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.
Azreal13 wrote: It's not unheard of for a restaurant to offer different pricing for eat in and takeaway, no, if that's what you mean?
If you're think of McDonalds etc, that's because take-away food didn't (possibly still doesn't, but the Greggs hoo-ha makes me think otherwise) attract VAT - only eat-in.
No, that's not what I'm talking about, the Vat issue is with hot or cold food, not takeaway.
But please, do present evidence to support that. And even if they do, other restaurants don't, and those that don't aren't obliged to discount your food just because you're insistent on sitting on the pavement instead of the restaurant in this example.
No need, as you're moving the discussion away from the original point, to use your restaurant analogy in the correct context, it would be arguing that it isn't fair to compare two burger houses because one is significantly more expensive because it chooses to offer free Sky Sports in the back room and passes that cost onto every single customer whether they go in and watch it or not, whilst the cheaper one charges less for the core product (the burgers) and lets people decide whether they want their own Sky Sports and to pay for it if they choose to.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Oh yes. One simply adds the cost to the prices you're asking the consumer to pay because that's just how things work in the real world.
This is irrelevant to his point. There's pretty much no industry where the customer goes "They have a big advertising budget, so I'm willing to pay more for this product over the other one." That's totally backwards. The advertising budget is there to get them to buy the product, not the other way around. I don't buy a kitchen table to keep Ikea's advertising department in work.
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
ICV2 have said they don't include data from shops or manufacturers that decline to take part.
So therefore, it's more likely than not GW's direct sales and Own Shop sales aren't in fact included - rendering the ICV2 interesting, but far from accurate.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: ICV2 have said they don't include data from shops or manufacturers that decline to take part.
So therefore, it's more likely than not GW's direct sales and Own Shop sales aren't in fact included - rendering the ICV2 interesting, but far from accurate.
If that's the case, then it's more than just "far from accurate" it's stupid. Though we don't actually know what counts as declining to participate. GW could simply say "we have our annual reports available here" and then they'd be included.
My point about X-Wing though is that there are areas in which is outsells 40k. And it's an established competitor. As are many others. This picture of GW standing triumphant over the corpses of their fallen competitors is just a fantasy.
Even if ICv2 is stupid and doesn't use the available information, I think we can agree that GW is not in possession of the same degree of market share as when Rackham imploded or Void whatever faded away. I am simply challenging this contentless assertion that GW's continued existence is somehow proof that they are doing things right. The fact that they have changed course and are now doing better shows that they have become less wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I think Azrael13 and I have some fundamental differences about GW's pricing policy. I'm of the opinion that they can go higher. That something like GW Australia pricing can be extended to more locations and GW can still turn a profit. Or even grow. That the 3% average price increase from only increasing prices on new releases can likely be pushed up to 5% or more and GW can still have volume growth.
I see the most important factor in pricing a new release is to cover the design and tooling costs as quickly as possible. They can make money on volume when the new product eventually ends up in some sort of start collecting type box and becomes part of the two thirds of GW's sales that are not new releases. In their new releases, the products should be priced such that the amount they produce to sell produces the best return on investment with the least risk of dead stock sitting there. It's also worth noting that dead stock can be caused by going too high in prices. There's probably an optimal price that is higher in some cases and lower in others depending on the nature of the individual new release.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/07/26 17:27:50
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
Is that not all speculation on your behalf though?
ICV2 say it's based on
ICV2 wrote:This chart of the Top 5 Non-Collectible Miniature Lines (hobby channel) reflects sales in Fall 2016. The charts are based on interviews with retailers, distributors, and manufacturers.
Interviews. Not publically available information. Just interviews.
Then there's the temporal lens. How long has Warmahordes been around? 16 or so years, give or take. X-Wing? 5, tops?
GW have proven not just longevity, but enough base sales to ride out pretty rough periods without a great deal of borrowing. How are PP and FFG funding their new toys? I ask because I genuinely don't know, and I'm not suggesting any 'declare it or it must be borrowing' tripe.
But any company that is borrowing money to drive a new product is putting itself in no doubt calculated jeopardy. If it flops or even disappoints, they could wind up with the debt being called in, or finding future credit restricted.
GW have proven over more than 30 years that they've got what it takes to keep on plugging away. Very little is done on the Never Never - they prefer to do it from cash in hand. Indeed, as per the 2016/2017 press statement
Press Statement wrote:
Funding and liquidity The Group pays for its operations entirely from our cash flow[/b]
For any business, that's solid position. Gives you total control over your costs, as you don't have to worry about rate jumps etc.
