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.

Infinity models are cool, but I am unsure why the thickness of a knife on a model matters.

It goes to the various properties of the different materials that was under discussion at the time, one person asserted that metal meant thick sword blades etc, that was offered as an example that it wasn't the case.

Denny wrote:Does look good. I'm only basing this on my own experiences and could be wrong.
As a counterpoint though, can you show me a metal miniature with a cloak as thin as the Knight of Shrouds?
Plus . . . that's a small knife. Metal can do spikes/knives no problem. It struggles more with the longer thinner bits in IMO. But most of my metal models tend to be classics. Maybe that's the difference; I'm talking about the metals from back in the day, not these new fancy whippersnappers with their new fancy metal models.

Knight of Shroud, this one? Probably not because the miniature is just a cloak but if you don't care if the there's a body included and just want nicely sculpted fabric then some of these could work. From what I remember (these are over a decade old) some might be a bit thicker but more detailed (and those miniatures tend to be a bit smaller than GW's due to less exaggerated proportions) and Rackham was kinda famous for their slightly exaggerated fabrics. Their older sculpts were rathe chunky but they got use to sculpting differently and made some fine stuff near the end (most of the examples). I put a spoiler tag because nobody wants two dozen links at once.

Mario wrote:

Denny wrote:Does look good. I'm only basing this on my own experiences and could be wrong.
As a counterpoint though, can you show me a metal miniature with a cloak as thin as the Knight of Shrouds?
Plus . . . that's a small knife. Metal can do spikes/knives no problem. It struggles more with the longer thinner bits in IMO. But most of my metal models tend to be classics. Maybe that's the difference; I'm talking about the metals from back in the day, not these new fancy whippersnappers with their new fancy metal models.

Knight of Shroud, this one? Probably not because the miniature is just a cloak but if you don't care if the there's a body included and just want nicely sculpted fabric then some of these could work. From what I remember (these are over a decade old) some might be a bit thicker but more detailed (and those miniatures tend to be a bit smaller than GW's due to less exaggerated proportions) and Rackham was kinda famous for their slightly exaggerated fabrics. Their older sculpts were rathe chunky but they got use to sculpting differently and made some fine stuff near the end (most of the examples). I put a spoiler tag because nobody wants two dozen links at once.

Spoiler:

http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpBbGNoZW1pc3RzIG9mIERpcnovU2NvcnBpb25OZXVyb21hbmNlci5qcGc=/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpBbGNoZW1pc3RzIG9mIERpcnovU2VudGluZWxzb2ZEYW5ha2lsLmpwZw==/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpBbGNoZW1pc3RzIG9mIERpcnovU2V0aGluLmpwZw==/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpBbGNoZW1pc3RzIG9mIERpcnovU3lraG9Wb2xlc3RlcnVzLmpwZw==/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpBbGNoZW1pc3RzIG9mIERpcnovU2luQXNzeXJpcy5qcGc=/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpBbGNoZW1pc3RzIG9mIERpcnovVGhlSGVyZXNpYXJjaHNTcGF3bi5qcGc=/?ref=

http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpFbGZzIC0gQ3lud2FsbC9DeW53bGxBc2FkYXJzMS5qcGc=/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpFbGZzIC0gQ3lud2FsbC9DeW53bGxBc2FkYXJzMi5qcGc=/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpFbGZzIC0gQ3lud2FsbC9DeW53YWxsQ29uc3RydWN0V2FycmlvcnMuanBn/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpFbGZzIC0gQ3lud2FsbC9DeW53YWxsS2hpZGFyeW1zLmpwZw==/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpFbGZzIC0gQ3lud2FsbC9DeW53bGxTeW5jaHJvbm1lLmpwZw==/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpFbGZzIC0gQ3lud2FsbC9HYWxoeWFuQ3lud2xsSGVsaWFzdC5qcGc=/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpFbGZzIC0gQ3lud2FsbC9MZW5zTWVka2Vubi5qcGc=/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpFbGZzIC0gQ3lud2FsbC9Tb21FcXVhbmltV2Fycmlvci5qcGc=/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpFbGZzIC0gQ3lud2FsbC9TeWRkZUthaWJlci5qcGc=/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpFbGZzIC0gQ3lud2FsbC9TbGFubmtoaWRhcm1jaGFtcGlvbi5qcGc=/?ref=

