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.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

Joyboozer wrote:
I'm with Jah in the aesthetic camp, there's something about GW stuff I just don't get from other manufacturers, (no not the skulls! Not Stormcast though, they're rubbish).
I do own the odd mini from a lot of other companies, but nothing like my collection of GW stuff.
I have curbed my GW spending though, ever since they decided to crush imports, refuse to supply independents and based their AU pricing model on a Drangonball z meme, its over 9000!

Whoever is in charge of pricing AU is a real fething dick, and directly responsible for everyone I know quitting the hobby, refusing to take up the hobby, or in the case of store owners just giving up. This continues without Kirby.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dick, dick, dick!

You want the special GW something, you gotta pay for it. And they know it.

From the post you quoted...

"I have curbed my GW spending though"

"...and directly responsible for everyone I know quitting the hobby, refusing to take up the hobby, or in the case of store owners just giving up."

People don't seem to want the special GW something as much as GW think they want it.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

Joyboozer wrote:
I'm with Jah in the aesthetic camp, there's something about GW stuff I just don't get from other manufacturers, (no not the skulls! Not Stormcast though, they're rubbish).
I do own the odd mini from a lot of other companies, but nothing like my collection of GW stuff.
I have curbed my GW spending though, ever since they decided to crush imports, refuse to supply independents and based their AU pricing model on a Drangonball z meme, its over 9000!

Whoever is in charge of pricing AU is a real fething dick, and directly responsible for everyone I know quitting the hobby, refusing to take up the hobby, or in the case of store owners just giving up. This continues without Kirby.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dick, dick, dick!

You want the special GW something, you gotta pay for it. And they know it.

From the post you quoted...

"I have curbed my GW spending though"

"...and directly responsible for everyone I know quitting the hobby, refusing to take up the hobby, or in the case of store owners just giving up."

People don't seem to want the special GW something as much as GW think they want it.

Nevertheless, if people want it then they have to pay what GW considers its worth to be. Don't it get marine fandom, personally (I think they are daft looking and the background is pretty dire) but there's no question it grips people into fanaticism.

I won't play games that have crappy looking models no matter how cheap those models are.

However, when Mantic and other low quality model manufacturers created their low quality and low priced models, to many people that low price became the new baseline for what all models should cost.

I play wargames today for three reasons:
1) the aesthetic
2) social time spent doing some minor to moderate tactical thinking
3) to tell a narrative of some type / storytelling

If models look bad to me, I won't play the game even if it costs me $50 to field a regimental sized force.

If models look great to me, I will collect them and play with them because they are appealing my reason #1.

Models aesthetic have no bearing for me on #2 and #3 but play a huge role in #1.

Aesthetics aside, why can Mantic produce minis for a fraction of the price, in smaller numbers, whilst outsourcing everything?

Herzlos wrote:
Aesthetics aside, why can Mantic produce minis for a fraction of the price, in smaller numbers, whilst outsourcing everything?

No massive chain of shops that needs feeding and forces the prices up?

Herzlos wrote:
Aesthetics aside, why can Mantic produce minis for a fraction of the price, in smaller numbers, whilst outsourcing everything?

Quality and designs. Their minis don't hold up to abuse as well (own several of their guys for D&D use, the spears/swords are super flimsy) and the amount of detail. Yeah, they're detailed, but nowhere near the level GW/PP do.

So close the stores?

It really does come down to "people will pay it".

When people stop paying it, GW will fail or adjust policies/practices/prices. As a company you'd be daft not to charge the most you can find people are willing to pay. I don't follow GW sales numbers, so they're either making profit or not. It's not evil, it's just a decision made by the people running the company.

I don't buy current GW products for the most part - but I don't hate the company. I vote with my wallet. I probably (like most folks) spend a couple thousand dollars a year in hobbying. Very little of that goes to GW. That is the nature of our relationship. I'm not entitled to lower price GW products, but I reserve the right to refuse to buy something I think is not worth the money.

