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.

Are you sure you mean Hobby Lobby and not Hobbytown?

I can't see Hobby Lobby, a company who managed to win a fight in front of SCOTUS over religious freedom, dealing in plastic army men covered in skulls in a setting where demons run around all the time. Course, they do carry a lot of Disney products.

 warboss wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:

For starters, GW is NOT going to be able to dictate terms to chains such as Hobby Lobby, et al. Those chains dictate the terms and one of them is pretty standard for all manufacturers carried - if the stuff doesn't sell with a certain time period, the manufacturer is taking it back for full credit. Shelf space is a premium in all these stores and it is all about turning the inventory over. The manufacturer who can turn their inventory the fastest gets the shelf space.

Most likely, if GW is a new manufacturing supplier to them, it will usually be tested first - ON THE MANUFACTURERS DIME! They will give GW a little shelf space to place their product and then monitor the sales turnover. If it is not quick enough, GW will be out before they even get started.

As a gamer, I think these kits are great (for the price), but as someone who once managed a larger retail store, I would be surprised if these ever truly get off the ground.

GW can and does dictate terms to chains like Hobby Lobby. A semi-local Hobby Lobby store carried the full GW product lineup and has a large tabletop gaming section. I asked the assistant manager a few years back (admittedly I don't go their often) who was in charge of that part of the store if every Hobby Lobby store was going to have a section and he said it was determined largely individually. My actual local HL for instance carries no tabletop gaming items unlike the store mentioned above. If the local management wanted to carry the products, they did so through the normal GW retail methods for stores. They might automatically qualify as a chain for the highest bracket discount (don't know.. didn't ask that) but they still follow GW retail terms at least at the store I asked. In any case, GW has shown multiple times that they're willing to simply gak on customers (both retailers and gamers) and lose their business with bullying one sided terms and conditions rather than actually grow their own business.

Gonna put my 5 cents to the discussion. I think this move is great. Both for starters and for expirienced gamers. I'll show this from the ork perspective. All thouse minis are usefull, the Warboss is the only one in plastic (Grukk also is, but right now he is a limited model). Deffkoptas are hard to get and will be used often. And the nobs can be used as ard boys - like GW suggests.The kits are easy to assamble, easy to paint. I've always wondered why GW doesn't sell thouse kits seperatly.
There is also one interesting thing - the box says thet the warboss will be in MEGA armour, but the mini wears 'eavy armour. Might they make a new plastic Megaboss for that?

This is utterly fantastic and a very smart move. I have no want for these myself, but the potential for growing the community is wonderful. Truly refreshing to see a smart move come out of GW.

40k, for all its flaws, has one thing it does very well in particular, and that is looking cool at a glance. These kits will really stand out next to mundane kits of army vehicles. I know if I'd seen these among the hobby kits I saw when I was little, I'd have jumped for it. The pricing is definitely acceptable for younger people, too; £15 for more or less everything you need. They'd make great gifts, too.

EDIT: Not to mention how cool a fully painted miniature looks, and that leads to "my friend has it, I want it" type thing - I remember being thoroughly impressed by a mysterious "toy" someone brought into primary school (I must have been 6/7); what I now can, in retrospect, identify as an Ultramarine bike.

My fear is that they'll not look very attractive next to Gundam and other similarly priced model kits. Sure if someone's looking for a WWI in space miniature, they may go for these but like price to like price, they're about as much as the same skill level Gundam kit though the included paint and glue is an added bonus.

I bought a bunch of the marine/genestealer kits back in the day, the last time GW did this and they were a good value, though the paint dried out pretty quickly.

Oh, true. We don't get Gundam kits over here any more. It sucks. I have to get them from Japan!

The way the Dreadnought is gated, I am sure they could just flip him off and put him in a different set. The other marine stuff isn't so easy.

Gundam kits had their day in the sun many years ago here in the US, when Bandai tried pushing the kits into Toys R Us during the big manga & anime boom of the early millennium.

