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.

I think most of the people upset couldn’t really afford GW at last year’s prices... but that doesn’t mean they weren’t buying.

With shelter in place, it seems like most people would have extra focus on their hobbies they can do at home. And people also have reason to go over their budgets again. So, while there are a lot of grumbles every price hike and a few rage quits, this price hike has come at a time when tensions were higher.

Rob Lee wrote:

Why not. Show some empathy for your fellow gamer. Help out a friend, keep them able to play games with you and others.

I am all on board with that. I'm not on board with demanding people feel compassion about a price increase on a premium brand. Actually helping people be able to continue to play games is best done locally. I just packed up a box of free miniatures and bits for someone yesterday.

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

It's actually not disingenuous. It's probably the most honest assessment possible. I really do see GW as a premium, expensive brand. I really mean it when I say that someone who can afford GW at 2018 or 2019 prices has an amazing hobby budget.

It really is people making a moral issue out of it and demanding compassion because someone can no longer afford the most expensive premium brand.

The biggest piece of advice I can offer to preserve your sanity on this forum and the internet in general is to not conflate a conscious decision to disengage with an admission of defeat.

soviet13 wrote:

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 think your use of the word obligation is what's causing the hangup. I don't think GW has a moral obligation per se to make sure all its existing hobbyists can still afford the hobby. That's too strong a phrasing.

If you see a little old lady trying to cross the street, do you have a moral obligation to stop and help her across? I would say no. But if you go around presenting yourself as a stand-up guy, if you plow through the intersection while honking at her, I think it's fair to say that's behavior that is morally inconsistent. Whether you had any obligation or not.

And before someone does the same thing that's happened six times already, an analogy doesn't mean something is the same in every respect, only in respect to what the analogy is illustrating. I am not saying GW raising prices is exactly the same as not helping little old ladies. I am going to try saying this ahead of time this time, since it appears that people get confused otherwise.

I'm sorry Chamberlain I just cannot be bothered responding to you other than to say, again, much of what is in this thread, and continues to appear, is insulting.

End of.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think most of the people upset couldn’t really afford GW at last year’s prices... but that doesn’t mean they weren’t buying.

With shelter in place, it seems like most people would have extra focus on their hobbies they can do at home. And people also have reason to go over their budgets again. So, while there are a lot of grumbles every price hike and a few rage quits, this price hike has come at a time when tensions were higher.

This is a very good point.

People are talking about how we might have the equivalent of the great depression going forward.

I would suggest that in such an environment, to maximize joy and minimize suffering that avoiding increasing consumer debt and considering other options other than brand new full retail of the premium brand might be on the table.

https://vimeo.com/199334296

 Chamberlain wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think most of the people upset couldn’t really afford GW at last year’s prices... but that doesn’t mean they weren’t buying.

With shelter in place, it seems like most people would have extra focus on their hobbies they can do at home. And people also have reason to go over their budgets again. So, while there are a lot of grumbles every price hike and a few rage quits, this price hike has come at a time when tensions were higher.

This is a very good point.

People are talking about how we might have the equivalent of the great depression going forward.

I would suggest that in such an environment, to maximize joy and minimize suffering that avoiding increasing consumer debt and considering other options other than brand new full retail of the premium brand might be on the table.

Do you honestly not realize how patronizing this is? It's like you're deliberately trying to illustrate the other guy's point about a lack of compassion. I'm really, honest to god not trying to be mean or confrontational here - it strikes me from your posts that this is something you're honestly not grasping, and I suspect it isn't only in this thread that it's going to cause people to take umbrage.

If someone tells you they've lost their job, they're not going to thank you for your "advice" when you look into their shopping cart and say "you know, you'd be better off not buying Heinz now that your economic situation has changed."

yukishiro1 wrote:

soviet13 wrote:

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 think your use of the word obligation is what's causing the hangup. I don't think GW has a moral obligation per se to make sure all its existing hobbyists can still afford the hobby. That's too strong a phrasing.

If you see a little old lady trying to cross the street, do you have a moral obligation to stop and help her across? I would say no. But if you go around presenting yourself as a stand-up guy, if you plow through the intersection while honking at her, I think it's fair to say that's behavior that is morally inconsistent. Whether you had any obligation or not.

