switching to a new manufacturer right now I think the recent releases were still in the test phase.
The Grolnar/Kodiak kit should be a sprue plastic though, so that's exciting.

 doktor_g wrote:
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Oathbound-Throng


21 Dwarves for $170?

Are you fething joking? Are they made from diamonds, and unicorn tears?

$8 for 1 dwarf. WTF?!

20 Chaos Dwarfs from Forge World are $111

$5.55 for 1 dwarf.

I'll let that sink in with folks for a bit.

 jonolikespie wrote:
That's not how economics work, if GW are the largest by an order of magnitude and are mass producing much larger runs than anyone else their product should be the cheapest and undercutting the competition who do t have economy of scale working in their favour.

That's not really how economics works either.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Oathbound-Throng


21 Dwarves for $170?

Are you fething joking? Are they made from diamonds, and unicorn tears?

$8 for 1 dwarf. WTF?!

20 Chaos Dwarfs from Forge World are $111

$5.55 for 1 dwarf.

I'll let that sink in with folks for a bit.

Forgeworld is cheaper than GW? What kind of warp trickery is this...

coldgaming wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
That's not how economics work, if GW are the largest by an order of magnitude and are mass producing much larger runs than anyone else their product should be the cheapest and undercutting the competition who do t have economy of scale working in their favour.

That's not really how economics works either.

What about mass producing in cheap plastic is a premium, boutique, product?

Wall Mart doesn't try to charge a premium for their products, GW shouldn't either.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Complains about the human form on a companies models... defending GW models...

I could complain about GW's models all day long. I can complain about Mantic's models too. It's not an either/or situation. I'm not altogether on anyone's side, see? But while GW can still drop some clunkers, and are a little too fond of pebbledashing spikez and skullz over things, at least the style and refinement of their sculpting has moved on a wee bit from the nineties.

It's the cost of their minis that bugs the most, but there's a reason I'm buying two types of GW's elves, and neither of Mantic's. Ebay and discounts permitting. Although even with those, some of GW's pricing decisions still filter down and limit my choices. But I feel it still leaves me with more choices than just 'cheap'.

Come on dude, unless it's a scaled model it's likely not to be very true to human form.

This is either an agreement that they're a bit pants, or the old chestnut that minis have to look pants because, er, recognising it across the table, or, like, something to do with casting.

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.

What's 'quality is fine'? That they managed to get the plastic (or restic, or whatever) in the mould? That they managed to make them look more like wolf-men than bubbly formless piles of shoggoth?

I've already said a tiny bit about what's wrong with those werewolves. I could go on, but I'll move it to the Mantic board.

On other words, you too did not read my post properly.

Yes, I did.

Maybe you just didn't like my post. Y'know, subjectively.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Wall Mart doesn't try to charge a premium for their products, GW shouldn't either.

Walmart is a bad example because they use their position as market leader in order to bully their suppliers into giving them a better price, often causing production to be outsourced to third world countries or even causing suppliers to sell for under cost. They then go into small markets where they are the cheapest price in town, ultimately running all competition (especially mom and pop stores) out of business, and forcing the entire market ecosystem to be built around Walmart. In other words, Walmart uses its monopoly to manipulate the market in their favor, devastating the market - there's a reason why half of the top 10 richest people in the world are Waltons. There's several documentaries about it. I don't think you want GW to be like them.

A better comparison would be Microsoft during the 90s, where they had an effective monopoly on Office and thus charged three to four times more than their immediate competitors, and changed the file format every release to force people to upgrade. Or like how Sony uses a proprietary memory card system for the Vita, where they charge 3x the price compared to other memory cards.

I don't think GW has a monopoly anymore, which is why we got AoS. AoS is more of a disruptive, blue ocean strategy (like the Wii) than something like Microsoft seeing an available market and then using their market share to push their own competing products into a place of prominence.

 jonolikespie wrote:

coldgaming wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
That's not how economics work, if GW are the largest by an order of magnitude and are mass producing much larger runs than anyone else their product should be the cheapest and undercutting the competition who do t have economy of scale working in their favour.

That's not really how economics works either.

What about mass producing in cheap plastic is a premium, boutique, product?

Wall Mart doesn't try to charge a premium for their products, GW shouldn't either.

The idea that bigger company = flood market with cheap product is a very simplistic and narrow understanding of economics.