Outside of a few kits at Barnes & Noble, who seem to have the same (overpriced) kits every time I visit, I can't think of any place other than truly dedicated hobby shops that even stock Gundams any more.

I don't see that as much competition for GW currently.

I also think that painted box artwork certainly is going to be more eye catching than the current painted figure style boxes. I know my eyes were certainly glued to the old painted box art of Gundams and their ilk when I was young. There was nothing else like it on the shelves.

 godardc wrote:
Hi Dakka,
I put some BOLS news on dakka, but this time, there are pictures and it seems real !^^

Here is the link:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/01/bombshell-gw-moving-into-toymodel-stores.html

GW is making models/toys like ww2 models in hypermarket, sold with glue, paints and colored plastic.
November 2016, age "8+".
Only "the most iconic": Space Marines and orks.
Well priced (19€ for the "strike team" , which is a Land Speeder, I guess, I may be wrong).
Manufactured in the UK.


Edit: more info

 krushgroove wrote:
UPDATE on the Build + Paint sets coming from GW later this year!

I've been to talk to the GW guys just now and spoke with the person who is the main contact that is listed on the flyer. GW *are* aiming to get into big-box, high/main street retailers as well as 'normal' model & hobby shops.

Box art is not finalized, neither are the actual contents, so the sprues, sprue colors and paint colors are subject to change. I was even asked if the sprues ought to be colored blue or green (I think they should). They're not aiming these sets at gamers or even 40K players, the guy I talked to reminisced with me about playing with his Airfix models fighting dinosaurs and getting blown up by Action Man howitzers. These are for little kids to spot next to the Airfix sets in hobby and craft stores and potentially bigger retail chains as well.

We asked if AoS/fantasy boxes will come and that will depend on requests and demand. Probably no new molds, they're looking at existing molds only at the moment. I don't know what that means for model choice or whatever, but tooling new molds would cut into the margin quite a bit, I imagine.

So that should answer questions about the sprues, setting, art, who they're selling too and what's in the boxes.

So Simplifying paint stage. yet i'm afraid that this may come with the less realistic paintjobs.

 highlord tamburlaine wrote:
Gundam kits had their day in the sun many years ago here in the US, when Bandai tried pushing the kits into Toys R Us during the big manga & anime boom of the early millennium.

Outside of a few kits at Barnes & Noble, who seem to have the same (overpriced) kits every time I visit, I can't think of any place other than truly dedicated hobby shops that even stock Gundams any more.

I don't see that as much competition for GW currently.

I also think that painted box artwork certainly is going to be more eye catching than the current painted figure style boxes. I know my eyes were certainly glued to the old painted box art of Gundams and their ilk when I was young. There was nothing else like it on the shelves.

You say that as if Hobbytown didn't exist.
https://www.hobbytown.com/Category/Space_and_Sci-Fi/1817/


Gundam was an example. The point here is that these kits will compete in a sector where they will be the little fish and they didn't perform so well doing so in the past. It will be interesting to see what comes of this foray back into these waters. The prices seem to be comparable with the market but these other manufacturers also hold sales, preview upcoming models, communicate with customers, all those things that GW is loathe to do.

If they choose to meet these established competitors on their ground and follow market expectations, they should perform admirably. If they follow their usual MO and just put stuff out there and expect people to buy it, they're going to be in for another failed experiment.

They definitely need to make a push for the younger demo, it's been a long time since they made any gains in that department, and it'll be an uphill battle if they refuse to change their company m.o..

I think that they even have placeholder artwork is a good sign that the boxes will be decorated with art and not pictures of models, which may mean they are starting to realise their mistakes... maybe.

 Wayshuba wrote:
Let's be honest about this here - most commenting here are veteran GW players so the kits, at the much lower price points seem attractive - especially if you are a gamer. But these are not being aimed at gamers, they are being aimed at budding model builders (as serious ones wouldn't touch these kits in a million years).