Much of the 2007/2008 financial crash was because so many businesses were highly leveraged. They were borrowing money to expand. So when sales suddenly dropped off, the loss of income meant they struggled to service their debts - and a suddenly cautious banking sector made securing new terms of lending very difficult indeed.
So if their competitors are borrowing to do new projects, be it a faction or whole new system, they're still not in the same position as GW. And that counts for a lot when the next, ultimately inevitable financial whoopsie comes along.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/26 17:28:45
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
BigWaaagh wrote:
And to my point, through all that, they're still around as countless others drop by the wayside. I know the guys at Warlord personally and with relation to GW, they're still pups. GW has survived and flourished through the strategic missteps and has a longevity nearly unparalleled in the space. With regards to the topic and their model, it's shown the test of time and that absolutely bears out the thesis.
There really isn't much of a thesis here though. They're still around so what they're doing must be working? That's it? It's sort of a tautology.
And you don't flourish through strategic misteps, at best it's despite them, not through them. And I'd argue that GW didn't flourish for a long, long time. Years have gone by where they shrank while the rest of the market grew around them. Stagnation is not flourishing. The very fact that things have improved so dramatically in the last two financial years shows that things change and it's not just GW proving they were always right by merit of still existing.
This "test of time" idea just doesn't really say anything at all given you have GW doing very different things over different periods of time.
Name a company, any company, that doesn't veer off course or change strategies over the course of their existence... You've stated exactly the point here, they've survived in spite of their missteps so that kind of proves the basic model is sound.
Azreal13 wrote: And you're trying to argue that comparing two companies that sell plastic miniatures is invalid because one has chosen to run its own shops...
No. I'm pointing out, with relevance to my original post, that the "product" you're buying when you buy miniatures isn't...particularly in this case...a simple $ comparison when you have an understanding of the whole product being sold.
Yes it is a simple £ comparison! You're just trying to argue that all the other gak that GW have chosen to load on top of that in an attempt to justify the disparity somehow invalidates the comparison to a competitor who runs a leaner model with less overhead. None of which you've cited has any value to me at all, and I know I'm not going to be the only one who doesn't game at GW or spend any time using their online resources, so whether you frame it as "GW are overpriced" or "GW force me to spend money on product I have no use for" the outcome for me as a consumer is the same.
No, you're just recycling the same incorrect concept that GW's product is a simply a miniature costing $X. It's like saying the Ritz Carlton is the same as Motel 6 simply because they both are hotels that have rooms to offer. It's not the same, not even close.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/07/26 17:47:33
We can also look at what GW is now doing compared to the past.
In the past, they made choices widely considered bone-headed. Their prices did indeed keep on going up and up and up.
But this is now.
Consider Calth and Prospero. What incredibly amazing value those boxes are. Whether for Heresy or 40k, you get a solid amount of models, based on full kit sprues as opposed to the more traditional Starter Set Simples. So when one can get the backbone of an army at such a discount (even more if you buy online. I got three Prospero from Darksphere), paying extra for the other units isn't as daunting.
Can X-Wing and PP offer the same if they hit the skids? I don't know. Open question is open.
Then there's the IP to consider. FFG have made a good game of X-Wing. But it's based on someone else's IP that they've rented. What if Disney want to take that back in-house as GW did? Where does that leave FFG?
There's an opinion in my local area that each new wave for X-Wing diminishes the game, introducing as it does ever more exception to exceptions of rules, and worse looking ships (come on, that Wookiee one is bobbins!). With it not being their IP, they're more restricted in adding nice new stuff in a way PP and GW aren't. Of course, many players will feel a need to buy Ship X, even though it doesn't suit their playstyle or taste in aesthetics just to get Card Y so that Ship Z becomes extra deadly. That's a business model that put me off continuing with the game.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Azreal13 wrote: Or, they could not front load that cost into the retail price of the actual product they're selling and let the consumer make a choice, rather than forcing anyone who wishes to purchase an element of what they offer to be liable for it whether they want it or not.
Because if those things actually have a value, then people will pay for them right? Otherwise it means they're just a thinly veiled excuse for charging a lot more for a very similar product.
