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.

 Overread wrote:
You are trying to justify entitlement.

No I'm asking for a valid explanation other than "it's the way it is", which is what you've just trotted out.

There is no such thing as the bottom end of the market. The hobby is generally one of reasonably comfortably off people anyway. There's a reason the media refer to the hobby in general as "opiates for middle class nerds".

We're all gamers and miniature painters. That's the market. Like I said before, rich man poor man shouldn't even be a part of it from the point of view of hobbyists wanting each other to enjoy the hobby and for new people to come into the hobby.

Nothing to do with entitlement either, but if you want to go down that route, from where I'm sitting it seems like a core of very affluent people feel entitled to keep the riff raff out of their hobby, and yeah, why shouldn't gamers who have invested money and time over the years feel entitled to continue to be able to do so?

Rob Lee wrote:

We're all gamers and miniature painters. That's the market. Like I said before, rich man poor man shouldn't even be a part of it.

Like it or not it is part of it.

Sure it would be fantastic to live in a Star-Trek style future where the playing field is far more level and most people live a comfortable affluent life. Secure in both their environment; home and work and able to afford most entertainments. One might also argue that shifts toward concepts like living wages (I believe Spain is touting that they are going to try that out and Sweeden voted on trying it out a year or two back) and the like can help; we still live in a very consumer driven economy. It's quite beyond wargamers or GW to change the whole nature of economics. At least if you remain only within the context and confines of the hobby.

 Overread wrote:
I'm sure GW and others do their best (within the bounds of also making a profit and income) to keep their price as low as they can.

.. i have to ask why you think this.

look at how other companies handle making plastic models that could function as IG. they all have their different ways and costs, but how do you think GW asking as much as they do for cadian infantry or tempestus, outside of particular aesthetics and the GW brand is in any way keeping the price as low as they can, especially compared to other companies?

I don't want to bring up wargames atlantic again- ive done enough of that lately.

At this point i find it more reasonable to believe GW charges what they can to optimize per unit sale because they produce physical product, and do these raises to optimize how much they can get per box while not filling up their warehouses with unsold things- maybe even using the announcements coming out to force a buyers rush. for some people the prices are more than fine. others can't or won't even begin. others are more being strong armed, both as the prices increase, or out of love of the setting (i know i wouldn't be here without the setting), or the fact they may have nobody to play with if they were to change games.

Thats the other detail. sometimes the only places to get a game are either only doing GW or ARE GW stores. can't bring my guard idea to those places because i don't like GW's current infantry guard aesthetic if they ban the use of the models i would rather use, and im not buying their aesthetic just to play it in more places because of the cost either, so the idea just dies (also, im not paying that much for a valkyrie. no thank you) as does another player of any stripe not showing up locally. one has to wonder how many people are kept out because of these factors, but it's not enough to matter in what seems to be the plan. GW can only produce so much anyway, i guess. do more players matter if they ship enough product to make them happy? no.

I try to get the best value possible for my investments in anything, so i cannot justify the bulk of the costs. I already have to much unopened or metal product ive barely been able to use and have buyers remorse for because of how things went locally, so unless something drastic happens, im out whether or not i want to be. and since i keep showing up here, i guess i don't want to be.

 Overread wrote:

Like it or not it is part of it.

Again with the advocation of the status quo. Just because something is, doesn't mean it has to remain so. Do you think we would have seen the fall of the Berlin wall if the youth at the time on the East German side had said "oh well, it's the way it is"?!!?!

Back in the late 90s/early 00s I put together a 100+ company of Dark Angels, mostly just the generic Space Marine models of the time, nothing special, on a shoe string income. Wages were not too dissimilar to today vs cost of living and cost of living certainly wasn't much different to now. So wealth balancing is a moot point.

You simply cannot put such an army together on the same budget in the same time frame now and the models aren't orders of magnitude better than they were back then, in fact some of the sculpts in metal have better defined details than some of GWs plastic models today.

I simply cannot see how GW's pricing can be defended, or someone can sit there and say that it shouldn't be challenged because GW are doing well. GW doing well can be argued quite easily as a negative thing for the hobby - it's pushing people out of the hobby, whilst some people coming into the hobby struggle to get into it.

we still live in a very consumer driven economy. It's quite beyond wargamers or GW to change the whole nature of economics. At least if you remain only within the context and confines of the hobby.

Ah so we as consumers cannot change a consumer driven economy. Do you not see the contradiction there?

Goes back to my point about people having an "I'm all right, don't care about anyone else, so I won't bother trying to change anything" attitude.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 ScarletRose wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I'm sure GW and others do their best (within the bounds of also making a profit and income) to keep their price as low as they can.

Hahahaha


Oh wait you're serious.

GW cultivated their Apple-like cult for a reason. They can jack up prices yearly and the conspicuous consumers will be on here bragging about how they can afford the new hundred dollar 5 man Cadian box or whatever.

It's the triumph of marketing over economic decision making.

Their shareholders have literally said to never lower the prices and they listen, which is all the more baffling.

Can you take a guess as to how i know this is complete fiction?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Can you take a guess as to how i know this is complete fiction?

You're a shareholder... wait! No. You are GW?

Rob Lee wrote:

 Argive wrote:


If you are right then you have nothing to be concerned about eh ? GW will go under or adjust and you wont have to moan about their high prices anymore. So in fact people enjoying their hobby and buying stuff is a good thing as it will speed up this process. I don't know what you are upset.

The only thing that seems selfish is trying to guilt trip and prevent people from buying stuff for their chosen hobby because someone cant afford it therefore nobody should be allowed... Seems.. Well .. selfish ?

Yeah, yeah.

I'd rather see an increased player base, to bring in more and more players. That in turn should bring costs down, with more money floating about, supposedly it's basic supply and demand economics.

If that is selfish, well...

I live in a relatively affluent part of mid/north Essex. Prior to the pandemic you couldn't get a game of anything tabletop outside of a handful of well established clubs like Wayland in Hockley, or the Chelmsford bunker, I think there's a small relatively obscure club in Colchester also, those or GW's stores in Chelmsford and Colchester.

People look at GW's hobby and see it as a very expensive hobby that they don't want to get into. The GW side of the hobby at least, seems to have become more one of miniature collecting and showing off for the social media generation, rather than wargaming, which goes back to my point of "prestige".

Given that GW is the highest profile company out there Is people's perception of the hobby, and the distinct lack of a player base in many areas, good for growing the hobby from our perspective as hobbyists?

GW and people with attiudes like yours, who support GW's business practice, do the hobby no favours.

Rich man poor man shouldn't even be part of the hobby.

It is supply and demand.. And GW is supplying .. people are buying ... Seems to be working in the parameters of free market. So again i dont understand what your issue is apart from in your relative experience its too expensive therefore nobody should buy it which is silly. The whole status quoe idealism just doesn't work in reality.. If I can afford to do something I.e. Buy a model I want and like the look of, why should I not do it and have enjoyment from it just to make it more accessible for someone I dont know or care about and more likely than not doesnt care about me? Thats some wierd moral mental gymastics throwing around from some idealistic moral high horse that has nothign to do with how the world or humans work..

That sounds like your local scene is lacking veriety of wargames rather than the hobby being too expensive and you blame it on GW marketing and owning stores in which they naturaly want people play GW games....

Maybe try organise a wargaming club and promote non GW games and recruit into those rather than lazily blame GW for lack of people geting into war-gaming because GW is too expensive?
GW absolutely does not have a monopoly on wargaming/tabletop gaming. Its certainly a brand with a lot of presance but as a community its the community job not to recruit people into GW as an entry and in the age of internet thats never been easier.

And if somebody wants to get into 40k because of black library .. nobody else is selling space marine miniatures so naturally they will charge what they want.. Thats how free market works.

My local club is thriving and 40k/AOS are only about 40% of what gets put down on the table on a regular night. A lot of antaras, wild west, x wing, KOW and varius board games etc.

Personally I like my eldar wraith contructs, their aesthetics and their lore... If another company would be making cool Eldar wraith constructs Id be buying those too for sure...Some of the Artel W stuff looked good but is actualy more expensive than GW for resin... so.... I will keep paying for their silly toy solidiers until I see other silly toy solidiers I like or their toy solidiers become too expensive for me to afford..

I think Mierce minatures make a veriaty of awesome sculpts for certain things and some of their kits are priced reasonably others less so. However there is not gaming presenace for their game but I still buy an occasional miniature from them. But the fact mierce game system and minatures are not too popular is due to me not doing my part and promoting it.

And for the record GW minatures are expensive as gak for the most part. Not saying they arent.. But are they too expensive ? That depends on the buyer.
I certainly don't buy everything they sell and certainly not at full prices if I can help it and also wheel and flip stuff on ebay to fund the hobby..

You don't have to be 'very affluent' to be able to afford a £30 box of plastic models. And comparing GW's prices to the Berlin Wall is ludicrous.

At the end of the day GW prices do make me wince sometimes but I can afford them. I'm not a millionaire sitting in a golden mansion, just a run of the mill civil servant. I see GW's prices as a trade-off that has allowed them to i) continue trading fir decades, and ii) continue producing a busy release schedule of new high quality plastic kits. That's worth it to me.

Who are these mythical people for whom a £30 box of models is an iron curtain forbidding them from participating in the hobby, but when it was £25 last week everything was fine?

soviet13 wrote:
You don't have to be 'very affluent' to be able to afford a £30 box of plastic models. And comparing GW's prices to the Berlin Wall is ludicrous.

At the end of the day GW prices do make me wince sometimes but I can afford them. I'm not a millionaire sitting in a golden mansion, just a run of the mill civil servant. I see GW's prices as a trade-off that has allowed them to i) continue trading fir decades, and ii) continue producing a busy release schedule of new high quality plastic kits. That's worth it to me.

Who are these mythical people for whom a £30 box of models is an iron curtain forbidding them from participating in the hobby, but when it was £25 last week everything was fine?

Have an exalt

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Can you take a guess as to how i know this is complete fiction?

You're a shareholder... wait! No. You are GW?

Nods in sagely.

Yeah, yeah, we get it Argive, you're all right, good for you. Perhaps you'd like to move to my part of Essex and see the apathy, even amongst the affluent. I tried to get a club off the ground some 10 years ago. No-one was interested. 2 clubs in the area over a period of about 10 years folded for the exact same reasons - not enough people interested, premises too costly, can't really run it at people's homes due to homes being too small (although to be fair one had an issue with kids and snobby parents causing problems). That situation hasn't changed.

@soviet13 -

For many that £5 difference is the straw that breaks the camel's back. Quite a few people on here stating that if you care to read the thread. And given the current effect the current pandemic is having on the economy there are plenty of people who would normally be able to afford a £25 box set, who now are finding they cannot afford to absorb the regular GW price hikes.

It's quite insulting, and arrogant, to imply such people do not exist.

And no, I wasn't "comparing GW's prices" to the Berlin wall. You know full well I wasn't and stating that I am is what is ludicrous.

It is the attitude of people. Again, it's obviously something that many people simply cannot grasp.

This has gone into the realm of surreal.

Are people seriously saying everyone deserves to have GW minis, and those that keep buying at these prices are selfish. is that really someone's position?
Wow, just wow.

It's really simple mathematics. You have options, freedom to choose if you will. You can either afford to play as is, find a way to afford to play (different job, asset allocation etc) or you just can't afford it and move on. There are many ways to play this game at a cheaper level. sure, you're not meta chasing, playing FOTM, but you can still play.

But telling people they are selfish and having a woe is me attitude because people are paying current prices is simply a level of entitlement that is borderline sad.

 bullyboy wrote:
But telling people they are selfish.

You mean stating the truth. Of course it's a truth that you and certain others obviously find hard to grasp for one reason or another.

And of course you're entitled to your opinion. As am I.

Rob Lee wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
But telling people they are selfish.

You mean stating the truth. Of course it's a truth that you and certain others obviously find hard to grasp for one reason or another.

And of course you're entitled to your opinion. As am I.

You can have an opinion, but then cannot on the same page say it's an absolute truth. Doesn't work that way.

You said you have been in this hobby for 20-30 years (not going to go back and check, but think it was around that number). Well, my guess is you probably have enough models to continue playing this game...do you really need more? Is the shiny new so necessary to your enjoyment of the hobby?

No. Both can be in the same page, they are not mutually exclusive, one can state a truth, whilst also stating an opinion on the same page.

I'll use a factual example of how selfish people here in the UK are. I was a member of a reasonably well known, amongst the scale modelling hobby, closed off private forum. I paid for the "privilege". When this pandemic started in the UK the owner of the site stated point blank that he wanted no discussion of it. Furthermore when it was announced we were all to be "locked down" he also stated that no information about services available to help those in need was to be posted, despite helpful information generally not being publicised and not being easy to find. Because "he wanted to keep things "lite"". A couple of members were in that bracket of "being in need".

Since the "lockdown" in March he and his merry band of followers have continued to host live streams on Youtube and carry on as normal (that's fair enough). However despite being in a very good position to do something they've made no effort nor mention of any charitable efforts or helping anyone in need. Just concerns over how they're going to get their modelling supplies, what kit they're going to build next, and promoting themselves. A couple of members of the forum had to give up their membership due to current circumstances. It's only £4 per month and the site owner has always stated that he doesn't need the membership fees to survive. Might have been good for those people to be able to retain a membership, if only to help with their mental wellbeing.

They are not an isolated example. And I cancelled my membership on principle.


You think modellers and gamers aren't selfish? Think again.



As for the shiny new being necessary for my enjoyment. No it's not. Sure I'm in a relative "luxurious" position of having a ton of models.

That doesn't alter the facts of the player base being squeezed and people leaving or being put off of getting into the hobby. Knowing people who have left the hobby people don't tend to go play something else within the hobby, they get out of the hobby altogether.

It's all very well stating go play something else, but a) what if a person doesn't enjoy that something else, b) what if that person cannot get a game playing something else, and c) why should they? [rhetorical question - I know the trotted out response will be "'cos"].

This is ridiculous. It’s a niche hobby and one company sells their products at value. It’s supply and demand and if you don’t understand how that works time to take a basic economics class. GW is a business that has to turn a profit for its share holders. If a customer can’t afford their products it’s unfortunate but it’s not their issue.

Looks at the prices of smart phones. All the new phones are coming out at $1k now a days. That is ridiculous when I remember ten years ago buying a smart phone for like $100 and thinking I was ripped off. But people will still buy them.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
But people will still buy them.

Yup. That's the problem.

Those prices, are at that level, however, not because of actual supply and demand, no matter how you dress it up, but because companies can get away with it. There is no actual demand for models at such inflated prices, I'm sure even whales would concede that they'd like to pay less, but there is no choice if you want a GW model.

I would have thought, that shareholders would want as much money coming in as possible, thus as many customers as possible, not to push people away, especially existing customers. I know if I were a shareholder, or even a small business owner, I would. My mistake. Durr guess I dun unnderstand basic ecceynomics.

It is everything to do with supply and demand. People still buy the products(demand), so the company continues to produce the product(supply). So long as customers buy the product the company will sell at the price point that nets them the most profit while there is still demand.

Once customers stop buying a specific product they stop producing or they shake up the company and discontinue a game or refresh a product line.

You’re making an assertion that lowering prices will increase sales or bring in new customers. I would rebuke that based on the fact that there are other companies producing miniatures at a lower price- why haven’t they taken over the market. Durr lower prices mean more money for company and more people can buy them. No..

GW could easily lower their prices and make just as much profit.

Look at how many people in this thread have stated they will lower or completely stop their investment in GW's product.

Are you seriously telling me, if those people go through with their thoughts, that's good for GW? Good for the hobby? How many people have GW alienated and lost out on sales from over the past 10-15 years?!

Turning away existing customers because what money they could spend is not enough, is good business.

I've heard it all now.

Lol, this thread has got to the point where both sides are arguing so ineptly i have neither the time nor desire to unpick it all.

I can only summarise it thusly..

 Azreal13 wrote:
Lol, this thread has got to the point where both sides are arguing so ineptly i have neither the time nor desire to unpick it all.

No, please do. Would be interesting to hear from a supposed shareholder (that was your implication earlier in the thread wasn't it?) just exactly what the motivation is for alienating many of your existing customers...

Rob Lee wrote:
Totally agree with that Gimgamgoo.

Would be nice to have a "budget" for hobbies each month...

I think it also comes down to a perceived prestige thing. GW have positioned themselves, or try to, as the Rolls Royce, Bentley, Aston Martin, Pagani, Ferrari etc. of the hobby. Many whales see themselves as being above others simply because they can afford to buy GW products. Much in the same way owners of said car brands do...

Don't wish ill on anyone but hopefully the current and forthcoming economic crisis due to the current pandemic will adjust some of the selfish attitudes...

Been saying for years the selfish attitudes displayed by many of the more affluent gamers are causing the player base to shrink, and around most of the UK it has done from what I can tell, despite GW posting massive profits. The bigger global markets, like the US tournament scene, are where GW have grown, but then that's where we seem to get the negative attitudes from...

The only problem with this statement is that the player base is growing, not shrinking. Each year for the past 4 years LVO has shattered it's attendee record for 40K Champs, if memory serves last year they hit nearly 600. Most of the other game stores in my area also see much more interest in their products. My local store in my small community has had their 40K sales surpass their MTG sales six months in a row now.

There isn't anything selfish about me being honest, I love the game, I support the company. If you don't, that's fine. You have the freedom to choose what to spend your money on and when.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rob Lee wrote:
GW could easily lower their prices and make just as much profit.

Look at how many people in this thread have stated they will lower or completely stop their investment in GW's product.

Are you seriously telling me, if those people go through with their thoughts, that's good for GW? Good for the hobby? How many people have GW alienated and lost out on sales from over the past 10-15 years?!

Turning away existing customers because what money they could spend is not enough, is good business.

I've heard it all now.

50 people in an internet thread, on a site that probably less than 20% of the community of players visit or have accounts on.

HOLD THE PHONE PEOPLE, GW IS GOING DOWN!

Your assertion is wrong. GW lowering prices wouldn’t increase demand. Charging less for something doesn’t produce more profit???

Some people on the internet told you they would buy more products from GW if the prices were less..cool all these comments don’t make a fraction of the sales GW has.
You’re speaking nonsense. GW is a billion £ corporation that has an obligation to its share holders to turn a solid profit. They’re diversifying their product and cashing in on a multitude of different revenue streams. Increasing their prices on select products will give them an indication of product demand and turn a profit on those products that their is still a demand for. If a product doesn’t have any demand they will probably discontinue it.

They aren’t turning away customers. You can buy whatever you want.

Yeah, er, I'll be polite.

You're in the US. I'm talking about the UK. Well aware that overseas markets are growing.

As for how many people - it's wider than just this online community. Please don't be so intentionally obtuse/naive.

Perhaps though not where you are, what with the big cons, like LVO, Adepticon etc. How they going for ya this year, hmm?

Rob Lee wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Lol, this thread has got to the point where both sides are arguing so ineptly i have neither the time nor desire to unpick it all.

No, please do. Would be interesting to hear from a supposed shareholder (that was your implication earlier in the thread wasn't it?) just exactly what the motivation is for alienating many of your existing customers...

See, you've got such a tenuous grip on the conversation you don't even realise a joke when you see it.

The reason i knew it was nonsense was because that's not how shareholding works, outside of some limited voting rights in matters that are nearly always foregone conclusions at the AGM, all shareholders do is collect their dividend and watch their initial investment increase in value. If either of these things ceases to perform in the way the shareholder wishes, they don't storm into the boardroom insisting the company change its policy, they just sell their stake and move on.

In the very specific case of GW there may be an argument that Kirby, as the largest individual shareholder, may hold some sway, but that would have more to do with his still holding a non executive position than with his stake.

Rob Lee wrote:
Yeah, er, I'll be polite.

You're in the US. I'm talking about the UK. Well aware that overseas markets are growing.

As for how many people - it's wider than just this online community. Please don't be so intentionally obtuse/naive.

Perhaps though not where you are, what with the big cons, like LVO, Adepticon etc. How they going for ya this year, hmm?

Okay, I'm going to stop and give you that. I have heard in the past that the UK market even plays the game vastly differently than the US market does. And it makes sense that you would also have a different type of consumer culture.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
Your assertion is wrong. GW lowering prices wouldn’t increase demand. Charging less for something doesn’t produce more profit??? They aren’t turning away customers. You can buy whatever you want.

Never stated more profit. I said as much.

Bit simplistic, but I'll try anyhow - 10 people buy a product costing each 10 bits of gold. That's 100 bits of gold. 100 people buy the same product at 1 bit of gold...

No don't tell me, even simple maths like that is broken in business terms...

As for turning away customers, I thought they just announced yet another price hike, meaning people have to choose whether to spend the same for less, simply less with them or not spend at all...

Sounds like pushing away existing customers to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
[
See, you've got such a tenuous grip on the conversation you don't even realise a joke when you see it.

The reason i knew it was nonsense was because that's not how shareholding works, outside of some limited voting rights in matters that are nearly always foregone conclusions at the AGM, all shareholders do is collect their dividend and watch their initial investment increase in value. If either of these things ceases to perform in the way the shareholder wishes, they don't storm into the boardroom insisting the company change its policy, they just sell their stake and move on.

In the very specific case of GW there may be an argument that Kirby, as the largest individual shareholder, may hold some sway, but that would have more to do with his still holding a non executive position than with his stake.

Actually, I just wanted to see if you would expand on what you were inferring.

I wasn't the one originally stating shareholders were at fault. They don't seem to be turning away from GW in droves though...

Rob Lee wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
Your assertion is wrong. GW lowering prices wouldn’t increase demand. Charging less for something doesn’t produce more profit???

Never stated more profit. I said as much.

Bit simplistic, but I'll try anyhow - 10 people buy a product costing each 10 bits of gold. That's 100 bits of gold. 100 people buy the same product at 1 bit of gold...

No don't tell me, even simple maths like that is broken in business terms...


[quote=]
They aren’t turning away customers. You can buy whatever you want.

Oh silly me. I thought they just announced yet another price hike, meaning people have to choose whether to spend the same for less, simply less with them or not spend at all...

Sounds like pushing away existing customers to me.

Y'all need to look up elasticity of demand/price sensitivity then come back when you've a clue what you're arguing.


In short, lower margins can mean increased volumes and therefore more profit. But then, maybe it won't.

If you're the head of a publicly traded company turning over millions, you going to make that call when you're already selling product about as fast as you can make it, and sometimes faster?

Aren't non-GW gaming clubs (before pandemic) really popular in the UK? I always seem to see social media and blog posts about all sorts of games being played in the UK. Frostgrave? Gaslands? All sorts of historical gaming events? What's keeping warhammer interested people from doing likewise?

I agree that people willing to pay more allows a company to charge more. That's a pretty basic concept. GW had record sales and profits after they introduced start collecting at 50 pounds and they still had it after they upped the price over 50 pounds. Had their sales dipped, then they could have gone back to 50 pounds to restore their number sold. But it didn't. So they didn't.

None of this should be controversial, right? And you're just saying that purchaser is just as involved in the transaction as the seller? That shouldn't be a crazy thing to say either.