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:
Quick show of hands: has anyone in this thread been priced out of the hobby by this price increase?

Yes. Ir isn't merely this one increase, it is the regular increases on already overpriced products, which A) made many kits simply unattainable for me or B) made them quite poor value. The rules and the wonky balance also discourage me from buying, since I never know when a unit will be put back on the shelf for an indefinite period of time. I quit playing 40k late 7th (before 8th was announced) in no small part due to needing to buy a full new army to avoid losing the vast majority of games, (not having a shot just isn't fun) simply because I wasn't spamming RBKs.


I get more value from a Malifaux kit despite the lower model count, Reaper stuff, and MEDGe to pay GW prices again. The games are better, too.

 MJRyder wrote:
I think what annoys me most about this thread is that there are just so many people shouting into the abyss.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I apologize for referencing your background; even though you brought it up yourself to try to grant yourself an unwarranted aura of authority, I should have resisted the temptation to do turn that back around against you. Your profession is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and the fact that you behaved otherwise doesn't mean I should have as well. I should have been the bigger person, and I apologize for failing.

Your comments literally embody everything that's wrong with the internet, and Dakka in particular; where people assume that their own personal opinion is worth more than the comments of a professional -- an actual expert -- who is trying to explain things to you in clear, simple terms.

My background *is* relevant, because, quite simply, I have a PhD. This is called *knowledge*, it's called *expertise*. I teach undergraduates, and postgraduates, about this very subject and related subjects, at an advanced level. I'm not just some random guy on the internet talking: I am someone with relevant background and experience, trying to help you reach some understanding.

If, after hearing what I have to say, and just ignoring it because it doesn't fit with your world view, then fine... it seems there is no helping you, or some of the other people on this thread.

I get that you don't like price rises -- none of us do. The thing is, some of us on here are realistic enough to understand the way the world works, and the way business works in particular.

Just to restate some of my key points again in case you, and anyone else has missed them:

1) Things cost money.
2) GW doesn't owe you, or anyone else, anything.
3) Raising prices is not a sign of a company 'behaving badly'.
4) Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it is either 'immoral' or 'unethical' (to call it such is to show you don't understand either term).

I'm not trying to troll you here -- I'm genuinely trying to explain things to you, and to anyone who is interested in learning more about management and marketing practice. If you want to know more, I am happy to expand. However, what I am not prepared for, is for you to get on the defensive because I've come along and presented counterarguments to your false narrative.

You've repeatedly failed to support your assertions with any sort of actual evidence or argument. Point 1) is self-evident; no one is disagreeing. Point 2) is an unsupported moral assertion, and moreover is largely irrelevant to the discussion. Point 3) is the heart of the discussion, and is yet another unsupported moral assertion. Unlike other posters in this thread who take your position, you have failed to support this moral assertion with anything other than "look at my PhD!" Point 4) is partly an irrelevant truism that nobody disputes, with a parenthetical unsupported ad hominem and/or declaration of victory. "You don't understand" is not an argument.

What you have done in this thread is not made an actual argument. You've simply declared that other people are wrong and don't understand things, and that you are right because you have a PhD. This is not a convincing way to argue. Other posters in this thread - Soviet, Chamberlain, a few others whose names aren't coming to mind immediately - have done a vastly better job at supporting your side the of the argument than you have. We've had a fairly productive discussion, even if we agreed to disagree.

Finally, and I would not go here except that you have repeatedly invoked your own qualifications to try to bolster the weakness of your argument....your CV says you are a newly-minted PhD in English, and you appear to be a teaching assistant or lecturer at a university. To be totally clear: I am not demeaning either of these things in any way. But it is borderline farcical for someone with a CV like that to try to be claiming that his qualifications establish why his unsupported opinions should be deferred to on an internet forum. Your post would be embarrassing enough if it was from a Harvard economics professor, and an appeal to authority is always a logical fallacy; but an appeal to authority from someone who doesn't even have that authority is especially comedic.

Qualifications aren't a reason people should listen to you. Qualifications are a reason you should be worth listening to. You seem to have mixed up the two.

Now if you have any actual arguments to make - you know, by actually supporting the value statements you're making, not just stating them - I'm happy to listen to them. Not because you have a PhD, but because anyone who is genuinely making an argument deserves respect.