Anyone who still buys from GW is a fool.

jamesk1973 wrote:
Anyone who still buys from GW is a fool.

Couldn't the same be said anyone who comes to a GW forum is a fool as well?

Davor wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Anyone who still buys from GW is a fool.

Couldn't the same be said anyone who comes to a GW forum is a fool as well?

Good thing dakka is a wargaming forum

jamesk1973 wrote:
Anyone who still buys from GW is a fool.

I sir am a proud fool, I love the aesthetics of the lotr/hobbit line as I play the rpg and both are based off the movie look. It is a perfect fit for my rpg and are simple and good to convert my pcs's with

Someone on this site already rudely told me that if I think its too expensive then do not play the game.

my buddy came up with printing out and folding into paper tubes, pics of the models about the same base size as the real model and plays with those

jamesk1973 wrote:
Anyone who still buys from GW is a fool.

Born in 73? Your old enough to know not to post under the influence of whisky.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Wall Mart doesn't try to charge a premium for their products, GW shouldn't either.

Walmart is a bad example because they use their position as market leader in order to bully their suppliers into giving them a better price, often causing production to be outsourced to third world countries or even causing suppliers to sell for under cost. They then go into small markets where they are the cheapest price in town, ultimately running all competition (especially mom and pop stores) out of business, and forcing the entire market ecosystem to be built around Walmart. In other words, Walmart uses its monopoly to manipulate the market in their favor, devastating the market - there's a reason why half of the top 10 richest people in the world are Waltons. There's several documentaries about it. I don't think you want GW to be like them.

A better comparison would be Microsoft during the 90s, where they had an effective monopoly on Office and thus charged three to four times more than their immediate competitors, and changed the file format every release to force people to upgrade. Or like how Sony uses a proprietary memory card system for the Vita, where they charge 3x the price compared to other memory cards.

I don't think GW has a monopoly anymore, which is why we got AoS. AoS is more of a disruptive, blue ocean strategy (like the Wii) than something like Microsoft seeing an available market and then using their market share to push their own competing products into a place of prominence.

Instead GW use their market leading position to bully distributors into enforcing an outdated pricing strategy for their products, creating price zones wherein certain sectors of the world pay much higher prices while leveraging local laws in other countries to prevent online shopping carts. Their relations with independent stockists have soured through draconian trade agreements produced while simultaneously moving a substantial part of their product line to direct only thus reducing margin for retailers while maximising their own returns. All in all, searching for the most effective way to realize greater profit, not a bad thing in and of itself but done so in such a way that they've alienated both their customers and those businesses that previously supported them and pushed their product to a greater customer base. What we are witnessing is the proverbial chickens coming home to roost as GW has poisoned the well to the extent that they've lost substantial market share over the last several years.

 agnosto wrote:

Instead GW use their market leading position to bully distributors into enforcing an outdated pricing strategy for their products, creating price zones wherein certain sectors of the world pay much higher prices...

That's not a particularly uncommon business practice. It's the reason, for example, that the App Store requires a local credit card to have an account or why you need to buy a Japanese 3DS in order to play Japanese 3DS games. I think Australia has been getting the bum end of that practice for decades.

... while leveraging local laws in other countries to prevent online shopping carts. Their relations with independent stockists have soured through draconian trade agreements produced while simultaneously moving a substantial part of their product line to direct only thus reducing margin for retailers while maximising their own returns. All in all, searching for the most effective way to realize greater profit, not a bad thing in and of itself but done so in such a way that they've alienated both their customers and those businesses that previously supported them and pushed their product to a greater customer base.

No argument here. I've been saying that as the clear market leader, GW uses its pull to increase prices. Asmodee/FFG is doing the exact same thing, now that Asmodee has a near monopoly on American board games. I do think that GW's figures do cost more to produce, but there's no doubt that part of GW's high prices is due to the relative lack of competition (even X-Wing can't touch 40k). I will say that even though GW does have unfair pull in the marketplace, their products are still high quality. It would've been easy to produce a substandard product AND charge more, so I guess GW at least has some semblance of pride left.

What we are witnessing is the proverbial chickens coming home to roost as GW has poisoned the well to the extent that they've lost substantial market share over the last several years.

Ehh... maybe. There's no doubt that they are losing market share, but whether they've reached a point of reckoning, I'm not convinced. I think Age of Sigmar may have been eye opening to them, and with the new CEO, GW seems to be slipping some good decisions in with the bad now. But I don't think GW is in danger of going out of business or losing their clear lead with 40k.