And before someone does the same thing that's happened six times already, an analogy doesn't mean something is the same in every respect, only in respect to what the analogy is illustrating. I am not saying GW raising prices is exactly the same as not helping little old ladies. I am going to try saying this ahead of time this time, since it appears that people get confused otherwise.

So I think that what you are saying here is that GW's price rise is incongruous with their presentation as a friend to hobbyists. Sort of a mild "really?' moment. Which I can understand. I just think, so what? Does this mean that GW was wrong to do it, or that they should now do something else to rectify it? Any business or individual is faced with competing demands and has to choose between them eg can I get away with helping this old lady cross the road, or will it make me late for volunteering at the homeless shelter? You might say that GW being a friend to hobbyists will also sometimes be in conflict with their status as an employer and a business. If they don't increase prices, and that means they later fall into difficulties and have to make people redundant, is that a better outcome or a worse one? What if they go bankrupt? It's a complicated issue and I think the tone of moral outrage certainly present elsewhere in this thread has been misplaced.

But nobody - not even GW itself - has made the slightest suggestion that there was any risk of falling into difficulties if they didn't raise prices now.

If GW had put out a release saying: "Look, we know this is terrible timing, we know people are hurting, and we're really sorry, but we need to raise prices now to keep the lights on" nobody would begrudge them it (if it were true).

It's the fact that everyone knows perfectly well that that is not the case that generates the bad feeling. That is what annoys people. This is about making even more money - or, at the very best, maintaining their absolutely huge existing profit margins - not about keeping the lights on.

Again, before someone misses the point, obviously GW would never say anything like that, because it'd create panic among its shareholders.

yukishiro1 wrote:
But nobody - not even GW itself - has made the slightest suggestion that there was any risk of falling into difficulties if they didn't raise prices now.

They have no idea what is going to happen in the near future given the world-changing events currently happening around us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think most of the people upset couldn’t really afford GW at last year’s prices... but that doesn’t mean they weren’t buying.

With shelter in place, it seems like most people would have extra focus on their hobbies they can do at home. And people also have reason to go over their budgets again. So, while there are a lot of grumbles every price hike and a few rage quits, this price hike has come at a time when tensions were higher.

This is a very good point.

People are talking about how we might have the equivalent of the great depression going forward.

I would suggest that in such an environment, to maximize joy and minimize suffering that avoiding increasing consumer debt and considering other options other than brand new full retail of the premium brand might be on the table.

Do you honestly not realize how patronizing this is? It's like you're deliberately trying to illustrate the other guy's point about a lack of compassion. I'm really, honest to god not trying to be mean or confrontational here - it strikes me from your posts that this is something you're honestly not grasping, and I suspect it isn't only in this thread that it's going to cause people to take umbrage.

If someone tells you they've lost their job, they're not going to thank you for your "advice" when you look into their shopping cart and say "you know, you'd be better off not buying Heinz now that your economic situation has changed."

I have compassion for people who lose their jobs and suffer hardship, but I have exactly zero compassion for people with £50 hobby budgets who want to buy £55 Land Raiders.

soviet13 wrote:
I have exactly zero compassion...

And don't we know it!

And they also have 28% profit margins. And are so flooded with orders that they literally can't keep up. If things change to the point that a company like that struggles to keep the lights on...we are all in a lot more trouble than just worrying how we're going to source our tiny plastic toy soldiers. Not to mention that it could raise prices then.

This is also a company that issues significant dividends back to its shareholders every year, something fundamentally incompatible with the idea that it needs to scrimp every penny for a future rainy day.

It just doesn't pass the sniff test to say that there was any economic necessity to this price increase.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

soviet13 wrote:
but I have exactly zero compassion for people with £50 hobby budgets who want to buy £55 Land Raiders.

Yeah, I think that's what it comes down to. And it denotes the end of the discussion. People who have zero compassion for people who are unable to enjoy the hobby the way they used to because of being priced out are never going to see the problem with a price increase. So it seems pointless to continue discussing things.

I've skipped a lot of this thread because I know it's going to be the same excuses (about costs, molds, etc as if that hasn't been refuted a million times) and disingenuous obtuseness as every other price discussion.

So I'll leave it at this: for me it's not this price increase, as if it were just one, it's every price increase. It's this year's and next year and the year after that.

It's a completely clear belief in infinite extraction. Not some pie in the sky free market where supply and demand hit a meeting, but simple price increases marching into forever.