Note to mods: I am not trying to engage in a personal attack here. I just don't know how anyone can possibly respond to "listen to me because of my PhD!" in any other way. Discussion here should be about the topic, not about individuals; but since the other poster has brought himself into the discussion and cited his own qualifications as the reason he is correct, there's no way to respond except to engage with that argument.

soviet13 wrote:
Quick show of hands: has anyone in this thread been priced out of the hobby by this price increase?

I went from saving up (grit more than money) to buy a Sisters box, some Newcromunda dudes and maybe some new Necron thing that might be kitbashed into a BFG ship ...to definitely not doing any of those things. The previous price hikes had pretty much killed my enthusiasm, but this one took its heart, staked it, burned it and salted the ashes.

Prices increase, sometimes more than warranted. These round of price increases seem pretty reasonable.

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.

Business isn't about morality. It's supply and demand. Gw isn't only or minority on that. It's majority.

tneva82 wrote:


Business isn't about morality.

But see the thing is...nobody buys that. GW itself doesn't buy that. See their recent statement on Warhammer being for everyone. They didn't say "warhammer is for everyone because that makes us the most money," they said "warhammer is for everyone because that's the right thing to do."

Now maybe GW really does think "warhammer is for everyone because it makes us the most money." But there's a reason it doesn't say that out loud, and the reason is that normal people don't think that way, and they want to appeal to normal people.

"Corporations have no social responsibility and should just be amoral profit maximizers" is not a theory anyone actually believes or follows in the real world. Every major corporation in the world now engages in a wide variety of CSR activities and marketing strategies, GW included. At least in public, GW itself would vociferously disagree with your statement.

And once a corporation starts embracing the idea that its remit is more than just being an amoral profit maximizer, it can't then turn around and say "well just making money LOL" as a response to a charge of bad behavior. That's having one's cake and eating it too. Once you venture into those waters, you can't easily get back out, at least not without people accusing you of being two-faced.

 filbert wrote:
I'm struggling to see what you actually want to happen. As with every hobby, you cut your cloth accordingly. If you can't or won't or you can but feel GW doesn't offer value for money any more, then you either make do with what you have or you play another game that does offer value for money or you find another hobby that you can stomach the prices for. Beyond that, what else do you want?

I mean, human beings do form emotional attachments to things they associate with for years. People want to continue to enjoy things rather than suddenly switch off meatbag emotions and walk away all rationally. People like to express their emotions, positive and negative. People want things that make them happy and want to express frustration with things that take away happy. These squishy emotions make humans human.

The "irrational" emotional attachment people create to tiny plastic toy soldiers is precisely why GW is a successful company. The "get rational" argument has always struck me as especially funny when directed at this particular hobby.

40k is fundamentally ridiculous. It survives off the irrationality of the human mind.

If prices go up on some kits 5% and model points go up 10-20% then cost to own an army decreased in many cases.

Tavis75 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
It's still insanely expensive compared to most non - GW games.

Is GW stuff really that much more expensive than other companies products? Saw people on here complaining about the latest price rise and saying they would be switching to Marvel Crisis Protocol, went and had a look at that and you're generally looking at £39.99 for two human sized models, so pretty close to GWs character model prices and the model quality looks a long way behind, looks similar to the FFG Star Wars Legion stuff. You do get a few cards etc. but I remember people moaning about the traitor command set for Blackstone Fortress from GW being ridiculously overpriced, and that's 2 models (one larger than human sized) and some cards (including thick cardstock) and it's £37.50.

I haven't bought crisis protocol, but I have seen many of the models and... they look just as good as GW models. I don't know why you're slagging them off for their appearance. They're good models.

 MJRyder wrote:
I think what annoys me most about this thread is that there are just so many people shouting into the abyss.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I apologize for referencing your background; even though you brought it up yourself to try to grant yourself an unwarranted aura of authority, I should have resisted the temptation to do turn that back around against you. Your profession is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and the fact that you behaved otherwise doesn't mean I should have as well. I should have been the bigger person, and I apologize for failing.

Your comments literally embody everything that's wrong with the internet, and Dakka in particular; where people assume that their own personal opinion is worth more than the comments of a professional -- an actual expert -- who is trying to explain things to you in clear, simple terms.