They're "forcing" you...to buy a toy soldier. Erm, no. They're offering a product, take it or leave it.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Azreal13 wrote: It's not unheard of for a restaurant to offer different pricing for eat in and takeaway, no, if that's what you mean?
If you're think of McDonalds etc, that's because take-away food didn't (possibly still doesn't, but the Greggs hoo-ha makes me think otherwise) attract VAT - only eat-in.
No, that's not what I'm talking about, the Vat issue is with hot or cold food, not takeaway.
But please, do present evidence to support that. And even if they do, other restaurants don't, and those that don't aren't obliged to discount your food just because you're insistent on sitting on the pavement instead of the restaurant in this example.
No need, as you're moving the discussion away from the original point, to use your restaurant analogy in the correct context, it would be arguing that it isn't fair to compare two burger houses because one is significantly more expensive because it chooses to offer free Sky Sports in the back room and passes that cost onto every single customer whether they go in and watch it or not, whilst the cheaper one charges less for the core product (the burgers) and lets people decide whether they want their own Sky Sports and to pay for it if they choose to.
No I'm not.
You said that when you buy GW, you're 'forced' to pay extra for stuff you choose not to use. If you're not using the ancillaries that come with the GW hobby in the UK (I appreciate outside of the Motherland, GW stores are fewer and further between), then that is entirely your problem. There, you're the one choosing to limit yourself. Not GW.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
"...rather than forcing anyone who wishes to purchase..." Yeah, it kind of is.
Only if you just look at individual words and don't read the sentences. I wasn't referring to their core product (the kits) but all the extra stuff which you claim they're lumping on top as "added value" which you are forced to buy if you wish to buy the kit, whether it represents added value to you or not.
But I'm tired and this conversation is descending into the idiotic, so I'm going to stop having it now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/26 17:55:25
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Azreal13 wrote: It's not unheard of for a restaurant to offer different pricing for eat in and takeaway, no, if that's what you mean?
If you're think of McDonalds etc, that's because take-away food didn't (possibly still doesn't, but the Greggs hoo-ha makes me think otherwise) attract VAT - only eat-in.
No, that's not what I'm talking about, the Vat issue is with hot or cold food, not takeaway.
But please, do present evidence to support that. And even if they do, other restaurants don't, and those that don't aren't obliged to discount your food just because you're insistent on sitting on the pavement instead of the restaurant in this example.
No need, as you're moving the discussion away from the original point, to use your restaurant analogy in the correct context, it would be arguing that it isn't fair to compare two burger houses because one is significantly more expensive because it chooses to offer free Sky Sports in the back room and passes that cost onto every single customer whether they go in and watch it or not, whilst the cheaper one charges less for the core product (the burgers) and lets people decide whether they want their own Sky Sports and to pay for it if they choose to.
No I'm not.
You said that when you buy GW, you're 'forced' to pay extra for stuff you choose not to use. If you're not using the ancillaries that come with the GW hobby in the UK (I appreciate outside of the Motherland, GW stores are fewer and further between), then that is entirely your problem. There, you're the one choosing to limit yourself. Not GW.
Again, equally dumb. I can't choose not buy something I have no use for, and it's my fault I have no use for it. Ridiculous argument.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: There's an opinion in my local area that each new wave for X-Wing diminishes the game, introducing as it does ever more exception to exceptions of rules, and worse looking ships (come on, that Wookiee one is bobbins!). With it not being their IP, they're more restricted in adding nice new stuff in a way PP and GW aren't. Of course, many players will feel a need to buy Ship X, even though it doesn't suit their playstyle or taste in aesthetics just to get Card Y so that Ship Z becomes extra deadly. That's a business model that put me off continuing with the game.
Great post in total.
I'm seeing the same thing. I don't know if FFG needs to do something to shake up X-Wing. It's now becoming incredibly hard for new players to get enfranchised. And the emphasis on organized play leads to lots of new players having their initial experience being crushed by the utter power level difference between one 100 point list and the next.
My point in objecting to the notion that GW's survival is somehow evidence of their correct decision making or opposing this notion that GW stands triumphant over a sea of corpses of their competitors is that it really only serves to take one's eye off the real issues. The actual differences in what GW is doing that is producing different (better) results.
GW should not compete on price with Warlord. Or anyone else. They should continue to provide a complete package and price their products to maximize revenue. Their complete package approach will indeed mean that their customers on average will pay more, but it's also a strength. People like it. They like when the rules make their models feel awesome. And the GW's approach to hobbying and selling paint as a system.