And before someone says inflation - if you honestly believe inflation is 10% every single year you've got some learning to do.

 ScarletRose wrote:
I've skipped a lot of this thread because I know it's going to be the same excuses (about costs, molds, etc as if that hasn't been refuted a million times) and disingenuous obtuseness as every other price discussion.

So I'll leave it at this: for me it's not this price increase, as if it were just one, it's every price increase. It's this year's and next year and the year after that.

It's a completely clear belief in infinite extraction. Not some pie in the sky free market where supply and demand hit a meeting, but simple price increases marching into forever.

And before someone says inflation - if you honestly believe inflation is 10% every single year you've got some learning to do.

Gw has enough of the Market covered to be an oligopol, aka near monopol, not necessarily because people wouldn't habe alternatives technically but rather a combination of community and availability of players in top.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Do you honestly not realize how patronizing this is? It's like you're deliberately trying to illustrate the other guy's point about a lack of compassion. I'm really, honest to god not trying to be mean or confrontational here - it strikes me from your posts that this is something you're honestly not grasping, and I suspect it isn't only in this thread that it's going to cause people to take umbrage.

And I obviously do grasp what you're saying. I was able to even restate your position back to you (though I missed the part about GW's cultivated image-- thanks for filling that in). I just don't agree. I think if you could afford GW even at previous years prices, you have an impressive hobby budget capable of bringing loads of hobby joy even if affording GW at 2020 prices becomes borderline. I simply do no accept that someone in that position is undergoing privation requiring compassion.

If someone tells you they've lost their job, they're not going to thank you for your "advice" when you look into their shopping cart and say "you know, you'd be better off not buying Heinz now that your economic situation has changed."

The most compassionate thing someone can do for someone who is borrowing for present luxury consumption to the point of endangering their future is to say *anything* that might cause them to reflect on that potentially disastrous path. I would never do it it in a rude fashion like you outlined though. And certainly not for something trivial like the price difference of ketchup. If someone who just lost their job was obligating themselves to a multi year cell phone contract so they could have an iPhone 11 or Galaxy S10, then I might. But then only if it was appropriate for our relationship. I'd need to be able to talk to someone honestly and I would only talk about my own experiences and not what they should do.

On an internet forum though? I'll just say it's a bad idea to borrow money to consume luxury goods. Full stop.

soviet13 wrote:


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

What about Porsche dealerships and yacht showrooms?

I'm fairly sure Porsche and yachts can claim they're hand made and are expensive. Whereas GW just mass produces sprues of plastic toy soldiers.

If Airfix upped they're prices by 20% a pop every year, there'd be no kids making plastic airplanes anymore. GW on the other hand have some wierd Apple-like cult that expects the high prices and even defends the price rises.

We're talking about little plastic toy soldiers here. In the UK, the government give you about 70 quid a week to *live on* if you're jobless. Thats the equivalent of about 3 hq single figures single tiny sprue plastic soldiers. Are you really saying 3 little plastic toy soldiers is the equivalent of a weeks living wage? Cars, yachts are not the same as little plastic toy soldiers. Perspective would be nice from all the whales that "have" plenty.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think most of the people upset couldn’t really afford GW at last year’s prices... but that doesn’t mean they weren’t buying.

With shelter in place, it seems like most people would have extra focus on their hobbies they can do at home. And people also have reason to go over their budgets again. So, while there are a lot of grumbles every price hike and a few rage quits, this price hike has come at a time when tensions were higher.

I'm just going to quote you as you seem reasonable to kinda hop in this. I think where the people saying " If you could afford it yesterday you can afford it today " are missing the point is if it was just a singular purchase that would be correct. However if for some that cost increase pushes that purchase from one week to the next, or one month to two, it isn't that they could never afford it. It's more that they could but the increased costs from each new item might be a much larger issue that turns a past time from attainable to unsustainable as a hobby. Which yes would make someone sad/mad.

I believe you see that but I don't think the detractors understand the snowball effect the price hikes have, especially at a time of much displeasure. Some might have made out well through all this, others are just hanging in there so compounded increase to costs could be the straw that prices them out and losing something you love stinks. However I am not surprised people have little compassion for that. If current times did anything for me it's show me my faith in humanity was misplaced as through the pandemic I saw the worst in people and the simple madness on deep display. I mean just look at the TP memes for that one.