http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpHcmlmZmlucyBvZiBBa2t5bGFubmllL0VzY2hlbGl1c3RoZUFyZGVudC5qcGc=/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpHcmlmZmlucyBvZiBBa2t5bGFubmllL0dyaWZmaW5GdXNpbGllcnNCb3guanBn/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpHcmlmZmlucyBvZiBBa2t5bGFubmllL1ByYWV0b3JpYW5HdWFyZC5qcGc=/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpHcmlmZmlucyBvZiBBa2t5bGFubmllL1RoZVRlbXBsYXJzb2ZIb2QuanBn/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpHcmlmZmlucyBvZiBBa2t5bGFubmllL1RlbXBsYXJ3YXItc3RhZmYuanBn/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpIeWJyaWQgYW5kIE5lbWVzaXMvR3JpZmZpbk1pbmUtTGF5ZXJOZW1lc2lzLmpwZw==/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpIeWJyaWQgYW5kIE5lbWVzaXMvQW1icm9zaXVzLmpwZw==/?ref=

http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpMaW9ucyBvZiBBbGFoYW4vUHl0aGlhb2ZBemwuanBn/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpMaW9ucyBvZiBBbGFoYW4vUmVhcGVyc29mQWxhaGFuMi5qcGc=/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpMaW9ucyBvZiBBbGFoYW4vUmVhcGVyc29mQWxhaGFuMy5qcGc=/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpMaW9ucyBvZiBBbGFoYW4vUm95YWxHdWFyZG9mRG9yaW1hbi5qcGc=/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpMaW9ucyBvZiBBbGFoYW4vUm95YWxzdGFuZGFyZC1iZWFyZXIuanBn/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpMaW9ucyBvZiBBbGFoYW4vU2FyZGFyVGlsbGl1cy5qcGc=/?ref=

http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpVbmRlYWQgb2YgQWNoZXJvbi9Bc3VyYWRlU2FybGF0aC5qcGc=/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpVbmRlYWQgb2YgQWNoZXJvbi9CbGFja1BhbGFkaW5zLmpwZw==/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/bWVkaWFJZDo2NDAxODk2MQ==/?ref=
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/RackhamMiniatures/media/cGF0aDpVbmRlYWQgb2YgQWNoZXJvbi9LYW50aGVTY291cmdlLmpwZw==/?ref=

That is not a photobucket premium account. Images won't load.

 Denny wrote:
Issues with metal:

1) Paint chips/rubs off more easily. Especially annoying in game like blood bowl or Necromunda where you are constantly standing models up and down. It also rubs off more easily when painting which is kinda annoying.

2) It bends. Although this can help conversion work it is super annoying to find a warped sword that you need to try and straighten (and is never quite right). In fairness resin bends too, which is why a lot of people prefer plastic, but at least hot water works on resin.

3) Conversion are harder; pieces are heavier and need to be pinned (which is fiddly) and more greenstuff work is required because superglue doesn't give the same smooth finish as plastic glue.

4) Detail. Metal swords are never as pointy, metal chains are never as detailed, metal cloaks are too chunky etc.

Do I still buy metal? Sure, for single piece man sized models (or two or three piece models).

Would I buy a metal dragon or similar large creature? Not unless there were no plastic or resin versions available anywhere.

guess that depends on manufacturer, I have never had those issues with my confrontation figures.

None of those drawbacks are manufacturer dependent, and are inherent to a harder, heavier material.
Rackham used some incredibly soft, and then surprisingly brittle metal, at least when I was purchasing Confrontation.

The metal Rackham stuff I had was so soft that even a small drop guaranteed the deformation of weapons and arms. A friend even had weapon bend from the pressure of soft blue KR multicase foam.

I like metal single piece historical casts. Or two part casts where you attach a weapon across the chest or something. They're cool.

After building the Nyss Hunters for warmachine, I hit my limits on building multipart metals. So much pinning.

I admit that I no longer see metal as a premium product over styrene plastic. And after working on both Forgeworld and Anvil Industry resin, I no longer see Forgeworld as any sort of premium product at all. The casting quality was so much better from Anvil.

 Desubot wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 auticus wrote:
At the end of the day, there are people that will divide the cost of the army by the models gained, and that is what is most important to them, regardless of quality, scale, or anything of that nature.

Now you see, I would agree with you here but GW's models are not good quality. I can sculpt details better than they can, and their 'hair' looks more like tentacles or fins or a mix of both. Warlord Games produces figures for Bolt Action that manage to be both cheaper and superior to GW's by a fairly large margin, and then there is CB whom someone else mentioned above, but I'll leave them out as comparing GW to them would be like comparing Doctor Who to Rick and Morty.