GW simply does not need extra services to justify their prices. That's just post hoc justification by fans. Azrael's objections have merit, but in a way they miss the point. GW is not asking him to pay more to cover things like their retail operation. They are asking him to pay more because they want to make as much money as possible and those extra things that Azrael13 may or may not have any use for are done to sell more product. It doesn't really matter if Azrael has use for it or not. Buying GW's product isn't done to pay for those things, those things are paid for to sell more product.
The Kirby era is a perfect example of GW offering less and less in terms of these "bonus" services. It used to be that GW provided their full range of paints for people to use in their stores. They used to have dedicated available tables in all their stores, now it's a case by case basis. Why the change? GW was in cost cutting mode and didn't necessarily see the connection between offering these things and making more money. It even got to the point where *nothing* was given away. Even simple painting guides were charged for. I was actually quite surprised when Warhammer TV's painting videos weren't behind a pay wall from Day 1.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/26 18:08:13
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
"...rather than forcing anyone who wishes to purchase..." Yeah, it kind of is.
Only if you just look at individual words and don't read the sentences. I wasn't referring to their core product (the kits) but all the extra stuff which you claim they're lumping on top as "added value" which you are forced to buy if you wish to buy the kit, whether it represents added value to you or not.
But I'm tired and this conversation is descending into the idiotic, so I'm going to stop having it now.
Sorry, I'll quote everything next time. It doesn't change the fact that as I have repeatedly said, theirs is a product offering beyond just a miniature and you are free to take it or leave it. There's still absolutely nobody forcing you to buy anything. Saying otherwise is, indeed, idiotic.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: There's an opinion in my local area that each new wave for X-Wing diminishes the game, introducing as it does ever more exception to exceptions of rules, and worse looking ships (come on, that Wookiee one is bobbins!). With it not being their IP, they're more restricted in adding nice new stuff in a way PP and GW aren't. Of course, many players will feel a need to buy Ship X, even though it doesn't suit their playstyle or taste in aesthetics just to get Card Y so that Ship Z becomes extra deadly. That's a business model that put me off continuing with the game.
Great post in total.
I'm seeing the same thing. I don't know if FFG needs to do something to shake up X-Wing. It's now becoming incredibly hard for new players to get enfranchised. And the emphasis on organized play leads to lots of new players having their initial experience being crushed by the utter power level difference between one 100 point list and the next.
My point in objecting to the notion that GW's survival is somehow evidence of their correct decision making or opposing this notion that GW stands triumphant over a sea of corpses of their competitors is that it really only serves to take one's eye off the real issues. The actual differences in what GW is doing that is producing different (better) results.
GW should not compete on price with Warlord. Or anyone else. They should continue to provide a complete package and price their products to maximize revenue. Their complete package approach will indeed mean that their customers on average will pay more, but it's also a strength. People like it. They like when the rules make their models feel awesome. And the GW's approach to hobbying and selling paint as a system.
GW simply does not need extra services to justify their prices. That's just post hoc justification by fans.
I would agree with this, one of the big issues we have had with players over the years is abandonment. GW Should focus on everyone getting something, even 2 or 3 models in a year for a faction and up to date rules Will go a long way to keeping people invested.
"...rather than forcing anyone who wishes to purchase..." Yeah, it kind of is.
Only if you just look at individual words and don't read the sentences. I wasn't referring to their core product (the kits) but all the extra stuff which you claim they're lumping on top as "added value" which you are forced to buy if you wish to buy the kit, whether it represents added value to you or not.
But I'm tired and this conversation is descending into the idiotic, so I'm going to stop having it now.
Sorry, I'll quote everything next time. It doesn't change the fact that as I have repeatedly said, theirs is a product offering beyond just a miniature and you are free to take it or leave it. There's still absolutely nobody forcing you to buy anything. Saying otherwise is, indeed, idiotic.
Except you're justifying the higher price GW charge by citing the intangibles they offer beyond the core product of miniatures.
If I don't value those intangibles, then, if I want to buy GW product, I am being forced to pay for them regardless.
That is what I am referring to.
I actually disagree with the whole assertion and agree with frozenwates that it's just post hoc consumer justification, but if we take your argument at face value, then that's my reaction to it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/26 18:08:58
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
"...rather than forcing anyone who wishes to purchase..." Yeah, it kind of is.