5 bucks could very well be the breaking point for many people, as it won't be just 5, it'll be all the 5s from all the rises all at a time where people need the things that bring them peace most. I think though people would be best served to realize GW is not nor will ever be a friend if they speak of good or bad take it for it is empty company speech and we all need to take the price hikes as what they are normal par for the course. I'm sorry for those who will quit from and wish GW would ponder these things from more than just a greed is good view.

Edit: As a btw I think we kinda are on the same page I just figured to quote you as my statement sorta goes with the ones you'd been placing out there.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 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.

Your entire argument is based on someone who has 55 GBP to spend, but not 60 GBP.
This does not happen. To no one. Literally everyone who could set aside the money to buy a landraider can still do so, it will just take them slightly longer. Or they have to buy their landraider from someone who sells it cheaper, like many resellers do, as do people selling un-build models from their pile of shame/collection they selling.

Face it, the imaginary person priced out of this hobby by this raise does not exist.

I don't think it's about a lack of understanding of snowballing costs really, it's more about a lack of sympathy for the idea that being priced out of the hobby is something GW or anyone else should care about. That's kind of where we got over 10+ pages of this: the breakdown is basically between people who think someone losing the ability to hobby the way they used to is a real loss, and people who think it isn't.

I'm not trying to state that in a pejorative way, BTW. Just to state facts. I don't think there's going to be any agreement between the "losing the ability to hobby is serious" and "losing the ability to hobby isn't serious" crowd, because that differing view is such a basic assumption that it completely determines how someone is going to feel about it. No amount of price raises are going to make someone care if they think the loss of the ability to hobby is just "first world problems" not worthy of sympathy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 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.

Your entire argument is based on someone who has 55 GBP to spend, but not 60 GBP.
This does not happen. To no one. Literally everyone who could set aside the money to buy a landraider can still do so, it will just take them slightly longer. Or they have to buy their landraider from someone who sells it cheaper, like many resellers do, as do people selling un-build models from their pile of shame/collection they selling.

Face it, the imaginary person priced out of this hobby by this raise does not exist.

Haha, it must be a rule of universe: just as I got done saying I don't think anyone actually seriously holds this position, someone shows up who does. Teaches me to make assumptions, I guess.

As stated before, it's not about singular raises. It's about the effect overall. Just like someone doesn't get priced out of their rent because of a single 2% increase, but they may be if those increases happen often enough. At some point, the straw breaks the camel's back.

And it doesn't even have to be "cannot afford GW products any more at all." If price increases limit a person's ability to accumulate the force they want on a reasonable timeline, it can seriously impact their enjoyment of the hobby, even if in theory, given enough time, they could slowly accumulate it. Or it could be someone who didn't used to be able to afford new minis, but who could afford to buy them off ebay...and now they can't do that, because these price increases cascade down. There are a million possibilities. It takes incredible myopia and hubris to insist it's impossible that anyone could be priced out of an enjoyable version of the hobby by this increase.

If you are stuck making the argument that price increases don't impact peoples' ability to afford things, you are generally not making a winning argument.

To add agreement to this I'd say I will take like year, or years to build a force. It's why I stay in this at all, however not everyone has that tenacity and being forced to slow down a build that slowly is pricing them out.

Believe it or not, not everyone wants to play this game for years. Strange as it may seem, wasted time is enjoyment denied and the longer it takes to build a force to play with is missing out, maybe forever as not all areas are even rich with players. So waiting a year might see a grown scene fade to nothing and then what do you have ? Nothing.

 insaniak wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Oh I agree, but the price of plastic increasing was nevertheless cited and I fail to see how the price of the raw material needed to make it being at record low prices could somehow drive prices up.

That's easy to explain, if the cost of labour, electricity, transport (ie: everything else involved in the process) went up by more than enough to offset the amount the raw material went down.

Or simply because those places producing the raw plastic were all shut down for the last 5 months, resulting in shortages and therefore increased price of the dwindling supplies of raw plastic. The cost of the oil is irrelevant if nobody's actually currently using it to buy plastic, or is still using up their supplies purchased at a previous, higher price.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rob Lee wrote:
The notion that GW expect people to absorb year on year price rises is ludicrous also. .

They don't. From previous chatter, they expect that most people who buy into the hobby don't last more than a year, and those who do generally only last 3-5. Their prices aren't aimed at vets who have already largely collected an army, they're aimed at the people walking into a store prepared to drop the contents of their wallet on a new game. A strategy that, despite the criticism from the internet, seems to have been largely working for them for the last 30 years to varying degrees of actual success.

This is a very cynical perspective of GW's business strategy. I hope this isn't what they base their marketing around, cause if so, man that's gross as gak. "Here spend a grand on an army and then feth off"

Also, like, the vets pay out regularly and constantly. I don't know of a single vet, myself included, that has bought an army and then just stuck with it, and I am rather conservative compared to the majority of regulars in my local community. Some buy and sell armies of a bi monthly basis, with the real whales dropping multiple grand on new product, painting it up themselves, or paying someone else to, and then dumping in for like half of what they got it for a year later to more discerning customers. And I know a few guys actually making money buying an army, painting it up beautifully, and selling the whole thing for a few hundred extra based on their work. All these people are, and have been, directly interfacing and buying GW product in large quantities for years, some decades, and I can tell you the people in the shop value having a good report and selling them on new releases as much as they do people walking in for the first time.

Then again, maybe hobby communities really are just that rare in the hobby and everything is just soulless seeking of exploiting an endless stream of rubes who'll trash their models in a year or two.

But EVEN then, how the heck do you on board the churn and burn when you're pricing out that constant influx of newcomers even harder? Is it literally just tricking someone into buying one kit and then moving on? There's got to be a point in building a community, else, why'd GW bother?

 MJRyder wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
My point was simply that when a company presents itself as a friend of hobbyists and as a moral force for good rather than a faceless corporation intent only on maximizing its own profits, it naturally opens itself up to accusations of hypocrisy

I'll ignore your quite offensive remarks to my previous post, however, I can't ignore your later comment, which is quite patently false and absurd, and shows a fundamental lack of understanding on your part.

Quite simply: GW does not present itself as a moral force for good. The notion that they do is completely fabricated by you, and exists only in your head. Furthermore, it's clear at this stage that you don't understand what the term 'moral' means, nor indeed what 'ethics' are in the context of this discussion.

Ok, so sure, GW raises prices and you have a problem with that -- I get it. However, it is in no way unethical or hypocritical.

I'd ask that you take your snide, rude comments about myself and my background elsewhere.

Raising prices is very often extremely unethical.

tneva82 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Another option was not to raise prices at all. They have incredible profit margins. It wasn't a case that they needed to do this to stay afloat. There's no rule of the universe that says that they need to maintain the same profit margin even during a global catastrophe.

They made a choice to raise prices, probably before the pandemic. Then they made another choice to go through with it despite the pandemic. These were both choices that GW made and is responsible for. You can say it was a foregone conclusion because GW raises prices no matter what, and that may be true - but that itself is a choice they are responsible for making.

Yes they could keep prices same. That would result in less profits than with.

You keep thinking gw is doing this just for kind heart and charity. It's not. It's in for profit. If move a gives more profit than move b it's what gw does. In fact what companies do.

It's even hard for them to increase sales as they can't keep things stocked all the time as well. Demand is basically greater than supply. This in itself shows price can be raised.

There's no rule in universe that says gw must take lower profits voluntarily.

GW doesn't just raise prices on things that are selling. They do it on everything. Indeed under this idea of supply and demand, the prices of many of their older, less popular kits, should drop to sell more and free up space for newer, hotter kits. But they don't.

Supply and demand is not something that factors strongly into GW's business practice, and it has never actually been a panacea for the markets.

yukishiro1 wrote:
But doesn't that serve to illustrate an important point - namely, that nobody actually, really buys into the idea that corporations should be soulless profit-maximizers with no responsibilities to their customers or the world as a whole beyond self-enrichment?

That's always been the problem with the "greed is good" philosophy of maximizing shareholder gains: nobody (well, maybe 1% or 0.1%) actually believes in it when push comes to shove. The average customer certainly doesn't buy into it.

GW and every other major corporation in the world at least pretends to care about more than just its own bottom line because being perceived to care about more than just your own bottom line sells.

I mean, objectivists do, and I warrant there's a few on this web board.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
So oil has dropped so low that it was negatively priced, and many businesses have reduced or ceased trading and therefore demand on shipping services will also be proportionately affected, yet plastic and logistics have gone up?

I don't have any evidence to tell you you're wrong, but I'd be interested if you have any to support that idea.