GW has a very strong and popular IP in 40K and they know it. They benefit (at least temporarily) from having one of the most popular miniature wargames on the market. They can arbitrarily charged Australians 25% more than similar markets...because it's their product. They could charge 200% prices in Germany if they felt like it. Consumers will purchase it or not. GW doesn't have to answer to anyone except the shareholders.

Mantic and other companies likely price their products at the level they think they can achieve the necessary sales for growth and profit. If you're new to a market you need to be either cheaper, or better (and very rarely - both). Or you need to be completely unique in a market you think is sustainable. If Mantic suddenly became vastly more popular it's entirely possible prices would go up as well - right up to the point where people stopped purchasing them.

Some companies are more prone to do this than others. At the end of the day, gaming products are a simple "want" and not a need. GW, and other companies will continue to act as the market allows. I'd imagine that for ever person like myself, who may balk at a $35 dollar plastic figure, there are a dozen who'll gladly step up and purchase it. Therefore, GW would be crazy to change or drop the price.

I think we're seeing a move though toward some "deals" hidden in combination boxes. Maybe GW is feeling a little bit of a squeeze. Again, I don't follow the business success of the company.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Aesthetics aside, why can Mantic produce minis for a fraction of the price, in smaller numbers, whilst outsourcing everything?

No massive chain of shops that needs feeding and forces the prices up?

The shops don't really drive up prices all that much*** as they only make a small loss on stores, so the stores mostly pay for themselves.

The main reasons I think are *possibly* GW spend more on machining their moulds to maintain such a highly detailed and huge range and also that GW choose to have a business model that revolves around squeezing as much out of customers before they quit rather than shifting a lot of product.

The nature of plastic kits is that once you've cast 1, it doesn't really cost much more to cast 10, so other companies (like Mantic, Perry, Warlord) try and use that to sell large unit sizes that are cheap per model but not necessarily cheap per box. It doesn't really matter what the price per model is from a profit stand point, it's more about how many $$$ worth of boxes you shift.






***I think you can make more of an argument for stores driving up the wholesale price in Australia specifically, but not so much globally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
As a company you'd be daft not to charge the most you can find people are willing to pay.

There's always someone stupid enough to pay the price no matter how high you raise it Your target price shouldn't be "there are still some whales out there willing to pay it" it should be "what will make us the most profit" (which in the context of plastic models isn't far off "what will make us the most revenue") while still being on the positive side of "most of our customers and potential customers are happy".

I don't think anyone would be silly enough to argue their prices are too high but no one is buying it, obviously some people are buying it, but the argument is if they lowered prices they may actually be able to make more money and have a more diverse customer base (which is a safer position to be in than relying on a handful of whales to prop them up).

 jreilly89 wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Aesthetics aside, why can Mantic produce minis for a fraction of the price, in smaller numbers, whilst outsourcing everything?

Quality and designs. Their minis don't hold up to abuse as well (own several of their guys for D&D use, the spears/swords are super flimsy) and the amount of detail. Yeah, they're detailed, but nowhere near the level GW/PP do.

Neither of which inherently saves money. Sure, it takes extra time to sculpt details, but GW design staff are on salary, so it isn't like GW are paying massively more in commission fees. Even if one made the argument that Mantic also had salaried designers, and were paying less salary than GW and attracting less talented people, the averaged out cost per mini sold would still be tiny.

Equally, bendy weaponry is an easy thing to address, and likely stems more from a certain naivety as Mantic go through a learning process like most companies do when developing a product. It isn't something that's going to make a massive saving in production by shaving a few microns off the thickness of a sword blade.

One could make the argument that the issues you mention means Mantic couldn't possibly ask a higher price for their models, it doesn't answer the question of how they can sell for the price they do and still make money.

Then you have companies like the Perrys who surely must be deemed GW quality, as former GW sculptors manufacturing in a material essentially the same as GW.