That being said, they are going to find it more difficult than selling to gamers. For starters, the price is ridiculous. Case in point: This Christmas I bought my 9-year old son a 48 piece, full painted, snap together Revell F16 model kit. Fully assembled, the kit is about two inches high, 7 1/2 inches long and has a 4 inch wing span. Pretty good size and fully painted. The price, not including tax - $11.99. That kit is equivalent to their $39 dreadnought kit they are selling. Secondly, most people getting into modelling generally fall into one of three categories: cars, military or trains. Next time you are in a hobby store, notice how few space or science fiction model kits there are. It's been tried many times and, simply put, they just do not sell.

You forgot ships there.

Yes, the hobby shops don't usually have much in the way of scifi or fantasy models, but that's because they tend to be targeted to more 'serious' builder types - those guys who spend 2 hours recarving aileron lines on 1/72 Spitfire because they are 1.5mm too narrow. It's a different demographic. Toy stores or supermarket toy sections by contrast attract broad kid demographics, many of whom are into Star Wars etc. and no reason to assume some of them couldn't be interested in GW line too. After all, GW products have been sold in those outlets in the past. Yes the prices are bit steep on that section, true, compared to very competed model kit lineups. OTOH many Star Wars toys and models are also very expensive.

However my main concern with this move is that GW is about 10 years late with this. Model kit hobby is pretty much dead with the kids these days. Like five years ago there still were big model kit sections in supermarkets etc, now they have shrunk to bare minimum. A big new toy store opened up nearby and had no model kits at all. Only old guys like me buy model kits anymore...

On a plus side, this is hardly a big risk for GW so why not try it out.

 keezus wrote:

 Talys wrote:
They're not the same though. If you had given me a 48 piece Revell F16 snap-fit model, when I was 9, I would have politely said thank you, left it in its shrink warap, and put it in the Christmas bin to donate. Likewise to a car or train. If it had been a Millennium Falcon, X-Wing, Gundam, or 40k Dreadnought you wouldn't be able to hold me back.

Also, these kits come with paint and a brush, which is pretty cool. I would have been totally into that. In the absence of it, I would have asked my parents to buy me paints and brushes... uh wait, this is what I did

You're talking here like the discretionary spending for Jr is not budget constrained. I think that in today's market, especially for beginners, low price is the key. Simplicity is the key. No parent wants to spend a lot on stuff that their child may not want to pursue after some initial interest. The Revell kit cost 1/3 the amount of the GW one. If little Timmy or Sally want to continue and are OK with spending their hobby budget on the GW product (less physical product(s) for the same money) - and it fits into the overall budget... then by all means continue. They don't come with paints and a brush, but the tiny 4mL starter paint pots that GW gives you and the starter hobby brush could be easily sourced for less. Dollar store brushes (and to an extent, paints) are perfectly good for a beginner and as a hobbyist, I use the brushes often for basecoating and when employing certain techniques which cause brush damage - the paints are great for terrain.

If Sci Fi is the thing, Revell's Star Wars line can scratch that itch. $39 buys you the frankly enormous Kylo Ren's Shuttle.

When I was a kid, I never felt 'poor' or disadvantaged, or that there was an unreasonable amount of stuff I wanted that I couldn't have. However, compared with what I see what kids from average-income households have today by way of entertainment goods and toys, it sure looks that way, lol.

Co-workers and friends with very average household incomes buy their kids cell phones, tablets, and video game consoles that cost hundreds of dollars. PCs that cost thousands of dollars. TVs or some other form of LCD screen in the bedrooms. Clothing that blows away what I wore as a kid. It goes on and on.

Obviously, it's different for every family. But $50 for something that makes Jr happy vs. $20 that doesn't make Jr happy... these days? The $50 is gonna win out if the family can afford it. Hell, people spend $50 on a toy to make Jr.'s puppy happy without thinking twice now. It's not hard to conclude that parents in 2016 do not necessarily consider value when buying toys. If this were so, companies like Lego would be out of business. Heck I've seen some 9-year-olds with Lego collections that cost more than 2000pt 40k armies. It's not hard when many of those kits cost over $100...