No, GW made a grave error with its move towards this new cartoony theme. I can only hope that they realise this at some point.

Bolt action?

well i guess if you are into that sort of thing but find them pretty dull with no real details. some of the konflict stuff is cool until i saw the first sculpts of those heavy us marines and nearly gagged.

but in all seriousness this is all subjective for everyone and its going to be of different value to everyone.

What about Dust then? Those models are already assembled and primed, just need the final touch if you want to play them painted. At least, I think they're still being made...MSRP seems up there around GW's prices, but I've been getting them on the cheap at Miniature Market myself.

GW White Knights are going to white knight themselves into the end of time.

It's okay fellas you can admit you are trapped in the quicksand of sunk cost.

No one will blame you.

GW Black Knights are going to black knight themselves into the end of time.

It's okay fellas you can admit you are trapped in irrational hatred of other people enjoying products you think are over costed.

No one will blame you.

. . . Or, I dunno, we could try contributing something to the discussion and not employing irrational generalisation?

Are all the people who are returning to the game after a decade or more and don't own any miniatures "trapped in the quicksand of sunk cost?"

ninja'd a bit

At the end of the day, people who want to play tabletop miniatures games need opponents, and GW is the most widespread game available. This alone explains why GW is able to ratchet its prices up year on year.

Market dominance is bad for the market, but we're talking about a luxury product, so at the end of the day nobody starves to death because they can't afford a $40 CAD toy soldier. My advice to anyone getting into GW games is to buy older armies and learn to convert and proxy the more expensive stuff. Leave the new hawtness or competitive scene to those with deep pockets and buy second-hand after the meta has passed that stuff by.

GW games are a lot like World of Warcraft.

People have so much time and money sunk into their characters or armies that for many they'll stick with it regardless of what else is out there because they don't want to lose their investment.

 Denny wrote:
GW Black Knights are going to black knight themselves into the end of time.

It's okay fellas you can admit you are trapped in irrational hatred of other people enjoying products you think are over costed.

No one will blame you.

. . . Or, I dunno, we could try contributing something to the discussion and not employing irrational generalisation?

You're doing the Internet wrong, stoppit

Mitochondria wrote:
GW White Knights are going to white knight themselves into the end of time.

It's okay fellas you can admit you are trapped in the quicksand of sunk cost.

No one will blame you.

Or we genuinely enjoy the product and games. Fancy that!

Now for something properly 'cat amongst the pigeons'.....

GW, being a Limited Company, has an obligation to be as profitable as possible. A legal obligation to their share holders. So that means no 'nice man subsistence prices'.

And into that has come a great many other companies. Some tiny little One Man Bands, other stuff like PP and FFG. And indeed, everything in between. And their prices are indeed, everywhere in between.

But how many of those would prove profitable had GW not set their prices where they are? This isn't intended as a rhetorical poser. It's a genuine, open question.

If GW didn't have significant overheads or an entirely understandable 'as much as possible' profit motive - how much room would there genuinely be for other companies of all sizes to sell and make liveable profit? If you can't start smol, how many talented sculptors would be out there?

This isn't an attempt to justify any particular prices - just a topic for discussion.

 Stormonu wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 auticus wrote:
At the end of the day, there are people that will divide the cost of the army by the models gained, and that is what is most important to them, regardless of quality, scale, or anything of that nature.

Now you see, I would agree with you here but GW's models are not good quality. I can sculpt details better than they can, and their 'hair' looks more like tentacles or fins or a mix of both. Warlord Games produces figures for Bolt Action that manage to be both cheaper and superior to GW's by a fairly large margin, and then there is CB whom someone else mentioned above, but I'll leave them out as comparing GW to them would be like comparing Doctor Who to Rick and Morty.

No, GW made a grave error with its move towards this new cartoony theme. I can only hope that they realise this at some point.

Bolt action?

well i guess if you are into that sort of thing but find them pretty dull with no real details. some of the konflict stuff is cool until i saw the first sculpts of those heavy us marines and nearly gagged.

but in all seriousness this is all subjective for everyone and its going to be of different value to everyone.

What about Dust then? Those models are already assembled and primed, just need the final touch if you want to play them painted. At least, I think they're still being made...MSRP seems up there around GW's prices, but I've been getting them on the cheap at Miniature Market myself.