It's almost impossible to justify the price difference on any technical difference between GW and others, any greater expense on GW's part must at least partially be offset by economies in other areas, and when averaged out in a cost per mini basis (which, given the greater volume GW shifts will require much greater costs to have the same impact than the smaller companies) will barely be measurable.

The answer is simply what's already been touched on, GW are painted into a corner, overhead wise, and simply cannot afford to cut prices at a stroke. What we are seeing from nuGW going forward is a gradual drive to increase volume by offering bundles etc on some product (mostly those that have had their first flush and recouped their development costs.) Greater volume gives more stability and relieves the pressure on the need to generate ever greater returns from ever fewer people, but doesn't change the reality that a huge percentage of GW's revenue is spent on non-production expenses, and while that remains, they will be obligated to charge more than competitors who are financially leaner and more nimble.

GW's overhead is why mantic can afford to sell models for cheap and GW cannot. Mantic is a handful of guys in a tiny office with little to no overhead.

Allseeing,

I agree...there is obviously a very large balancing act behind making that decision. There are a lot of companies who could do with expanding their market by lowering prices - it's just up to them whether or not they do that. You increase sales and profit, but then people complain about diminishing the value of your product etc. That's an entire book in itself. I think GW could massively increase its profits with some well made pricing decisions...but they're not required to do so. As long as they feel they're making a comfortable profit that they're happy with - I guess they'll keep on keepin' on.

Funnily enough I like the look of a lot of the mantic figures. There are a few, the Basileans for example that had major problems (gg manufacturing in China) but not much worse than GW's Empire Troops (who, while the individual sculpts might be crisper, also look just as bad). Their Deadzone stuff is pretty spot on though, very good quality from what I've seen. So that too is subjective.

 Elbows wrote:
Allseeing,

I agree...there is obviously a very large balancing act behind making that decision. There are a lot of companies who could do with expanding their market by lowering prices - it's just up to them whether or not they do that. You increase sales and profit, but then people complain about diminishing the value of your product etc. That's an entire book in itself. I think GW could massively increase its profits with some well made pricing decisions...but they're not required to do so. As long as they feel they're making a comfortable profit that they're happy with - I guess they'll keep on keepin' on.

They aren't required to do so, but if they don't they do need to live with people complaining about them being overpriced

I think the bundles are a good compromise for lowering prices because having high prices on base kits creates a higher perceived value and then the bundles make it feel like you're getting a great deal (even though in reality it probably only brings them closer to the competition).

But still I think they have a long way to go with them. If they start offering more flexible bundles that still offer savings it'll go a long way to stopping people complaining about pricing (except in Australia where they've gone full stupid on pricing ).

 Azreal13 wrote:

It's almost impossible to justify the price difference on any technical difference between GW and others, any greater expense on GW's part must at least partially be offset by economies in other areas, and when averaged out in a cost per mini basis (which, given the greater volume GW shifts will require much greater costs to have the same impact than the smaller companies) will barely be measurable.

The answer is simply what's already been touched on, GW are painted into a corner, overhead wise, and simply cannot afford to cut prices at a stroke. What we are seeing from nuGW going forward is a gradual drive to increase volume by offering bundles etc on some product (mostly those that have had their first flush and recouped their development costs.) Greater volume gives more stability and relieves the pressure on the need to generate ever greater returns from ever fewer people, but doesn't change the reality that a huge percentage of GW's revenue is spent on non-production expenses, and while that remains, they will be obligated to charge more than competitors who are financially leaner and more nimble.

In one of the podcast interviews with Rick Priestly, think it was 40K Raido, he made the comment that one of the drivers of GW miniature prices was the increase in size and complexity. Mantic and Perry figures, from the ones I worked with, are two to three piece models. A single marine can have a dozen pieces on him. A bigger model requires a bigger sprue. More pieces and bigger pieces require more machine time which is a huge driver. It can be the difference between a mold costing $1,000 and $100,000. Renedra who has done work for Mantic and the Perrys still relies on 3:1 scale models to physically transfer to metal molds. A less detailed method compared to the 3D modeling of companies like GW.