Keep in mid, these kits are not targeted to parents who are minimum wage earners. They're targeted to parents who have extra money to buy their kids hobby toys; hopefully, to get the kids started on what one day, in their adulthood, will be their next six-figure hobby

Backfire wrote:

However my main concern with this move is that GW is about 10 years late with this. Model kit hobby is pretty much dead with the kids these days. Like five years ago there still were big model kit sections in supermarkets etc, now they have shrunk to bare minimum.

Yep, I agree. It's a pretty slim selection now. I'm not sure if it's cyclical, a factor of price, or whether new digital goodies are simply more appealing to kids today.

You have to remember that $20 in 1985 is worth about $50 today, accounting for inflation. Houses might have more tvs nowadays, but the main TV in my house cost me $150, and $99 for a bedroom TV would only be about 40 bucks in 80's money. Cell phones are largely hand me downs or free phones, and are a necessary safety tool. PCs outside of macbooks don't cost thousands of dollars.

@Talys, looking at the price of Legos sets is what I do to make me feel better after spending on models!

Ignoring the detail here, the fundamental things is that GW are not going to break into that beginner hobbyist market without trying something new. This approach may or may not work, but no one can say until it's been tried for real in the modern world.

And the fact that GW are willing to try speaks volumes about the change in attitude that appears to be happening in Nottingham; this is a risk. How big remains to be seen, but they've been totally risk averse for years now (at least since Dreadfleet), it's good to see them actually taking a lead again, instead of just pumping out the same old stuff. See also the Specialist Games initiative.

Hell, just walking through a toy store makes me feel better about my spending! It also makes me dread the day our little one stops being satisfied with used toys...

GW should licence Lego to do a Lego series of 40K kits, and provide a simplified Age of Emporer set of rules.

It would be awesome.

I think they're really going to struggle to compete with the revel star wars line. It's got all of the advantages (mindshare, IP, detail, cost).

Compare this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Revell-Star-Wars-Millennium-Falcon/dp/B00TK0W432/ref=sr_1_6?s=kids&ie=UTF8&qid=1454324788&sr=1-6&keywords=revell+star+wars
to the bike. It doesn't come with paint or glue, but it's £4 cheaper so you can buy the glue, and it's got stickers so you don't need to paint. It's about the same size but a lot more detailed.

They also do it with glue, 7 full-size paint tins, and 6 brushes for £25: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Revell-Star-Millennium-Falcon-03600/dp/B017XRS1DA/ref=sr_1_1?s=kids&ie=UTF8&qid=1454324788&sr=1-1-spons&keywords=revell+star+wars&psc=1

It's a bit of sticker shock, but remember the GW only includes the mini paints.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
You have to remember that $20 in 1985 is worth about $50 today, accounting for inflation. Houses might have more tvs nowadays, but the main TV in my house cost me $150, and $99 for a bedroom TV would only be about 40 bucks in 80's money. Cell phones are largely hand me downs or free phones, and are a necessary safety tool. PCs outside of macbooks don't cost thousands of dollars.

He may be referring to those fancy gaming computers that can have quite ridiculous prices. Y'know, the ones with 32 GB of RAM, >4 GHz processors, multiple graphics cards where each costs as much as a decent regular computer, etc. etc. Then Timmy takes that enormously advanced technology with an even larger pricetag... and either spends another $500 or so on Steam... or plays Minecraft . Kids these days.

 Talys wrote:
Obviously, it's different for every family. But $50 for something that makes Jr happy vs. $20 that doesn't make Jr happy... these days? The $50 is gonna win out if the family can afford it. Hell, people spend $50 on a toy to make Jr.'s puppy happy without thinking twice now. It's not hard to conclude that parents in 2016 do not necessarily consider value when buying toys. If this were so, companies like Lego would be out of business. Heck I've seen some 9-year-olds with Lego collections that cost more than 2000pt 40k armies. It's not hard when many of those kits cost over $100...