My background *is* relevant, because, quite simply, I have a PhD. This is called *knowledge*, it's called *expertise*. I teach undergraduates, and postgraduates, about this very subject and related subjects, at an advanced level. I'm not just some random guy on the internet talking: I am someone with relevant background and experience, trying to help you reach some understanding.

If, after hearing what I have to say, and just ignoring it because it doesn't fit with your world view, then fine... it seems there is no helping you, or some of the other people on this thread.

I get that you don't like price rises -- none of us do. The thing is, some of us on here are realistic enough to understand the way the world works, and the way business works in particular.

Just to restate some of my key points again in case you, and anyone else has missed them:

1) Things cost money.
2) GW doesn't owe you, or anyone else, anything.
3) Raising prices is not a sign of a company 'behaving badly'.
4) Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it is either 'immoral' or 'unethical' (to call it such is to show you don't understand either term).

I'm not trying to troll you here -- I'm genuinely trying to explain things to you, and to anyone who is interested in learning more about management and marketing practice. If you want to know more, I am happy to expand. However, what I am not prepared for, is for you to get on the defensive because I've come along and presented counterarguments to your false narrative.

Marketing isn't business ethics, nor is it ethics of any sort. You're not a PhD in philosophy. Indeed, marketing classes are more focused on technique. You are injecting your own ethical structure into your profession, in a "It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It" level.

tneva82 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.

Business isn't about morality. It's supply and demand.

GW still doesn't operate off of supply and demand.


Supply and demand isn't how many businesses operate, and many businesses thrive on creating inelastic supply so they can charge thousands for, say, insulin, something that people need or they die. Supply and demand only works on the most general level, but companies have spent billions figuring out how best to mitigate any drops in demand. It takes things like literally the world shutting down from a pandemic to really shake demand.

What GW's done is attempt to create themselves a monopoly, with some success. Strictly they aren't one world wide, but in many areas and gaming communities they really are the only game in town and you can either play GW or not wargame. This allows them to charge much higher rates then any of their supposed competitors. They rely on this dominance to create even more barriers to switching out of their products via peer pressure. They then funnel money into marketing and licensing to make it seem to low info consumers (eg, most) that they are the only hobby company out there. All of this allows for them to manage demand. And, from a strictly free market perspective, super unethical. But free markets are a pipe dream and, essentially, prayer mantra that don't exist. They're as realistic as a truly communist state.

The price increase was a little over 10% on most cheaper kits, and a little under 10% on most expensive ones; I don't think it was 5% on anything, though I could be wrong.

Your basic point is still arguably valid, though it arguably ignores how people actually make purchases in the real world (aside from the super competitive, people tend to measure their purchases by models, not by points), and the lack of granularity - you can't buy 85% of a kit, you have to buy the whole box whether you're going to use all the models or not.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 filbert wrote:
I'm struggling to see what you actually want to happen. As with every hobby, you cut your cloth accordingly. If you can't or won't or you can but feel GW doesn't offer value for money any more, then you either make do with what you have or you play another game that does offer value for money or you find another hobby that you can stomach the prices for. Beyond that, what else do you want?

I mean, human beings do form emotional attachments to things they associate with for years. People want to continue to enjoy things rather than suddenly switch off meatbag emotions and walk away all rationally. People like to express their emotions, positive and negative. People want things that make them happy and want to express frustration with things that take away happy. These squishy emotions make humans human.

I understand the attachment, after all, I still play GW games even though I don't buy their product any more. But given that GW have never shown any engagement outside of their own social media platforms and have never responded to demands to lower prices at any point in the past, what we have is 30 pages of people screaming into the void. I understand and appreciate that it is cathartic to do so and have done so myself in the past but the *only* way to get GW to even consider lowering prices is to stop buying stuff from them and at the moment, there is no evidence that enough people are doing that in enough quantities to force their hand. Until and if that happens, they will continue to raise prices year on year in the same way they have done for the past 30+ years.

soviet13 wrote:
Quick show of hands: has anyone in this thread been priced out of the hobby by this price increase?

Not in the slightest. This is the cheapest hobby I have and usually if my hobby budget is low I'll buy something from my FLGS.

Check the costs for modding a sports car, the cost of fishing, and the cost of renovating your house if you want to see expensive hobbies/projects. I don't even own a boat and I drop $300-$400 a month fishing. This is also the more low risk consistent reward for hobbying as well.