Apple, meet orange. What is true in one sector doesn't always hold true in others. I would argue that part of the reason GW finds itself in its current situation is because upper management attempted to treat a collectible/game/toy company like it was something else.

Nowhere in my post did I even infer that GW was I'm danger of going out of business; if I thought that, I wouldn't own stock in the company. What I did infer is that GWs decisions over the last oh 5-8 years has positioned them to less favorable position from which to fight off the numerous, smaller companies who have been more than happy to benefit from those poor decisions.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I think Australia has been getting the bum end of that practice for decades.

Indeed we have. Thankfully most businesses down here are being forced to stop gouging us or go under as the age of internet shopping has arrived.

GW on the other hand are trying to simply prevent us from buying through perfectly legal overseas means.

jonolikespie wrote:

Davor wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Anyone who still buys from GW is a fool.

Couldn't the same be said anyone who comes to a GW forum is a fool as well?

Good thing dakka is a wargaming forum

And you have proven my point so much. There is so many other gaming forums, but yet he/she is in an Age of Sigmar forum, a GW forum. So who is the fool? If anything that is a hypocrite. If someone doesn't like GW, then why be in a GW forum? Also don't want to hear about "but I like the fluff or what GW use to be" He/she didn't say that so we can't assume he/she is still in the forums for that. To say "anyone who buys GW is foolish" that person has a lot of anger inside and it's just not healthy. For someone to dislike/despise/hate GW so much but yet still be part of the forum that GW represents is just asinine.

My wife asked me today to price up a dark elf army for her (we still play 8th).

3000pts, from GW comes to £366 through a local indi £275. Now I don't think thats a bad price, god only knows how much it would cost when they AoS the line :(.

On the PP point, I think their models are a huge rip off. It might be cheaper to play the game (or at least it was, pre-AoS), but the quality of material and casting is not up to scratch.

I had my PP stuff packed carefully into foam and pretty much none of it survived transport to Germany. Compare that to my GW stuff, some of which was just sat in cardboard boxes, where I had 95% of it get here intact. PP models require extensive pinning and gap filling, and at the prices they charge the assembly design is sometimes awful. Look at the prices on Fennblades for example - monopose sculpts with awful mold lines for the same cost as multipart hard plastic posable Terminators. Now, Terminators are also overpriced, but it is hard to argue that PP prices are fair.

What you are really paying for with PP is the tight ruleset and thriving gaming scene. If you don't game much then it's really not worth it.

AoS is good in a way as it has scaled itself down to skirmish, which makes getting an army achievable for more customers. But as an informed customer I do not consider it worth my time when I have so many options which are better value. If they introduced a points system that was reasonably balanced (or any other balancing mechanism), I would become much more interested in AoS, but as it stands I would rather play dungeons and dragons if I want pure narrative play.

I see alot of talk about AoS being a "smaller" and more "skirmish" game. After playing more than 100+ games of AoS I can tell you from personal experience, it is not a "skirmish" game at all. It is warhammer fantasy without blocks of troops. I have only played a handful of the battles with less than 120 models in my force alone. The warscrolls do have minimum size units so it is not really "bring what you want" its bring what warscrolls you have. the 1 inch between models still gives you globs of models in units (particularly for us skaven, undead, and other formerly horde armies) I have yet to see any force smaller or equivalent size to a typical warmahordes 35 pt force and all of my armies would cost considerably more than their warmahorde or WHFB equivalents. really what we have is more of the same old game with the same old problems just presented in a (slightly) different manner. IT has been extremely hard not to turn it into a scrum at the center of the table and with the alternating units fighting its mostly chaos.

Age of Sigmar can be skirmish. Or it can be larger. Its up to the people playing it. I've played a ton of games since July of it and I have games where we have 30 or so models a side and I've had games where we have 100 or so models a side.

There isn't a point standard anymore. Which I am glad for.

Judging by the rules, AoS will work best as a small scale mass skirmish with about 30 models a side including up to half a dozen heroes, wizards and monsters.

If it was me, I would be playing with a limit like one each of hero, wizard, monster, and elite unit, with the rest of the "army" made up of rank and file figures. Two characters, one large model, three to six elite models, and about 20 ordinary troops.

When you have small numbers like this, it is a lot more justifiable to spend such a lot on the individual figures.