I think the key thing you hit upon is "afford" it. Cost of living increases + stagnant wages + sky high real-estate prices means that young families can often be cash strapped - or if they hold a mortgage, living paycheck to paycheck. Warhammer / Warhammer 40k, even back then was a hobby for those with considerable disposable income. I only got into the hobby as a kid because there was a store that sold second hand metals that I laboriously stripped and painted with hand-me-down, old chunky craft paints. As I see it, even the new lower "build-and-paint" prices are too high for the level of product they are offering, especially when compared with existing products in the niche they are entering.

Lego is a poor comparison. It has high startup cost if bought new, however, Lego can be a generational toy that can be passed down from parents to kids, loose 2nd hand product can be obtained via many avenues (garage sales, eBay, Kijiji etc), product doesn't lose play value when bought loose/used, the base parts are virtually indestructible and can be recombined in ways only limited by the user's imagination. As long as there is imagination, Lego as a product will never lose value.

 keezus wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Obviously, it's different for every family. But $50 for something that makes Jr happy vs. $20 that doesn't make Jr happy... these days? The $50 is gonna win out if the family can afford it. Hell, people spend $50 on a toy to make Jr.'s puppy happy without thinking twice now. It's not hard to conclude that parents in 2016 do not necessarily consider value when buying toys. If this were so, companies like Lego would be out of business. Heck I've seen some 9-year-olds with Lego collections that cost more than 2000pt 40k armies. It's not hard when many of those kits cost over $100...

I think the key thing you hit upon is "afford" it. Cost of living increases + stagnant wages + sky high real-estate prices means that young families can often be cash strapped - or if they hold a mortgage, living paycheck to paycheck. Warhammer / Warhammer 40k, even back then was a hobby for those with considerable disposable income. I only got into the hobby as a kid because there was a store that sold second hand metals that I laboriously stripped and painted with hand-me-down, old chunky craft paints. As I see it, even the new lower "build-and-paint" prices are too high for the level of product they are offering, especially when compared with existing products in the niche they are entering.

Lego is a poor comparison. It has high startup cost if bought new, however, Lego can be a generational toy that can be passed down from parents to kids, loose 2nd hand product can be obtained via many avenues (garage sales, eBay, Kijiji etc), product doesn't lose play value when bought loose/used, the base parts are virtually indestructible and can be recombined in ways only limited by the user's imagination. As long as there is imagination, Lego as a product will never lose value.

My first Legos belonged to my dad, then went to my older sister, then came to me... with each adding to the pile.

Sadly, they were destroyed in a fire in 1978.

The Auld Grump

Dad and sister?

 notprop wrote:
Dad and sister?

Sure. As a dad myself, I wasn't born this old.

 notprop wrote:
Dad and sister?

His dad had a set as a kid and held onto them after growing up. When his daughter was old enough he gave them to her. Is there something to your question that I'm missing?

I think it was in reference to losing them in a fire- the legos, or the father and sister.

Or maybe my reading ability isn't functioning at the moment.

(I had Lego hand me downs from my Uncle btw.)

 Breotan wrote:

 notprop wrote:
Dad and sister?

His dad had a set as a kid and held onto them after growing up. When his daughter was old enough he gave them to her. Is there something to your question that I'm missing?

A truck load of silly british humour it would seem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 highlord tamburlaine wrote:
I think it was in reference to losing them in a fire- the legos, or the father and sister.

Or maybe my reading ability isn't functioning at the moment.

(I had Lego hand me downs from my Uncle btw.)

There you go, this feller wins a cookie.

 keezus wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Obviously, it's different for every family. But $50 for something that makes Jr happy vs. $20 that doesn't make Jr happy... these days? The $50 is gonna win out if the family can afford it. Hell, people spend $50 on a toy to make Jr.'s puppy happy without thinking twice now. It's not hard to conclude that parents in 2016 do not necessarily consider value when buying toys. If this were so, companies like Lego would be out of business. Heck I've seen some 9-year-olds with Lego collections that cost more than 2000pt 40k armies. It's not hard when many of those kits cost over $100...