GW:
- Have chosen to increase the complexity of their models, if this has driven the price past the optimum volume-margin sweet spot then it was a bad choice.

- own their own machines and all other tech from design to manufacture, and aren't funding another company's existence for the purpose of making the product.

- are significantly more expensive than equivalent models with greater detail (but one has to look outside wargaming models and that inevitably leads to the conversation getting bogged down in the pedantry of how it isn't a fair comparison cause reasons.)

- have a production cost of ~23% and yet a net profit of 10% from their core business (as per last report.) The remaining 67% of their revenue is spent on costs outside the design and production of models.

- also make relatively simple models with a few pieces (the lesser daemons, zombies, skeletons etc) yet still charge substantially more for them.

There just isn't a compelling argument that any perceived or actual difference in the models in any way justifies the degree of price difference. I'm not even arguing that GW minis don't justify a premium, it's just the magnitude of the premium is disproportionate based solely on product.

 Azreal13 wrote:


Neither of which inherently saves money. Sure, it takes extra time to sculpt details, but GW design staff are on salary, so it isn't like GW are paying massively more in commission fees. Even if one made the argument that Mantic also had salaried designers, and were paying less salary than GW and attracting less talented people, the averaged out cost per mini sold would still be tiny.

Equally, bendy weaponry is an easy thing to address, and likely stems more from a certain naivety as Mantic go through a learning process like most companies do when developing a product. It isn't something that's going to make a massive saving in production by shaving a few microns off the thickness of a sword blade.

One could make the argument that the issues you mention means Mantic couldn't possibly ask a higher price for their models, it doesn't answer the question of how they can sell for the price they do and still make money.

Then you have companies like the Perrys who surely must be deemed GW quality, as former GW sculptors manufacturing in a material essentially the same as GW.

It's almost impossible to justify the price difference on any technical difference between GW and others, any greater expense on GW's part must at least partially be offset by economies in other areas, and when averaged out in a cost per mini basis (which, given the greater volume GW shifts will require much greater costs to have the same impact than the smaller companies) will barely be measurable.

The answer is simply what's already been touched on, GW are painted into a corner, overhead wise, and simply cannot afford to cut prices at a stroke. What we are seeing from nuGW going forward is a gradual drive to increase volume by offering bundles etc on some product (mostly those that have had their first flush and recouped their development costs.) Greater volume gives more stability and relieves the pressure on the need to generate ever greater returns from ever fewer people, but doesn't change the reality that a huge percentage of GW's revenue is spent on non-production expenses, and while that remains, they will be obligated to charge more than competitors who are financially leaner and more nimble.

Right, and you're not at all biased. I get it man, GW done you wrong. They are literal Satan, their minis are only worth $5.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 silent25 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

It's almost impossible to justify the price difference on any technical difference between GW and others, any greater expense on GW's part must at least partially be offset by economies in other areas, and when averaged out in a cost per mini basis (which, given the greater volume GW shifts will require much greater costs to have the same impact than the smaller companies) will barely be measurable.

The answer is simply what's already been touched on, GW are painted into a corner, overhead wise, and simply cannot afford to cut prices at a stroke. What we are seeing from nuGW going forward is a gradual drive to increase volume by offering bundles etc on some product (mostly those that have had their first flush and recouped their development costs.) Greater volume gives more stability and relieves the pressure on the need to generate ever greater returns from ever fewer people, but doesn't change the reality that a huge percentage of GW's revenue is spent on non-production expenses, and while that remains, they will be obligated to charge more than competitors who are financially leaner and more nimble.

In one of the podcast interviews with Rick Priestly, think it was 40K Raido, he made the comment that one of the drivers of GW miniature prices was the increase in size and complexity. Mantic and Perry figures, from the ones I worked with, are two to three piece models. A single marine can have a dozen pieces on him. A bigger model requires a bigger sprue. More pieces and bigger pieces require more machine time which is a huge driver. It can be the difference between a mold costing $1,000 and $100,000. Renedra who has done work for Mantic and the Perrys still relies on 3:1 scale models to physically transfer to metal molds. A less detailed method compared to the 3D modeling of companies like GW.