I recall dust having some sort of financial issues and that mm was selling off stock fast and cheap. i dont rememeber the bigger tank like models but the normal dudes was made of PVC type rubber plastic. hate that stuff.

but again different strokes same folks.

Fair point Doc

I think it would be interesting to see when and how GW prices started to spike way above the 'going rate' for minis, as best my memory serves at the dawn of 40k the GW prices were generally in line with other manufacturers around 50p - £1 each for metal 28mm footsloggers with plastic being cheaper the classic beaky marines box came in at £10ish for 30, but then started to jump, usually via blister either creeping up or staying the same but the mini count dropping till eventually we get to 2017 and those same 30 tactical Marines come in around £75 which is approx 2.5 / 3 times over inflation, and whilst just inflation isn't the only measure its still heck of a jump.

There is probably something to the GW price point inadvertently helping the littler guys as if you can deliver good product under that its a few 'free' percent profit

 John Prins wrote:
At the end of the day, people who want to play tabletop miniatures games need opponents,

Or, they convert it to a boardgame by bringing a complete game with both sides. Totally feasible with things like Warmachine, Infinity, Guildball, etc.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
At the end of the day, people who want to play tabletop miniatures games need opponents,

Or, they convert it to a boardgame by bringing a complete game with both sides. Totally feasible with things like Warmachine, Infinity, Guildball, etc.

Indeed it is!

However, you still need your opponent to know how to play the game. The more complex the rule set is, the harder this is. Money isn't the only barrier to entry in these sorts of games, after all. This is probably why GW is pushing to keep the basic rules simple and download special case rules directly onto units. They can't keep it consistent because they're absolute pants-on-head awful at consistent rules writing, but the simple rules are easy to pick up and play.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:
GW White Knights are going to white knight themselves into the end of time.

It's okay fellas you can admit you are trapped in the quicksand of sunk cost.

No one will blame you.

Or we genuinely enjoy the product and games. Fancy that!

Now for something properly 'cat amongst the pigeons'.....

GW, being a Limited Company,

No they're not. They're a PLC, which, while the word "limited" does appear in the acronym, isn't the same thing. A "limited" company, to the point where anyone who actually knows what they're talking about will be deeply confused if you don't adopt this convention, is a limited liability organisation, which remains in private ownership, has its own, distinct, legal identity from its owners and insulates them from any financial liabilities that identity might incur. A PLC also has many of those traits, but is also subject to many more and different regulations etc, it simply isn't the same thing and shouldn't be referred to as such.

has an obligation to be as profitable as possible. A legal obligation to their share holders. So that means no 'nice man subsistence prices'.

Wrong again. While negligence and fraudulent practices can render senior staff at a PLC liable to prosecution if things go tits up, there's no legal obligation to make money, it's simply a good idea if you're an organization whose sole raison d'etre is to, you know, make money. Share ownership has inherent risk to it, it is fundamentally no different from backing a racehorse or going to a casino. Make the correct choices and it can make you a profit, back the wrong horses and you'll lose everything. By owning shares you do at least have a voice in that you also have votes on certain decisions the company makes, but you've no right to a return on your investment, just as you aren't obligated to retain your shares.

In fact, if a PLC were obligated to maximize profit, then ultimately nearly every one would be driven out of business, as they wouldn't be able to reinvest in the company to grow it or acquire new technology, because they'd be using shareholders money to do so.

And into that has come a great many other companies. Some tiny little One Man Bands, other stuff like PP and FFG. And indeed, everything in between. And their prices are indeed, everywhere in between.

But how many of those would prove profitable had GW not set their prices where they are? This isn't intended as a rhetorical poser. It's a genuine, open question.

Price leadership is a thing. But equally, as many companies set many prices below the equivalent GW product, I'd speculate most of them?

If GW didn't have significant overheads or an entirely understandable 'as much as possible' profit motive - how much room would there genuinely be for other companies of all sizes to sell and make liveable profit? If you can't start smol, how many talented sculptors would be out there?

This isn't an attempt to justify any particular prices - just a topic for discussion.

I'm sorry, are you actually suggesting that there wouldn't be a market for mini games if GW weren't so expensive? If GW had never existed then companies would simply be pricing their models against their costs and the competition just like they do already. If there's no profit in a product at a given price, and there's no demand for it at a higher one, then that product isn't viable. That's just business. However, as people are quite happily buying things from companies in this sector, and those companies are clearly making money, the suggestion that wargaming somehow needs GW to be expensive to exist is simply mental gymnastics. Like, gold medal level mental gymnastics.