I can't tell you details for obvious reasons, but I'm working for a large company selling premium product (read: overly expensive stuff you could easily substitute with similar things costing a fraction) and the sales figures for Italy, Spain and Germany have only decreased slightly or even increased during the lock-down.
People who have not taken a financial hit because they could continue working as before (home office, well-paid essential personal) now have an abundance of cash due to the lack of possibilities to spend it, since people can't go out, attend festivals or go in vacation. Apparently, those people invest that cash in things they can use while staying at home, and I'd be surprised if GW were vastly different in that regard than our company.

Yes, the rich remain rich and have extra money to spend for their jobs were largely not lost, and if you are in an industry that caters only to selling goods to the rich, you're probably in a grand ol' spot.

The poor can only look up and wonder at the security and privilege these people have while they lose their homes after losing their jobs.

Man do I not want GW to turn into an industry only upper middle class and rich mostly white people can afford. I can just imagine sitting around having to listen to people smarm about how the poors should really lift themselves up by their own bootstraps (I don't have to imagine actually, this is a conversation I have had to sit through more than once at my local GW). Those people are insufferable. And I know because I am one.

soviet13 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
So oil has dropped so low that it was negatively priced, and many businesses have reduced or ceased trading and therefore demand on shipping services will also be proportionately affected, yet plastic and logistics have gone up?

I don't have any evidence to tell you you're wrong, but I'd be interested if you have any to support that idea.

I can't tell you details for obvious reasons, but I'm working for a large company selling premium product (read: overly expensive stuff you could easily substitute with similar things costing a fraction) and the sales figures for Italy, Spain and Germany have only decreased slightly or even increased during the lock-down.
People who have not taken a financial hit because they could continue working as before (home office, well-paid essential personal) now have an abundance of cash due to the lack of possibilities to spend it, since people can't go out, attend festivals or go in vacation. Apparently, those people invest that cash in things they can use while staying at home, and I'd be surprised if GW were vastly different in that regard than our company.

I'm sure all of that is correct. But GW's business model is dependent on a whole load of potential vulnerabilities such as their staff, their shops, distribution networks, foreign manufacturers for some components, etc. No-one knows what the impact of coronavirus will be in the medium or long term and the pressures that could put on various businesses. No-one, GW included, is going to feel on solid enough ground to say 'no, that's enough profit for me thank you'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
GW obviously suffered a hit to sales when its factory was closed. That was what, about two months?

But it also got absolutely slammed with orders as soon as it opened up, suggesting that a large portion of those losses have probably been recouped or are in the process of being recouped, with or without a price increase. Most of those sales weren't lost, they were just delayed.

If I ran a business selling non-essential goods, and the second my webstore opened up again after a break it was slammed with orders to the extent that I have to impose a queue system for a while, I would probably think 'I can get away with increasing some of my prices'.

I hope you're looking forward to a dramatic cost increase in roughly a year's time then.

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?

Yes. A luxury product should not be reserved for the affluent alone, and doing so increasingly divides the rich and poor in a way that drives many social ills. GW may be but a small piece in this system, but it still helps create this divide. And like, this is a website primarily about GW's products. I don't use GW as an example when I'm talking about the malaise of modern capitalism elsewhere because it's really small potatos. But that doesn't mean they deserve a pass because they aren't as important as, say, healthcare.

But there's a vocal subset of people who think poor people should be punished for their poorness by being forced to live the life of a monk if they want any help whatsoever, with no access to entertainment, or even, like, steak. And the people going "It's a luxury, who should poor people get to enjoy it?" is right along these lines. It's dehumanizing.

soviet13 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't think it's wrong for GW to raise its prices in the abstract. I do think it is out of keeping with the corporate image GW tries to construct for itself to raise prices during a global pandemic. If you didn't see my prior posts explaining this, I can type it out again, but it's right there if you go looking.

Essentially, the point is that GW presents itself as more than a faceless corporate behemoth interested only in maximizing its own profits. It presents itself as a friendly partner in "the hobby" and a promoter of good values (see: statement on anti-racism, recent press release on the catachan colonel model being distributed for free to FLGS to help them out during a difficult time, etc). It does seem pretty inconsistent with this image to raise prices right at the precise time when hundreds of millions of people all over the world have lost their jobs as a result of a massive global catastrophe.

I don't see why. GW is a luxury, a hobby, not an essential that people absolutely must purchase.

It seems to me that if someone has lost their job and is in some state of financial peril, the fact that Khorne Berzerkers went up by £2.50 is not that relevant.

yukishiro1 wrote:
In other words, the problem is that GW loves to talk the talk, but it doesn't walk the walk. And it's in significant contrast to the actions taken by many other major corporations, which have responded to the crisis not by raising prices but by cutting them, or by adopting other customer-friendly policies (e.g. granting customers forbearance on payments, not cutting people off monthly services if they can't pay, etc etc). Now very likely these corporations have done this not out of true compassion but because they believe it will help their sales in the long run - but the point is that GW has reacted in the exact opposite of the way many corporations have reacted, and in a way that is difficult to square with the image it tries to construct.

Those companies that have granted forebearance and so on have done so because they provide essential services and if people were evicted from their homes or had their phones and electricity cut off, etc, then it would do those people great harm (and therefore ultimately give those companies a lot of bad PR). What great harm is caused by someone suddenly not being able to afford that Land Raider they wanted?

Again, it comes down to the belief that poor people should not have access to luxuries. And this is unethical.

soviet13 wrote:

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?

ethically, yes, GW would be so obliged under a number of moral systems.

We do not live in an ethical world. Unless your view of ethics is pure egoist. Or, I'd say an objectivist, but the world isn't cutthroat and profit driven ENOUGH for them.

 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.

And this is a bad thing. A very extremely, perhaps apocalyptic bad thing looking at, well, climate change.

 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.

I mean, there is, indeed, a number of less fortunate people who have bought into the propaganda of the rich.

I won't dwell to much on why, but it does have some relevance to current events.

 Chamberlain 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.

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.

No one is actually arguing that 55 pounds is that last bridge that has priced all poor people out of the hobby though. This is hardly the only price rise GW has committed to. It's not even the only on in a full year.

People who, 10 years ago, were able to enjoy the hobby, are less able or completely unable to. Prices have risen drastically and continuously for decades.

Can you afford GW's prices right now? Could you if GW continues a trend of 5 percent increases every year for the next ten?

 Chamberlain wrote:

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.

Phones remain a horrible comparison. A good phone is a lifeline to someone who's situation is desperate.

But also, we are not talking about these people because GW prices aren't raising in isolation just this once.

 Chamberlain wrote:

Rob Lee wrote:

Why not. Show some empathy for your fellow gamer. Help out a friend, keep them able to play games with you and others.

I am all on board with that. I'm not on board with demanding people feel compassion about a price increase on a premium brand. Actually helping people be able to continue to play games is best done locally. I just packed up a box of free miniatures and bits for someone yesterday.

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

It's actually not disingenuous. It's probably the most honest assessment possible. I really do see GW as a premium, expensive brand. I really mean it when I say that someone who can afford GW at 2018 or 2019 prices has an amazing hobby budget.

It really is people making a moral issue out of it and demanding compassion because someone can no longer afford the most expensive premium brand.

And because it is an expensive brand you don't want it tainted by the hands of the commons or something?

Like... I don't get this idea. "It's premium, so making it more affordable would hurt me because I can't lord it over those who can't afford it" is kind of what this comes off as mate. This is only really a defensible position in a collection of like minded people. So, I mean, I guess you'll get there eventually.

Couldn't agree more with your stance @Stratigo, well spoken.

The funny thing is, the fact that we've got to the point where people are seriously arguing that 40k is a super premium hobby equivalent to a high end sports car...actually illustrates the opposite of the point they want to illustrate. Because it didn't start out that way. It's the constant price increases over the years that have made it into a "premium" brand. Sure, it was never cheap...but in the 80s and 90s, it was much more affordable than it is now. To take the Land Raider example that's been bandied about: in 1994, a land raider cost you 13 quid. Now, it's 55? 50? Something like that. Meanwhile, an inflation calculator will show you that 13 quid in 1994 dollars is about 23 quid now. Less than half what it costs now. Measured in land raiders, the hobby has become more than twice as expensive as it used to be.

So the same folks who on the one hand are saying "you can't be priced out of the hobby, it's only a small increase anyway, nobody is priced out by land raiders going from 50 quid to 55, stop being drama queens" are also saying "GW is a premium brand, not everyone should be able to afford it." It's a weird kind of cognitive dissonance at work.

To be fair, the 'Porsche' comparison originally came from GW themselves, from one of Kirby's financial preambles...

Sure. I don't think there's any doubt GW likes the idea that it's a "premium brand." I was just pointing out that this has not really historically been the case - at least, not nearly to the extent it is now. Measured in Land Raiders - his example, not mine - the hobby is now more than twice the cost it was in the 90s. That's a dramatic difference in affordability. It is not tenable to say that nobody has been priced out by a doubling of cost, or to suggest that this latest 10% couldn't have priced out anybody who had been hanging on until now.

 insaniak wrote:
To be fair, the 'Porsche' comparison originally came from GW themselves, from one of Kirby's financial preambles...

While I don't miss that regime those reports were always a highlight. Objects of jewel like wonder indeed.

 insaniak wrote:
To be fair, the 'Porsche' comparison originally came from GW themselves, from one of Kirby's financial preambles...

How is his leadership working out for the company? I assume he’s still there and highly respected.

You don't buy your kids a Porsche for their first car.

My youngest kid wanted to try playing Age of Sigmar with me and I had all these sweet models and they got a bunch of Khorne models from the starter set. And they were like, "why can't we play with the big snake lady?" And I told them that it cost four months allowance to replace. And that one over there would cost two and a half months allowance. And they were like, "what the feth, that's nuts." And I was like "Would you rather play Monsterpocalypse instead?". And they were like, "capitalism is an unsustainable pipe dream so long as the proletariat are unable to transform their labor into comfort." And I'm like, "are you sure you are only 6 years old?", and they're like, "Control the means of production!" And I'm like, "Okay?" and they're like, "Go Galt!" and I'm like, "objectivism is diametrically opposed to communism, you can't combine the two" and sent them to their room to contemplate the true meaning of a social ruling class.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Sure. I don't think there's any doubt GW likes the idea that it's a "premium brand." I was just pointing out that this has not really historically been the case - at least, not nearly to the extent it is now. Measured in Land Raiders - his example, not mine - the hobby is now more than twice the cost it was in the 90s. That's a dramatic difference in affordability. It is not tenable to say that nobody has been priced out by a doubling of cost, or to suggest that this latest 10% couldn't have priced out anybody who had been hanging on until now.

It was in 1995 that a large chunk of their product range jumped in price by 30-50%, at least here in Oz. I remember it well, because I had been saving to buy a Dreadnought, and I waited a week too long... I suspect you're falling into the common trap of thinking of the '90's as 'about ten years or so ago'... 'Historically' GW has been considerably more expensive than almost every one of their competitors for far more of their lifespan than they've been commonly regarded as offering decent value for money.

 insaniak wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Sure. I don't think there's any doubt GW likes the idea that it's a "premium brand." I was just pointing out that this has not really historically been the case - at least, not nearly to the extent it is now. Measured in Land Raiders - his example, not mine - the hobby is now more than twice the cost it was in the 90s. That's a dramatic difference in affordability. It is not tenable to say that nobody has been priced out by a doubling of cost, or to suggest that this latest 10% couldn't have priced out anybody who had been hanging on until now.

It was in 1995 that a large chunk of their product range jumped in price by 30-50%, at least here in Oz. I remember it well, because I had been saving to buy a Dreadnought, and I waited a week too long... I suspect you're falling into the common trap of thinking of the '90's as 'about ten years or so ago'... 'Historically' GW has been considerably more expensive than almost every one of their competitors for far more of their lifespan than they've been commonly regarded as offering decent value for money.

I put together a 100+ models Dark Angels army (6 tactical squads, 2 assault squads, 1 devastator squad, 1 Deathwing squad, some bikes, all the metal characters, 1 metal dreadnought, couple of rhinos, and a Mk1 Land Raider) + a few other models in the mid-late 90s. On a very tight month to month budget, before the UK had a minimum wage policy for workers or the unemployed.

In today's money that would cost £450+. £60 for a 10 man assault squad.

There is no way on the budget I was on back then, that I spent even £450 on models. I have 2 assault squads - there is no way I spent £120 on them. There is no way I spent even £60 on them. Just wasn't possible to spend £450+ on hobbies living on my own, in rented accommodation, at the time over any period of time.

Anyone who bought Games Workshop products in the 90s is not thinking the 90s was about ten years ago.