No, GW is literally Satan for increasing costs. Why can't they operate under the same budget Mantic does??? /s

Reducing arguments based on facts and evidence to "hatred" really is your go-to isn't it?

If you've got no comeback, I'd just not post if I were you, you wouldn't want to look like one of those white knights who resort to ad homs and straw men the instant they run out of anything resembling a coherent argument, would you?

I mean posting..

their minis are only worth $5.

Immediately after I've just written that I feel GW can justify a premium for their models doesn't come across as you're really grasping the argument does it?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Reducing arguments based on facts and evidence to "hatred" really is your go-to isn't it?

If you've got no comeback, I'd just not post if I were you, you wouldn't want to look like one of those white knights who resort to ad homs and straw men the instant they run out of anything resembling a coherent argument, would you?

Why? It's pretty obvious you don't listen to reasons or facts, only the "GW is evil" narrative. Seriously, look at the quality of miniatures like the Perrys and Mantic, and then go look at the new stuff GW is putting out like Magnus and the Sylvaneth. They're in a completely different class than anything put out, except maybe by Privateer Press.

I'll give you their base units are overpriced, no one's arguing that, but saying that the minis should cost roughly the same as what companies like the Perrys do is absolutely false. Silent25 hit the nail on the head with the amount of sprues/pieces per model and that just adds to the cost.

They look different! The tech is fundamentally the same!

GW spend approximately one quarter of their income on making and designing new kits. This is fact.

They make approximately 10% profit on making selling models. This is also fact.

Therefore almost two thirds of the money they generate is spent on things that isn't making and designing new models. Another fact.

Therefore they must charge a lot more for their kits than other companies to meet the obligations they have or make a huge loss.

They spend almost twice as money on things that aren't making new models as they do making new models.

Their overhead is a major driver of their pricing, far in excess of any money spent on making their product.

I'll give you their base units are overpriced, no one's arguing that, but saying that the minis should cost roughly the same as what companies like the Perrys do is absolutely false.

That's good, because I didn't say it.

 Azreal13 wrote:
They look different! The tech is fundamentally the same!

Fundamentally the same? Come on man, are you serious? You're telling me this



is the same as this?



The tech is totally different. One is multi-part plastics, the other is pretty much one-piece (minus the arms). The amount of detail is staggering.

The overhead is higher, but to my knowledge Perry minis don't have full fledged stores, Warhammer World, etc.

They're all HIPS injection mounded kits, the tech is the same.

These are 40 for £20.


These (your example) are £18 for 10.


Now, I'd concede that there's a certain level of detail in the GW kit that's missing in the Perrys, but to justify almost 4x the cost per mini?

Not in a million years.

The overhead is higher, but to my knowledge Perry minis don't have full fledged stores, Warhammer World, etc.

Which is my (and not only mine) point. GW has a large financial obligation outside of the business of making and designing miniatures. This is the key driver to their high prices, trying to justify it with differences in tech or aesthetic choices doesn't hold water because the inherent cost of those things doesn't make up anywhere near the amount of difference in costs to explain it.

 Azreal13 wrote:
They're all HIPS injection mounded kits, the tech is the same.

These are 40 for £20.

Spoiler:

These (your example) are £18 for 10.

Spoiler:

Now, I'd concede that there's a certain level of detail in the GW kit that's missing in the Perrys, but to justify almost 4x the cost per mini?

Not in a million years.

The overhead is higher, but to my knowledge Perry minis don't have full fledged stores, Warhammer World, etc.

Which is my (and not only mine) point. GW has a large financial obligation outside of the business of making and designing miniatures. This is the key driver to their high prices, trying to justify it with differences in tech or aesthetic choices doesn't hold water because the inherent cost of those things doesn't make up anywhere near the amount of difference in costs to explain it.

Yeah, while the GW models are clearly sharper in detail, a price difference of almost 400% is a little ridiculous.

 Azreal13 wrote:
They're all HIPS injection mounded kits, the tech is the same.

These are 40 for £20.

Spoiler:

These (your example) are £18 for 10.

Spoiler:

Now, I'd concede that there's a certain level of detail in the GW kit that's missing in the Perrys, but to justify almost 4x the cost per mini?

Not in a million years.

Debateable. I wouldn't agree 4x, but I think it's easily 2.5x or 3x, especially the newer kits.

The overhead is higher, but to my knowledge Perry minis don't have full fledged stores, Warhammer World, etc.

Which is my (and not only mine) point. GW has a large financial obligation outside of the business of making and designing miniatures. This is the key driver to their high prices, trying to justify it with differences in tech or aesthetic choices doesn't hold water because the inherent cost of those things doesn't make up anywhere near the amount of difference in costs to explain it.

Again, debatable. Saying it's the key driver of prices is iffy because A) the detail of kits has improved and B) GW having a presence outside of making and designing minis is only considered a negative because GW is still viewed as a miniatures company, even though their IPs have expanded into books, games, etc. No one complains about Disney's absurd price gouging on movies because Disney is viewed as an entertainment company and things like Disney World are business expenses to keep Disney on top.

 Azreal13 wrote:
They look different! The tech is fundamentally the same!

Having had to become familiar with plastic injection molding design for work through classes and industry shows. I will tell you the tech can be very different and there are a number of costs that can effect it. You're arguing that a subcompact and sports car should cost the same because both are cars.

No, I'm not arguing they should cost the same, at no point have I said they should cost the same. I have in fact, explicitly stated the exact opposite.

I was misrepresented by another poster as saying they should cost the same. I in fact said that a premium is justified, but not the level of premium that is demanded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Again, debatable. Saying it's the key driver of prices is iffy because A) the detail of kits has improved

I'm sorry, you're going to have to join the dots for me between "the models are better" and "GW have to spend millions on rent and utilities every year before they even open the doors."

and B) GW having a presence outside of making and designing minis is only considered a negative because GW is still viewed as a miniatures company, even though their IPs have expanded into books, games, etc. No one complains about Disney's absurd price gouging on movies because Disney is viewed as an entertainment company and things like Disney World are business expenses to keep Disney on top.

We know that they're still a miniatures company because a) that's what they call themselves and b) that's where they make most of their money. I've no idea what you're talking about with Disney, I went to see Rogue One this week and paid the same for a ticket as I would for any other movie, maybe it's different in the US?

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, I'm not arguing they should cost the same, at no point have I said they should cost the same. I have in fact, explicitly stated the exact opposite.

I was misrepresented by another poster as saying they should cost the same. I in fact said that a premium is justified, but not the level of premium that is demanded.

Still you are arguing on an arbitrary cost difference between the two. It's still saying, "A sports car should be only twice as expensive as a subcompact because it's only twice as complex as a subcompact. They are both cars so there is no reason why one should so much more than the other."

We both know that is a poor argument.

Then it's a good job I'm not making it.

If you insist on using the tired car analogy (why is it always cars?) then it's more "well, this car has a nicer interior, and a bit more power, and a better stereo, but why is it 4x the cost of this other model which is very similar in most regards?"

Most of the newer AoS kits are very limited poses, despite the move to round bases and no longer needing to rank up. Why is this better?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Then it's a good job I'm not making it.

If you insist on using the tired car analogy (why is it always cars?) then it's more "well, this car has a nicer interior, and a bit more power, and a better stereo, but why is it 4x the cost of this other model which is very similar in most regards?"

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, I'm not arguing they should cost the same, at no point have I said they should cost the same. I have in fact, explicitly stated the exact opposite.

I was misrepresented by another poster as saying they should cost the same. I in fact said that a premium is justified, but not the level of premium that is demanded.

Yes you have. You are arguing on an arbitrary price point. You are saying the premium is not justified because "The tech is fundamentally the same!"