Only if you just look at individual words and don't read the sentences. I wasn't referring to their core product (the kits) but all the extra stuff which you claim they're lumping on top as "added value" which you are forced to buy if you wish to buy the kit, whether it represents added value to you or not.
But I'm tired and this conversation is descending into the idiotic, so I'm going to stop having it now.
Sorry, I'll quote everything next time. It doesn't change the fact that as I have repeatedly said, theirs is a product offering beyond just a miniature and you are free to take it or leave it. There's still absolutely nobody forcing you to buy anything. Saying otherwise is, indeed, idiotic.
Except you're justifying the higher price GW charge by citing the intangibles they offer beyond the core product of miniatures.
If I don't value those intangibles, then, if I want to buy GW product, I am being forced to pay for them regardless.
That is what I am referring to.
I actually disagree with the whole assertion and agree with frozenwates that it's just post hoc consumer justification, but if we take your argument at face value, then that's my reaction to it.
This isn't a matter of justifying their prices, it's an attempt to get the bigger picture across. I don't understand the inability to accept and acknowledge the strategy GW uses. What you value, or don't value, may or may not line up perfectly with their model. GW is in the business of selling a hobby, not just miniatures. That is their product. Their physical products are therefore priced accordingly to reflect the overall cost of that. This is simple budgeting and the whole post hoc argument is wrong.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/07/26 18:19:58
AoS dropped off the chart and Armada is back on, plus WTF is D&D Nolzur’s Marvelous Minis? I though Nolzur's was just like Repear's Bones line and not a game.
"...rather than forcing anyone who wishes to purchase..." Yeah, it kind of is.
Only if you just look at individual words and don't read the sentences. I wasn't referring to their core product (the kits) but all the extra stuff which you claim they're lumping on top as "added value" which you are forced to buy if you wish to buy the kit, whether it represents added value to you or not.
But I'm tired and this conversation is descending into the idiotic, so I'm going to stop having it now.
Sorry, I'll quote everything next time. It doesn't change the fact that as I have repeatedly said, theirs is a product offering beyond just a miniature and you are free to take it or leave it. There's still absolutely nobody forcing you to buy anything. Saying otherwise is, indeed, idiotic.
Except you're justifying the higher price GW charge by citing the intangibles they offer beyond the core product of miniatures.
If I don't value those intangibles, then, if I want to buy GW product, I am being forced to pay for them regardless.
That is what I am referring to.
I actually disagree with the whole assertion and agree with frozenwates that it's just post hoc consumer justification, but if we take your argument at face value, then that's my reaction to it.
This isn't a matter of justifying their prices, it's an attempt to get the bigger picture across. I don't understand the inability to accept and acknowledge the strategy GW uses. What you value, or don't value, may or may not line up perfectly with their model. GW is in the business of selling a hobby, not just miniatures. That is their product. Their physical products are therefore priced accordingly to reflect the overall cost of that. This is simple budgeting and the whole post hoc argument is wrong.
I'll simply restate that if these things had legitimate value then they could be sold as services alongside their core product (they're self confessedly a model company, remember? Jewel like items of wonder and all that bs?) and sell their actual models for less.
The reality is they sell their models for so much more than many competitors for two reasons 1) they've found themselves in a position where they can and 2) they have a burden of overhead where they must to some degree.
Everything else is marketing bs or consumer justification.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/26 18:33:16
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
The price of that straw, just as all other prices, is factored into MaccyD's overheads when they're planning their pricing.
Just not sure why you expect GW to act any differently is all? I mean, a straw has legitimate value, does it not?
Come to think of it, care to explain your definition of 'legitimate value'. Because when it comes to a well run business, all the overheads are factored in when it comes to their pricing decisions - whether or not the customer takes the straw or the napkin, they've still paid for them.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Because they're not in the least bit the same, unless you are going to argue straight faced that you happily pay a premium, a significant premium, for a McDonalds drink because it comes with a straw.
Legitimate value means that there are enough consumers who would find sufficient value to actually pay for the item, subscribe to Duncan's paint tutorials, pay to use a table in store etc.
If they are only 'valued' when they are 'free,' then using them as a justification for higher prices is a flawed argument. If nobody would pay for them if the costs weren't already built into the price of the core product, then what are they really worth?
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
"...rather than forcing anyone who wishes to purchase..." Yeah, it kind of is.
Only if you just look at individual words and don't read the sentences. I wasn't referring to their core product (the kits) but all the extra stuff which you claim they're lumping on top as "added value" which you are forced to buy if you wish to buy the kit, whether it represents added value to you or not.
But I'm tired and this conversation is descending into the idiotic, so I'm going to stop having it now.
Sorry, I'll quote everything next time. It doesn't change the fact that as I have repeatedly said, theirs is a product offering beyond just a miniature and you are free to take it or leave it. There's still absolutely nobody forcing you to buy anything. Saying otherwise is, indeed, idiotic.
Except you're justifying the higher price GW charge by citing the intangibles they offer beyond the core product of miniatures.
If I don't value those intangibles, then, if I want to buy GW product, I am being forced to pay for them regardless.
That is what I am referring to.
I actually disagree with the whole assertion and agree with frozenwates that it's just post hoc consumer justification, but if we take your argument at face value, then that's my reaction to it.
This isn't a matter of justifying their prices, it's an attempt to get the bigger picture across. I don't understand the inability to accept and acknowledge the strategy GW uses. What you value, or don't value, may or may not line up perfectly with their model. GW is in the business of selling a hobby, not just miniatures. That is their product. Their physical products are therefore priced accordingly to reflect the overall cost of that. This is simple budgeting and the whole post hoc argument is wrong.
I'll simply restate that if these things had legitimate value then they could be sold as services alongside their core product (they're self confessedly a model company, remember? Jewel like items of wonder and all that bs?) and sell their actual models for less.
The reality is they sell their models for so much more than many competitors for two reasons 1) they've found themselves in a position where they can and 2) they have a burden of overhead where they must to some degree.
Everything else is marketing bs or consumer justification.
Wow. Your posts have gradually devolved into nothing but sour grapes. They "could be sold as services alongside their core product", yeah, but they aren't and that's their business decision to make with regards to their model, not yours. If you're not happy about it or don't agree with it, cool, that's your prerogative. But this constant rage against reality is an absurd exercise. Next time you're passing by that GW Hobby Center whose existence you can't wrap your head around because it "forces" you to pay too much for toy soldiers, save yourself some grief and just walk on by...
Where the feth are you getting rage? Talk about projection.
Lets recap.
You said it wasn't fair to compare Bolt Action to GW, because GW spend more money on stuff.
I said as a consumer that they spend more money on stuff makes no odds to me when I want to buy toy soldiers if that stuff offers no extra value.
You've subsequently failed to make any sort of coherent argument about why it's unfair to compare the prices of two companies selling wargaming miniatures simple because they've got different business models and financial imperatives.
Everything else has been tangenital.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Azreal13 wrote: Where the feth are you getting rage? Talk about projection.
Lets recap.
You said it wasn't fair to compare Bolt Action to GW, because GW spend more money on stuff.
I said as a consumer that they spend more money on stuff makes no odds to me when I want to buy toy soldiers if that stuff offers no extra value.
You've subsequently failed to make any sort of coherent argument about why it's unfair to compare the prices of two companies selling wargaming miniatures simple because they've got different business models and financial imperatives.
Everything else has been tangenital.
No rage? Okay, so the profanity in your posts is just your daily go to vocabulary, okay.
I don't know what you've been reading, but everything I've posted has been to point out that comparing these two companies selling minis, on the simple basis of mini-for-mini cost comparison, is inaccurate because there's more to GW's product than just a toy soldier in a box on a shelf. I haven't made a coherent argument? That's rich! There's no argument to be made because I've relied on stating the facts about their business model and you just don't like it, or you don't get it, but it's that simple. The facts regarding their pricing have been presented, not argued. Their prices don't sit right with you because their minis simply cost you more and unfortunately you're unable to accept that this is the way they run their business and value their product. Sour, whiny grapes.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/07/26 19:28:56
It's not that I don't like it or understand it, I don't agree with your stance that it somehow absolves them from being compared to other companies selling the same type of product into the same market under different criteria. You seem to think it does, but there's no basis for that outside your own opinion.
You've also made huge assumptions about what I do and don't think about their prices and all sorts of other things in the absence of any evidence, when all I'm saying is that it's legitimate to compare the pricing of different war games models from different companies on the basis of price and I disagree with you when you say it isn't.
Plus yes, people swear when they aren't angry, I'm British, it's a thing.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