I’m saying if GW were as cheap as their lowest priced competitors, with their market dominance, how would smaller companies compete?

Consider Mantic, pretty much all they’ve got is being cheaper than GW. How cheap could Mantic go and still it be worth their while? Mantic used solely as a known manufacturer.

An earned monopoly is perfectly acceptable. If GW were really able to produce such a high quality, keenly priced product that occupied every niche that a war gamer could possibly conceive to the point there was no oxygen for anyone else, more power to them.

There's a reason that hasn't happened in basically any market in any country in the history of ever though. If GW looked different, then their competitors would look different (i.e. mantic may be a boutique company rather than a bargain basement, volume affair) but there'd still be competitors.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m saying if GW were as cheap as their lowest priced competitors, with their market dominance, how would smaller companies compete?

Consider Mantic, pretty much all they’ve got is being cheaper than GW. How cheap could Mantic go and still it be worth their while? Mantic used solely as a known manufacturer.

I think Mantic survives largely by doing Kickstarters.

Mantic don't do bad in the "games that are fun to play" dept either. In the case of KoW especially, while not a player myself, it appears to have only gained in popularity and credibility since FB got taken behind the shed and put out of its misery.

My question isn’t about variety, just affordability.

If Person A is put off a GW model priced at £50, they may be tempted by a Mantic (again, purpose of example only) equivalent at say, £30.

Where left for Mantic if GW’s own was the £30? How low could their prices, and others, go and still prove sustainable?

That’s the question that I’m asking.

My question isn’t about variety, just affordability.

If Person A is put off a GW model priced at £50, they may be tempted by a Mantic (again, purpose of example only) equivalent at say, £30.

Where left for Mantic if GW’s own was the £30? How low could their prices, and others, go and still prove sustainable?

That’s the question that I’m asking.

There's too many variables to actually answer that. If GW's price was lower does that mean everyone's overhead is lower? In which case Mantic could go lower.

If overheads don't change, well first of all that puts the whole "GW has to charge that much because costs!" argument out of it's misery. But for competitors it would simply mean finding niches GW doesn't occupy, in Mantic's case they're the biggest rank and file fantasy game I can think of now that WHFB is gone.

My question is if GW's price dropped would people stop trying to make really poor justifications for the company?

Well, if GW are charging £30, that means there's a spot at £50 for Mantic to exploit with a higher quality model. Or they can go head to head at £30, or we can assume with such a dominant market leader in wargaming, price leadership is very much a factor and we can surmise Mantic could actually have sold that £30 model for £20 and still made a healthy profit, but saw GW were charging £50 and whacked an extra £10 on because they saw they could.

It's all pointless anyway, like I said, to my knowledge there's essentially nowhere in the world where a company has, through entirely fair practice, gained a true monopoly. Whatever route GW chose, they'd be leaving a road untaken for somebody else to exploit.

Also

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
My question isn’t about variety, just affordability.

You can't do this. Competition isn't based solely on price, so you can't say "if A started to compete on price, what would B do, but they're not allowed to do anything else but try and compete on price."

If GW change tack, then the competition are allowed to too.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Mantic don't do bad in the "games that are fun to play" dept either. In the case of KoW especially, while not a player myself, it appears to have only gained in popularity and credibility since FB got taken behind the shed and put out of its misery.

KoW is an odd beast as the majority of games I've seen (locally and shows) have been old WHFB armys with a frosting of Mantic mini's in cases when there isn't a close enough GW/other counts as / proxy

DB also seemed more fluid and fun than BB, but the faction OD derailed it, and 2nd ed is going to struggle to lure me off the Guilded Balling (still think GW unusually reasonable BB pricing was in part informed by DB pricing)

Agreed, on all points, was just illustrating that reducing Mantic to "GW with cheaper, but not as pretty, models" isn't necessarily giving them a fair crack.

 John Prins wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m saying if GW were as cheap as their lowest priced competitors, with their market dominance, how would smaller companies compete?

Consider Mantic, pretty much all they’ve got is being cheaper than GW. How cheap could Mantic go and still it be worth their while? Mantic used solely as a known manufacturer.

I think Mantic survives largely by doing Kickstarters.

And producing low quality product commensurate with the price: