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.

soviet13 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't think anyone is disputing whether they can "get away with it." At least not any of the regulars responding to this thread. Though I think that choice of phrasing is telling for the larger discussion re: morality. We don't generally use the phrase "get away with" for morally positive or even morally neutral actions.

?

'I wonder if I can get away with stopping for some food before the movie starts'.

You keep assigning these vague moral obligations to GW regarding the prices they charge and I don't think I've seen you explain why.

Is GW wrong to raise its prices and if it is, why?

...does anyone actually say something like that, instead of "I wonder if I have time to stop for some food before the movie starts", for example?

Actually asking here, english is not my native language.

 Chamberlain wrote:
So here is my attempt at trying to restate yukishiro1's position in a way that he would accept.

1) There are some number of people who could purchase at the previous price but now can't afford it.
2) Being able to no longer buy something you previous could buy causes some amount of mental anguish
3) Keeping the prices where they were avoid causing that anguish
4) GW does not actually need to protect their margins at their current levels, so the price increases are not necessary for the stability of the company or the well being of the employees
5) The more people that can't get into GW games the less participants there will be in a given local area

Now, I disagree with the importance of some points and conclusions drawn from them.

Not being able to buy a kit at the current price but being able to buy it at a previous price is not actually human suffering worth considering. A massive financial reversal like a job loss, house burning down, getting sick are all the kinds of things that do require our compassion, but have 50 pounds to spend and the thing you want is now 55 is not one of those things.

That's a fair summary of the argument, though there should also be another point or two in there about how it contradicts GW's PR about looking out for "the hobby" and being generally good guys, too.

I would point out, though, that your argument that not being able to hobby is not a form of human suffering worth considering is fundamentally at odds with the reason we all buy GW products. GW's whole argument as a company is that spending large amounts of money on toy soldiers is a good value proposition because it makes people happy. The converse of that is necessarily that not being able to spend that money on toy soldiers leads to the loss of that happiness. If we argue that the unhappiness from not being able to hobby is not a form of unhappiness worth considering, the converse must also be true: that the happiness created from hobbying is not significant. But this argument is refuted by the fact that we *do* spend large sums of money on toy soldiers, because that happiness *is* significant.

If we start saying that spending lots of money on toy soldiers is fundamentally a frivolous waste of money that does not produce significant happiness, that undermines the whole rationale for hobbying in the first place.

 Albertorius wrote:

soviet13 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't think anyone is disputing whether they can "get away with it." At least not any of the regulars responding to this thread. Though I think that choice of phrasing is telling for the larger discussion re: morality. We don't generally use the phrase "get away with" for morally positive or even morally neutral actions.

?

'I wonder if I can get away with stopping for some food before the movie starts'.

You keep assigning these vague moral obligations to GW regarding the prices they charge and I don't think I've seen you explain why.

Is GW wrong to raise its prices and if it is, why?

...does anyone actually say something like that, instead of "I wonder if I have time to stop for some food before the movie starts", for example?

Actually asking here, english is not my native language.

It is a legitimate use of the phrase, but not in use much any more (see definition #2).

 Albertorius wrote:

soviet13 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't think anyone is disputing whether they can "get away with it." At least not any of the regulars responding to this thread. Though I think that choice of phrasing is telling for the larger discussion re: morality. We don't generally use the phrase "get away with" for morally positive or even morally neutral actions.

?

'I wonder if I can get away with stopping for some food before the movie starts'.

You keep assigning these vague moral obligations to GW regarding the prices they charge and I don't think I've seen you explain why.

Is GW wrong to raise its prices and if it is, why?

...does anyone actually say something like that, instead of "I wonder if I have time to stop for some food before the movie starts", for example?

Actually asking here, english is not my native language.

Yes and no. Nobody talks like that in America. You do hear people occasionally say something like that in the UK - but that doesn't mean the phrase isn't morally charged. The phrase is used in that context precisely because it is jokingly ascribing a certain cheekiness to the behavior.

For example, even in the UK, nobody would ever say "I wonder if I can get away with donating some money to the local homeless shelter before the movie starts." They might say it with regard to getting food, because that is an indulgence, and therefore vaguely morally suspicious.

Hmm... Interesting.

Thanks, both!

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

soviet13 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't think anyone is disputing whether they can "get away with it." At least not any of the regulars responding to this thread. Though I think that choice of phrasing is telling for the larger discussion re: morality. We don't generally use the phrase "get away with" for morally positive or even morally neutral actions.

?

'I wonder if I can get away with stopping for some food before the movie starts'.

You keep assigning these vague moral obligations to GW regarding the prices they charge and I don't think I've seen you explain why.

Is GW wrong to raise its prices and if it is, why?

...does anyone actually say something like that, instead of "I wonder if I have time to stop for some food before the movie starts", for example?

Actually asking here, english is not my native language.

Yes and no. Nobody talks like that in America. You do hear people occasionally say something like that in the UK - but that doesn't mean the phrase isn't morally charged. The phrase is used in that context precisely because it is jokingly ascribing a certain cheekiness to the behavior.

For example, even in the UK, nobody would ever say "I wonder if I can get away with donating some money to the local homeless shelter before the movie starts." They might say it with regard to getting food, because that is an indulgence, and therefore vaguely morally suspicious.

No, you might also wonder if you could get away with dropping your dry cleaning off, or finishing undercoating this model. It's a calculation of risk. Here it means 'do I have time to do this, or will it make me late?'. In relation to GW's prices, it means 'can I raise my prices and simply make more money, or will I lose money elsewhere through reduced sales'.

Amusing tangent. It's a common phrase in England.

But that's also because they are things that benefit yourself, and therefore vaguely morally suspect.

Do you disagree that you'd never hear someone say "I wonder if I can get away with donating some money to the local homeless shelter before the movie starts?" or "I wonder if I can get away with helping that little old lady with her groceries?"

It is an interesting tangent. But I maintain the origin of the usage is precisely that slight moral opprobrium that is connected to self-care in British culture. Not that it really matters much to the discussion, I just thought it was interesting that even you chose to use that particular phrase with regard to GW's choice to raise prices.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
So here is my attempt at trying to restate yukishiro1's position in a way that he would accept.

1) There are some number of people who could purchase at the previous price but now can't afford it.
2) Being able to no longer buy something you previous could buy causes some amount of mental anguish
3) Keeping the prices where they were avoid causing that anguish
4) GW does not actually need to protect their margins at their current levels, so the price increases are not necessary for the stability of the company or the well being of the employees
5) The more people that can't get into GW games the less participants there will be in a given local area

Now, I disagree with the importance of some points and conclusions drawn from them.

Not being able to buy a kit at the current price but being able to buy it at a previous price is not actually human suffering worth considering. A massive financial reversal like a job loss, house burning down, getting sick are all the kinds of things that do require our compassion, but have 50 pounds to spend and the thing you want is now 55 is not one of those things.

That's a fair summary of the argument, though there should also be another point or two in there about how it contradicts GW's PR about looking out for "the hobby" and being generally good guys, too.

I would point out, though, that your argument that not being able to hobby is not a form of human suffering worth considering is fundamentally at odds with the reason we all buy GW products. GW's whole argument as a company is that spending large amounts of money on toy soldiers is a good value proposition because it makes people happy. The converse of that is necessarily that not being able to spend that money on toy soldiers leads to the loss of that happiness. If we argue that the unhappiness from not being able to hobby is not a form of unhappiness worth considering, the converse must also be true: that the happiness created from hobbying is not significant. But this argument is refuted by the fact that we *do* spend large sums of money on toy soldiers, because that happiness *is* significant.

If we start saying that spending lots of money on toy soldiers is fundamentally a frivolous waste of money that does not produce significant happiness, that undermines the whole rationale for hobbying in the first place.

That doesn't follow at all. 'Either it's so bad it's a waste of money or it's so good the company is morally obliged to continue providing it to me'.

Would you say that GW are in fact obliged to reduce their prices?

What about Porsche dealerships and yacht showrooms?

yukishiro1 wrote:
That doesn't change just because they can choose not to buy land raiders at all.

They can just choose to buy the land raider four weeks later, making your entire argument moot. Not to mention that you can easily participate in the hobby without buying mint condition boxes from GW.
As I said before, people aren't priced out of the hobby, but out of their patience.

I don't know about you, but the main thing keeping me(and other parents) from the hobby during the pandemic is having the kids at home while me and my spouse still have to work 40 hours a week. I haven't even found the time to build the metal Badrukk that I got in March (from ebay at 50% of GW's store prices by the way).
The pandemic is hard for everyone in different ways, and I'm not asking GW to watch my kids so I can paint my models either.

Last, but not least, in times of economic difficulty things like 40k is one of the first things you should stop spending money on.

yukishiro1 wrote:
But that's also because they are things that benefit yourself, and therefore vaguely morally suspect.

Do you disagree that you'd never hear someone say "I wonder if I can get away with donating some money to the local homeless shelter before the movie starts?" or "I wonder if I can get away with helping that little old lady with her groceries?".

I do disagree, yes. Those usages would be perfectly correct.

soviet13 wrote:

That doesn't follow at all. 'Either it's so bad it's a waste of money or it's so good the company is morally obliged to continue providing it to me'.

Would you say that GW are in fact obliged to reduce their prices?

What about Porsche dealerships and yacht showrooms?

It doesn't follow, but that's because you've misrepresented the argument again. Absolutely nobody has said anywhere here that the company is morally obligated to continue providing the ability to hobby to everyone, no matter how their circumstances change. Or that GW is morally obligated to reduce its prices. Please stop making up fake arguments to attribute to people. It is a huge waste of everyone's time.

Again, to be crystal clear, in case it wasn't the first four times: the argument here is that it is out of keeping with GW's created corporate image as a friend of hobbyists and general good guys to raise prices during a global catastrophe. Not that GW is morally obligated to provide its stuff to anyone who is already a GW hobbyist regardless of ability to pay, not that GW is obliged to reduce its prices, or any other straw men we can construct.

 Jidmah wrote:

They can just choose to buy the land raider four weeks later, making your entire argument moot.

Yes! Or buy a Rhino instead, or a Tac Squad, or whatever.

About 10% of GW's products went up by about 10% in price, with a period of notice. To hear people talk here it's like they doubled their prices overnight. This is not that big of a deal.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I would point out, though, that your argument that not being able to hobby is not a form of human suffering worth considering is fundamentally at odds with the reason we all buy GW products. GW's whole argument as a company is that spending large amounts of money on toy soldiers is a good value proposition because it makes people happy. The converse of that is necessarily that not being able to spend that money on toy soldiers leads to the loss of that happiness. If we argue that the unhappiness from not being able to hobby is not a form of unhappiness worth considering, the converse must also be true: that the happiness created from hobbying is not significant. But this argument is refuted by the fact that we *do* spend large sums of money on toy soldiers, because that happiness *is* significant.

If we start saying that spending lots of money on toy soldiers is fundamentally a frivolous waste of money that does not produce significant happiness, that undermines the whole rationale for hobbying in the first place.

I'd be willing to accept that lots of consumerist behaviour is a frivolous attempt to fill a void in people's isolated and alienated lives. Buying product being your hobby is probably not going to bring the happiness that actual hobby activity would bring. And that simply does not require the purchasing of GW's product. A single brand is not the hobby.

If we're talking about societal goods and people's well being, then perhaps people no longer being able to afford GW's offerings at 55 pounds because they only have 50 will lead them to discover better options for that money. If the case is being made that the reason price increases are bad is that it causes suffering, then I can easily say they are good because some number of those who are now priced out will find a greater source of joy.

There may also be other positive knock on effects like small businesses being supported so more creative people can make miniatures without having to relocate to Nottingham and try to get a job at GW. And it may actually have positive benefits in terms of local tax revenue because larger companies tend to pay a smaller portion of their revenue to taxes because of their access to certain corporate structures, tax credits and the ability to afford expensive expertise.

As soon as we make it a moral issues, then it's no longer a all or nothing situation, but a complex situation of all sorts of possible outcomes and priorities.

 Jidmah wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
That doesn't change just because they can choose not to buy land raiders at all.

They can just choose to buy the land raider four weeks later, making your entire argument moot.

But this is just silly. We are talking about marginal cases here, not people who are already comfortably affording the hobby. Obviously someone is not actually being priced out of the hobby if they are only minorly inconvenienced by the price hike. That's not the person we're talking about. If your argument is that nobody is actually priced out of the hobby by price increases because price increases are irrelevant to hobbyists in any way that matters and therefore it isn't actually inconsistent with being a friend of hobbyists and general good guys, we can argue over that, but it's not the argument anyone is discussing here.

yukishiro1 wrote:

soviet13 wrote:

That doesn't follow at all. 'Either it's so bad it's a waste of money or it's so good the company is morally obliged to continue providing it to me'.

Would you say that GW are in fact obliged to reduce their prices?

What about Porsche dealerships and yacht showrooms?

It doesn't follow, but that's because you've misrepresented the argument again. Absolutely nobody has said anywhere here that the company is morally obligated to continue providing the ability to hobby to everyone, no matter how their circumstances change. Or that GW is morally obligated to reduce its prices. Please stop making up fake arguments to attribute to people. It is a huge waste of everyone's time.

Again, to be crystal clear, in case it wasn't the first four times: the argument here is that it is out of keeping with GW's created corporate image as a friend of hobbyists and general good guys to raise prices during a global catastrophe. Not that GW is morally obligated to provide its stuff to anyone who is already a GW hobbyist regardless of ability to pay, not that GW is obliged to reduce its prices, or any other straw men we can construct.

I am trying to understand your position but it does not make sense to me. You say that it's out of keeping with their image as the good guys, but that it's not a moral obligation. So what kind of obligation is it, then? In what way is their price rise at odds with their image as a friend to hobbyists if they also have no moral obligation to those hobbyists?

I'm still kinda surprised there's anyone left who thinks a corporation's conduct and the way they present themselves to the public are in the least connected.

Yes, there are businesses out there who may choose their customers welfare over profit.

None of them are listed on the LSE.

Jeez. Talk about flogging a dead horse.

It's fairly obvious that many comfortably well off members here will never be able, or are just plain unwilling, to understand the impact of price hikes from the perspective of someone who isn't comfortably well off and just about manages to have a hobby involving GW products.

Really think this horse needs to be taken off the merry-go-round and be put to rest - it's insulting to so many people even under normal "world" circumstances, let alone currently.

I feel like this conversation was set way back by the deletion of two pages worth of relevant discussion. As previously discussed, humans are hardwired to require entertainment (or distraction or stimulation, whatever you want to call it) as well as food and shelter. When people are priced out of the big things, then the small things, including all the entertainment they had invested emotionally into, they get upset. When they are priced out of all of their entertainments at once, they have nothing to do but linger on that. It’s a natural and obvious consequence of static purchasing power and rising prices. A price hike that would cause grumbles ten years ago will cause quite a bit more drama during a pandemic and period of economic anxiety. GW should be savvy enough to know this or to pretend to care about this.


I would expect the investor class to remember why “bread and circuses” was a thing that kept the toiling class in line when “bread alone” wasn’t. Not that we’re doing great as a society on bread alone...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I'm still kinda surprised there's anyone left who thinks a corporation's conduct and the way they present themselves to the public are in the least connected.

Yes, there are businesses out there who may choose their customers welfare over profit.

None of them are listed on the LSE.

Usually they don’t contradict themselves so closely and so publicly, though. GW: We value inclusivity. Also GW: Go away, poors.

If one person has £27.50 to spend on plastic spacemen, but the other person has £30, the difference between those people is not 'the toiling classes' and 'the investor classes'.

soviet13 wrote:
If one person has £27.50 to spend on plastic spacemen, but the other person has £30, the difference between those people is not 'the toiling classes' and 'the investor classes'.

That’s not even close to what I’m saying. Read it again, please.

I’m talking about the shareholders GW is supposedly answering to with this price hike and all previous price hikes, and the need to keep regular price increases...and all the other less-customer-friendly behaviors.

I was not dividing GW customers.

Rob Lee wrote:
It's fairly obvious that many comfortably well off members here will never be able, or are just plain unwilling, to understand the impact of price hikes from the perspective of someone who isn't comfortably well off and just about manages to have a hobby involving GW products.

You'd be surprised that it's not just the 'comfortably well off members' who don't agree with you.

 Ghaz wrote:

Rob Lee wrote:
It's fairly obvious that many comfortably well off members here will never be able, or are just plain unwilling, to understand the impact of price hikes from the perspective of someone who isn't comfortably well off and just about manages to have a hobby involving GW products.

You'd be surprised that it's not just the 'comfortably well off members' who don't agree with you.

That's what I said to my head butler!

 Ghaz wrote:

Rob Lee wrote:
It's fairly obvious that many comfortably well off members here will never be able, or are just plain unwilling, to understand the impact of price hikes from the perspective of someone who isn't comfortably well off and just about manages to have a hobby involving GW products.

You'd be surprised that it's not just the 'comfortably well off members' who don't agree with you.

It's not a matter of agreeing with one side or the other.

it's about understanding, empathy if you will.

And it's clear that understanding is lacking, possibly intentionally on the part of people defending GW's and their own position.

Thus this discussion keeps going round and round and round and round...

Rob Lee wrote:
It's fairly obvious that many comfortably well off members here will never be able, or are just plain unwilling, to understand the impact of price hikes from the perspective of someone who isn't comfortably well off and just about manages to have a hobby involving GW products.

I've lost income due to an illness (non malignant spinal tumor) to the point where I was selling everything I owned just to make sure the lights stayed on while I was literally eating gruel. I had to wait a couple months for the surgery then recovery was a couple months. I also couldn't afford any prescription pain medication during that time. So please don't make assumptions about what people can and cannot understand.

having 50 pounds to spend on a hobby and gw raised the price of the item you wanted to 55 is just not in that category. Anyone who demands compassion for the poor guy who can't afford 55 pounds but has 50 ready to spend needs to re calibrate their idea of what suffering is. As if anyone who could afford GW at last year's prices is now somehow bereft is ludicrous.

It's people being sad they can't buy a specific brand and claiming it's somehow privation.

People can be against all forms of suffering. Saying GW is pissing us off is not mutually exclusive with being pissed off at the lack of a safety net, affordable healthcare, a world rapidly diminishing in opportunity, and a basic lack of decency from the top down. It’s disingenuous to pretend that caring about minor problems means we can’t also care about major ones.

Look, I've been in a similar situation to you Chamberlain. I was almost homeless on two occasions. I had to sell possessions I coveted, in fact I lost pretty much everything I owned. Just like you claim you have Chamberlain.

As someone who doesn't wish to go back to those times...

...As someone whose life had moved forwards until recent events...

...As someone who wants to continue moving forwards in life, because it's more enjoyable than not...

...I perfectly understand why people are aggrieved at price hikes in hobbies they have been enjoying.


Like I said - the intentional lack of understanding, not to mention the blatant and repeated disingenuousness, here is insulting to so many people and the topic carrying on going round and round does no-one any favours.

BobtheInquisitor wrote:People can be against all forms of suffering. Saying GW is pissing us off is not mutually exclusive with being pissed off at the lack of a safety net, affordable healthcare, a world rapidly diminishing in opportunity, and a basic lack of decency from the top down. It’s disingenuous to pretend that caring about minor problems means we can’t also care about major ones.

The guy who would buy warhammer kits at last year's prices but finds this years prices too high still has a massive hobby budget. Anyone who suffers as a result of that situation has tied their joy to the purchasing of a specific brand.

Rob Lee wrote:
...I perfectly understand why people are aggrieved at price hikes in hobbies they have been enjoying.

I understand that as well.

This whole circular mess all started when people made it a moral issues and started demanding compassion.

We are talking about people who could afford warhammer at 2018 or 2019 prices but now can't because of a price hike. People who can no longer afford a premium brand but still could buy hobby stuff at 2018 or 2019 GW prices.

It's like having compassion for those bereft people who have to stick with their iPhone X because they can't afford the upgrade to the 11. We should start a gofundme or something.

 Chamberlain wrote:
We should start a gofundme or something.

Why not. Show some empathy for your fellow gamer. Help out a friend, keep them able to play games with you and others (when the time we can safely do so again comes). gofundme's have started for all sorts of things.

Oh and your analogy over iPhones, again another piece of disingenousness.

As for what now? Thread should have been closed at the discussion over GW's support of the current political events.

Then why are you still commenting? Let the thread die.

 EnTyme wrote:
Then why are you still commenting? Let the thread die.

Fair point. Do you think others will though?