I think the key thing you hit upon is "afford" it. Cost of living increases + stagnant wages + sky high real-estate prices means that young families can often be cash strapped - or if they hold a mortgage, living paycheck to paycheck. Warhammer / Warhammer 40k, even back then was a hobby for those with considerable disposable income. I only got into the hobby as a kid because there was a store that sold second hand metals that I laboriously stripped and painted with hand-me-down, old chunky craft paints. As I see it, even the new lower "build-and-paint" prices are too high for the level of product they are offering, especially when compared with existing products in the niche they are entering.

Lego is a poor comparison. It has high startup cost if bought new, however, Lego can be a generational toy that can be passed down from parents to kids, loose 2nd hand product can be obtained via many avenues (garage sales, eBay, Kijiji etc), product doesn't lose play value when bought loose/used, the base parts are virtually indestructible and can be recombined in ways only limited by the user's imagination. As long as there is imagination, Lego as a product will never lose value.

Hey, no argument there.

On many other threads I have bemoaned the general topic of how this or any hobby with a meaningful cost is a difficult sell to people who have had declining disposable incomes, especially those who have families. Working class families often have extremely limited funds for any sort of entertainment, so they end up spending it in things that have an infinitely tiny cost relative to the hours of entertainment - television and video games come immediately to mind. There are plenty of outdoor activities that do t require much more than a good pair of shoes, too, but even those are becoming tougher as people move from houses to condos.

There's no question in my mind that the average family has a lot less disposable income than decades past. On the other hand, GW, pr any company that earns money based on recurring deliveries of physical goods, can't really compete with companies that have digital distribution where each additional unit sold has a marginal cost approaching zero.

The question for companies selling physical product becomes, do they price it lower in the hopes of squeezing it into these declining budgets, or do they price it higher, based on less price sensitivity in certain income bands?

Putting aside GW for a moment, the answer isn't a simple one. At lower income bands, the price is so sensitive that almost any price kills it over a digital product. At the next higher income band -- particularly for those without kids -- whether it's $25 or $50 a box hardly matters of someone is only buying a box a month. Beyond that income band, those prices are even fine as toys or hobbies for the kids. Looking at GW specifically, it's obvious where they are betting on. But really, what choice do they have?

I would argue that even at a significantly lower price, GW products are totally uncompetitive with entertainment that is nearly free, and even worse, even at much, much lower prices, I don't think the hobby of model-building or tabletop war games is going to explode with interest.

As someone else mentioned, this might not work (possibly weak demand from kids wanting to make and paint models). Really, I don't know how many kids build models of any type right now (I literally know if none who are younger than teens). But at least, this is a legitimate attempt to break into a market, and to get more people interested in hobby, at a minimal cost to GW -- a strategy that should be applauded for the attempt, even if it fails.

 Talys wrote:
On many other threads I have bemoaned the general topic of how this or any hobby with a meaningful cost is a difficult sell to people who have had declining disposable incomes, especially those who have families. Working class families often have extremely limited funds for any sort of entertainment, so they end up spending it in things that have an infinitely tiny cost relative to the hours of entertainment - television and video games come immediately to mind. There are plenty of outdoor activities that do t require much more than a good pair of shoes, too, but even those are becoming tougher as people move from houses to condos.

While this is OT, I don't think that price / space are the insurmountable obstacle you suggest - it is a problem, to be sure, but there are still plenty of ways to enjoy entertainment with expensive startup costs. There are rentals, and the sharing economy. Most of the time, if the participants are doing the activity as a one off, or infrequently, this makes a lot of sense to not own as it saves space, and importantly, money. Only when the participant is spending a relatively serious amount of time on the hobby does it make sense (if affordable) to buy all your own gear.

IMHO if you spend on a TV package, it is a terrible waste of money. Any package worth its salt is easily 1x Imperial Knight a month. (Things are different if you bought an antenna and enjoy over-air.) If you have enough money for TV, you have enough money for GW. Depending on the rate of churn through video games, the costs can be similar, especially factoring in micro-transactions and DLC. Definitely, on video games though, YMMV.

Regarding condos: There are two schools of thought on small space living: 1. Reduce and declutter. Pare your life down to the bare minimum. I've tried this (to limited success), but it is surprisingly cathartic and is great stress relief. 2. You only need to look as far as Japan and its gunpla, anime fanatics living in tiny accommodation to see that if you are passionate enough about something, you will find a space for it in your home. This is why I think the small home argument for why GW is doing poorly in Asia due to lack of space is not exactly the whole problem.

 Talys wrote:
There's no question in my mind that the average family has a lot less disposable income than decades past. On the other hand, GW, pr any company that earns money based on recurring deliveries of physical goods, can't really compete with companies that have digital distribution where each additional unit sold has a marginal cost approaching zero.

I'm not sure why you are suddenly comparing GW products to digital only - you are ignoring the point made that GW is entering the model kit market at a price point which is higher than that of its direct competitors, some of the kits are very old and primitive - at a time when disposable income for the middle class is in decline! I honestly think that the prices need to be 25% less than the suggested MSRP, especially considering how cheap those repurposed Black Reach sprues were selling for on the secondary market (IIRC, you could buy the entire Ork side of Black Reach for $30 on eBay while Black Reach was in print, and now they want to charge $40 for a single frame - albeit with some Marines!) I don't think that GW is in direct competition with video games and digital content...! These are entirely different things! You wouldn't shop for GW product if you wanted video games and/or digital content! You would find their products because you want to build/paint something to make your own. In this way, they are not after the same market at all!

@keezus - I wasn't really talking about size and space (this time), though you're right there -- it's an issue that isn't insurmountable.

I do not believe that TV and 40k are remotely comparable in cost vs general entertainment value. You can buy a decent TV for $500 that will last for a decade or more; many thousands of hours. It's entertainment the whole family can enjoy together, too, with very wide appeal (what percentage of people don't like tv shows or movies?). Size matters for enjoyment too, because 2-4 people will enjoy a 40"+ screen a lot better than a 20" monitor. Proof: Most households own at least one TV. It's a no-brainer for a lot of people.

As to TV content, there's nothing that trumps a cable or satellite or Netflix subscription. If you like local news or sports, this is your ticket. Most of the alternatives are either terrible or involve piracy. While you may not value watching the World Series or Superbowl or Olympics in HD on as big a screen as you can afford, I don't think it's disputable that a lot of people do.

Regarding the model kit market: Personally, I don't think that these ate prohibitive prices, any more than Lego sets are. Both are insanely expensive compared to many digital goods, and both are, I think, perfectly affordable to the demographic they are targeted at.

Keep in mind that to sell a $50 MSRP item at Walmart, your manudactre cost really needs to be about $10. And Walmart will sell your product at less than MSRP, guaranteed.

Philosophically, you and I are at odds, I think, in that you believe that price is a huge factor blocking people in participating in 40k or hobby, while I believe that it's a relatively smaller factor. I think there are TONS of people, young and old, who can afford to participate but don't find model building at all interesting. Case in point, it's not like Revell models are flying off the shelves, or that hobby shops selling historical and scale models are appearing everywhere the way that 2nd hand computer game and video game stores are. The section in Walmart selling anything remotely resembling a model is tee is tiny compared to the PlayStation/Xbox section.

All those people who buy PS4 could easily afford hobby -- but they choose not to.

The proposed GW prices don't strike me as particularly excessive compared with similar offerings from Airfix and Revell.

Anyway, GW stuff mostly starts to look really expensive when you start to price up whole armies and necessary rulebooks. A lot of the individual kits are not bad value in themselves

I don't think the target market will care that the figures are fairly old designs.