My beer math is the cost of what I buy vs the amount of time I use it is my overall product value. If I buy a $60 dollar box of Space Marines and I gain the enjoyment of building, priming, and assembling them for 15 hrs this means to me they are valued $4 an hour. That is much cheaper than going to a movie or some of my other hobbies. My Roush Cold Air Intake was $500. That took me an hour to two hours to install. It works for me every time I drive my car but it was a luxury install for me to get to work on my car. Thats one of the cheaper mods I've put on my car.

Its also obvious in this thread who has worked in top/mid/low level jobs. Profits drive so much more for a Company than just lining the pockets of the CEO, COO, or shareholders. If you want those top tier sculptors, artists, authors, and painters to work for GW they need to have the monetary edge to hire/develop that level of talent.

If you don't want to buy into the hobby or continue purchasing from a specific company then don't. But don't blame the company for running a successful business and improving their product.

soviet13 wrote:
Quick show of hands: has anyone in this thread been priced out of the hobby by this price increase?

Priced out from the hobby not really, there are many alternatives to be priced out just by the actions of a single company, but it has certainly made me order way less GW products and focus more on D&D and other RPG's instead. Everytime they raise the prices it becomes more and more difficult to justify the expenditure and easier to be willing to change to another IP.

A while ago for 60€ I could buy a couple of 10 model units of Warhammer or a unit and a small vehicle, nowadays best case scenario for 60€ I can get a single box of 5-10 models and a character, and it seems it's shifting to a single unit and a paint pot for 60€ at this rate...

blaktoof wrote:
If prices go up on some kits 5% and model points go up 10-20% then cost to own an army decreased in many cases.

First of all, that only applies to people who play the game with the brand new rules. Second, how much do the rule books that increase point values cost?

 Jjohnso11 wrote:

soviet13 wrote:
Quick show of hands: has anyone in this thread been priced out of the hobby by this price increase?

Not in the slightest. This is the cheapest hobby I have and usually if my hobby budget is low I'll buy something from my FLGS.

Check the costs for modding a sports car, the cost of fishing, and the cost of renovating your house if you want to see expensive hobbies/projects. I don't even own a boat and I drop $300-$400 a month fishing. This is also the more low risk consistent reward for hobbying as well.

My beer math is the cost of what I buy vs the amount of time I use it is my overall product value. If I buy a $60 dollar box of Space Marines and I gain the enjoyment of building, priming, and assembling them for 15 hrs this means to me they are valued $4 an hour. That is much cheaper than going to a movie or some of my other hobbies. My Roush Cold Air Intake was $500. That took me an hour to two hours to install. It works for me every time I drive my car but it was a luxury install for me to get to work on my car. Thats one of the cheaper mods I've put on my car.

Its also obvious in this thread who has worked in top/mid/low level jobs. Profits drive so much more for a Company than just lining the pockets of the CEO, COO, or shareholders. If you want those top tier sculptors, artists, authors, and painters to work for GW they need to have the monetary edge to hire/develop that level of talent.

If you don't want to buy into the hobby or continue purchasing from a specific company then don't. But don't blame the company for running a successful business and improving their product.

Who renovates a house as a hobby?

But, like, again "I can afford it, so what does it matter to poor people?"

And ALSO, nah dawg, the amount of money they spend on sculptors and artists is tiny compared to what they spend on executives and dividends.

 filbert wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 filbert wrote:
I'm struggling to see what you actually want to happen. As with every hobby, you cut your cloth accordingly. If you can't or won't or you can but feel GW doesn't offer value for money any more, then you either make do with what you have or you play another game that does offer value for money or you find another hobby that you can stomach the prices for. Beyond that, what else do you want?

I mean, human beings do form emotional attachments to things they associate with for years. People want to continue to enjoy things rather than suddenly switch off meatbag emotions and walk away all rationally. People like to express their emotions, positive and negative. People want things that make them happy and want to express frustration with things that take away happy. These squishy emotions make humans human.

I understand the attachment, after all, I still play GW games even though I don't buy their product any more. But given that GW have never shown any engagement outside of their own social media platforms and have never responded to demands to lower prices at any point in the past, what we have is 30 pages of people screaming into the void. I understand and appreciate that it is cathartic to do so and have done so myself in the past but the *only* way to get GW to even consider lowering prices is to stop buying stuff from them and at the moment, there is no evidence that enough people are doing that in enough quantities to force their hand. Until and if that happens, they will continue to raise prices year on year in the same way they have done for the past 30+ years.

Sounds like you understand most of it. The other point is agitating the online community away from GW, which introduces posters to other games or solidifies their resolve against buying strictly GW, which over time leads local IRL gaming scenes to other games, which reduces the “GW monopoly”.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:


Its also obvious in this thread who has worked in top/mid/low level jobs. Profits drive so much more for a Company than just lining the pockets of the CEO, COO, or shareholders. If you want those top tier sculptors, artists, authors, and painters to work for GW they need to have the monetary edge to hire/develop that level of talent.

This is such a bizarre argument, and ironically kinda refutes your own claim re: who works high up in companies and who doesn't.

Companies with 28% profit margins aren't raising prices to generate funds to reinvest in the company through hiring or development. You don't run 28% profit margins if you're concerned that your payroll or R&D may not be competitive.

Because I'm not a neanderthal I'll post the quotes in spoilers. Someone who enjoys working on their house will renovate their house as a hobby? I'm going to guess you've never had a project like installing new light fixtures, putting in a patio...

Show me GW's budget of sculptors and artists vs executives and dividends if you have that so readily available. Generally personnel are the most expensive/flexible portion of the budget when it comes to running a Company- which is why companies will lay off or flex employees to save on money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Ah you're taking my statement and changing what I said to drive your narrative. I didn't say the company was increasing prices to reinvest hiring or development. I said they have to run a profit to do those things. A company doesn't have the available funds to bring in competitive talent or conduct R&D if they are barely breaking even.

stratigo wrote:

What GW's done is attempt to create themselves a monopoly, with some success. Strictly they aren't one world wide, but in many areas and gaming communities they really are the only game in town and you can either play GW or not wargame. This allows them to charge much higher rates then any of their supposed competitors. They rely on this dominance to create even more barriers to switching out of their products via peer pressure. They then funnel money into marketing and licensing to make it seem to low info consumers (eg, most) that they are the only hobby company out there. All of this allows for them to manage demand. And, from a strictly free market perspective, super unethical. But free markets are a pipe dream and, essentially, prayer mantra that don't exist. They're as realistic as a truly communist state.

Gotta agree with that. GW have engineered it, from the closed ecosystem of their shops and renaming them to "Warhammer" (as many people equate wargaming=Warhammer and GW is colloquially known as "The Warhammer shop". The latter reason being GW's own reasoning, before any white knight jumps down from their horse and accuse me of some kind of tinfoil hat theory...). Too many people only know GW, even in an environment where GW should have no control.

I've seen it happen where I live, to varying degrees of what some might call "success". There are many places I dub "GW towns", where GW has been the only game in town for so long people are reluctant to look outside of the bubble, even when the opportunity presents itself. Certain people within our local club wanted at one point it to be a "GW only" club, with no other games being played; despite GW having zero authority on said subject (one of the more misguided members was convinced they did due to the club being a part of the GCN, which was run by GW...), the irony being that a few years back for the first time ever the club had zero GW games being played one night, with WMH, X-Wing and Bolt Action taking place instead.

We got our first FLGS 6 years ago, and even there after the initial burst of people playing other games down there for the sheer novelty it wore off pretty quick, now I firmly believe this is a one-two punch of what I mentioned plus (as said FLGS owner puts it) gamers being the "flakiest bunch of people he's ever met". no-one wanting to play anything. I tried for many many wasted months to get our small group of WMH players expanded but to no avail, the players were firmly entrenched in playing 40k and/or claiming they "could not afford it" (Yes you can. Just don't buy a fething Domino's for one day... ). You have an FLGS, where GW should have zero influence in what is played there yet here we are.

stratigo wrote:


Marketing isn't business ethics, nor is it ethics of any sort. You're not a PhD in philosophy. Indeed, marketing classes are more focused on technique.

Methinks you're confusing marketing for advertising. Advertising is a subset of marketing. Marketing is the understanding, managing, and communicating of the value chain and relational exchanges. It is how one determines what the market wants, what markets or segments you want to serve, how you create products and work with customers to best meet those needs and communicate the presence and value of your product (the advertising bit) to the market, and, in a for profit enterprise, in a way that maximizes return.

GW still doesn't operate off of supply and demand.


Supply and demand isn't how many businesses operate, and many businesses thrive on creating inelastic supply so they can charge thousands for, say, insulin, something that people need or they die. Supply and demand only works on the most general level, but companies have spent billions figuring out how best to mitigate any drops in demand. It takes things like literally the world shutting down from a pandemic to really shake demand.

What GW's done is attempt to create themselves a monopoly, with some success. Strictly they aren't one world wide, but in many areas and gaming communities they really are the only game in town and you can either play GW or not wargame. This allows them to charge much higher rates then any of their supposed competitors. They rely on this dominance to create even more barriers to switching out of their products via peer pressure. They then funnel money into marketing and licensing to make it seem to low info consumers (eg, most) that they are the only hobby company out there. All of this allows for them to manage demand. And, from a strictly free market perspective, super unethical. But free markets are a pipe dream and, essentially, prayer mantra that don't exist. They're as realistic as a truly communist state.

GW's products do not have inelastic demand. They have run into such issues before, the cost of getting into WHFB by its 8th edition tanked that product line, and their mishandling of the 40k 6E-7E era saw 40k get knocked off the top selling tabletop wargaming perch (albeit not permanently) for the first time in a generation and competition from other games (especially FFG's X-Wing) ate their lunch, and they have more meaningful competition than they did in previous eras. They very much operate off of supply and demand. They have however, increasingly chosen to serve a higher end market segment than they previously did. This is expressed in many ways, such as how they don't do paperback B&W codex books anymore but instead do more expensive hardcover full color books. Characters that used to be simple infantry models or that used to be roughly Dreadnought sized often are redone to be truly huge and impressive centerpieces (Greater Daemons, Nagash, etc).

Likewise GW did not create a monopoly, they don't force retailers to only carry their product, or only host events for their games. While in many places they often are the only consistent game in town, this is much less true now in 2020 than it was in years gone by, and it's not because GW ran all the other games out of town or did something to prevent them from being played.

yukishiro1 wrote:
The price increase was a little over 10% on most cheaper kits, and a little under 10% on most expensive ones; I don't think it was 5% on anything, though I could be wrong.

Your basic point is still arguably valid, though it arguably ignores how people actually make purchases in the real world (aside from the super competitive, people tend to measure their purchases by models, not by points), and the lack of granularity - you can't buy 85% of a kit, you have to buy the whole box whether you're going to use all the models or not.

That's a fair point, a lot of people don't plan out "here is the army I'm going to build" and purchase only those models.

It is possible to buy 1%-99% of a kit through 3rd party but usually at a price.

Having played in editions before when things were "cheaper" I think one of the big problems is points cost/money cost. Adjusting the numerator slides things back into affordability and accessabilty.

Accessabilty isn't just cost but how much you have, needing to paint 45 models vs 60 models at x points due to y cost for example; less models to paint is a lower barrier to entry than more models.

I think for the past few years with the apoc bundles, the army bundles, and the boxes set bundles despite the cost of individual packs of models going up the coat to enter the hobby has gone down relative to 5th-7th edition. This of course is the cost to have models to at at x points, not necessarily specific models you want.

For example I was able to purchase 3 craftworld batrlehosts for 145 USD each after 15% off. That's 2500pts for 435 USD, you couldn't buy a 1850 or army for that much in 5th-6th. This again comes with the caveat that you are using very specific models to at with at that point, but one of these and a wake the dead set and a few other boxes would build a decent army to play with friends/club for example.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:


Ah you're taking my statement and changing what I said to drive your narrative. I didn't say the company was increasing prices to reinvest hiring or development. I said they have to run a profit to do those things. A company doesn't have the available funds to bring in competitive talent or conduct R&D if they are barely breaking even.

No, I'm taking your statement and applying it to GW, which runs 28% profit margins. 28% profit margins are not "barely breaking even." 28% profit margins are incredible. A company does not run profit margins anywhere near that high if it is concerned about its talent pool; it uses that money to invest in shoring up that weakness.

The only reason a company ever runs margins that high (aside from a one-time windfall or something like that, which is not the case here) is because it literally does not have anything it can do with that money to grow its business.

 Grimtuff wrote:

stratigo wrote:

What GW's done is attempt to create themselves a monopoly, with some success. Strictly they aren't one world wide, but in many areas and gaming communities they really are the only game in town and you can either play GW or not wargame. This allows them to charge much higher rates then any of their supposed competitors. They rely on this dominance to create even more barriers to switching out of their products via peer pressure. They then funnel money into marketing and licensing to make it seem to low info consumers (eg, most) that they are the only hobby company out there. All of this allows for them to manage demand. And, from a strictly free market perspective, super unethical. But free markets are a pipe dream and, essentially, prayer mantra that don't exist. They're as realistic as a truly communist state.

Gotta agree with that. GW have engineered it, from the closed ecosystem of their shops and renaming them to "Warhammer" (as many people equate wargaming=Warhammer and GW is colloquially known as "The Warhammer shop". The latter reason being GW's own reasoning, before any white knight jumps down from their horse and accuse me of some kind of tinfoil hat theory...). Too many people only know GW, even in an environment where GW should have no control.

I've seen it happen where I live, to varying degrees of what some might call "success". There are many places I dub "GW towns", where GW has been the only game in town for so long people are reluctant to look outside of the bubble, even when the opportunity presents itself. Certain people within our local club wanted at one point it to be a "GW only" club, with no other games being played; despite GW having zero authority on said subject (one of the more misguided members was convinced they did due to the club being a part of the GCN, which was run by GW...), the irony being that a few years back for the first time ever the club had zero GW games being played one night, with WMH, X-Wing and Bolt Action taking place instead.

We got our first FLGS 6 years ago, and even there after the initial burst of people playing other games down there for the sheer novelty it wore off pretty quick, now I firmly believe this is a one-two punch of what I mentioned plus (as said FLGS owner puts it) gamers being the "flakiest bunch of people he's ever met". no-one wanting to play anything. I tried for many many wasted months to get our small group of WMH players expanded but to no avail, the players were firmly entrenched in playing 40k and/or claiming they "could not afford it" (Yes you can. Just don't buy a fething Domino's for one day... ). You have an FLGS, where GW should have zero influence in what is played there yet here we are.

GW do not have a monopoly LOL. It sounds to me like the people you describe simply prefer Games Workshop stuff.

soviet13 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

stratigo wrote:

What GW's done is attempt to create themselves a monopoly, with some success. Strictly they aren't one world wide, but in many areas and gaming communities they really are the only game in town and you can either play GW or not wargame. This allows them to charge much higher rates then any of their supposed competitors. They rely on this dominance to create even more barriers to switching out of their products via peer pressure. They then funnel money into marketing and licensing to make it seem to low info consumers (eg, most) that they are the only hobby company out there. All of this allows for them to manage demand. And, from a strictly free market perspective, super unethical. But free markets are a pipe dream and, essentially, prayer mantra that don't exist. They're as realistic as a truly communist state.

Gotta agree with that. GW have engineered it, from the closed ecosystem of their shops and renaming them to "Warhammer" (as many people equate wargaming=Warhammer and GW is colloquially known as "The Warhammer shop". The latter reason being GW's own reasoning, before any white knight jumps down from their horse and accuse me of some kind of tinfoil hat theory...). Too many people only know GW, even in an environment where GW should have no control.

I've seen it happen where I live, to varying degrees of what some might call "success". There are many places I dub "GW towns", where GW has been the only game in town for so long people are reluctant to look outside of the bubble, even when the opportunity presents itself. Certain people within our local club wanted at one point it to be a "GW only" club, with no other games being played; despite GW having zero authority on said subject (one of the more misguided members was convinced they did due to the club being a part of the GCN, which was run by GW...), the irony being that a few years back for the first time ever the club had zero GW games being played one night, with WMH, X-Wing and Bolt Action taking place instead.

We got our first FLGS 6 years ago, and even there after the initial burst of people playing other games down there for the sheer novelty it wore off pretty quick, now I firmly believe this is a one-two punch of what I mentioned plus (as said FLGS owner puts it) gamers being the "flakiest bunch of people he's ever met". no-one wanting to play anything. I tried for many many wasted months to get our small group of WMH players expanded but to no avail, the players were firmly entrenched in playing 40k and/or claiming they "could not afford it" (Yes you can. Just don't buy a fething Domino's for one day... ). You have an FLGS, where GW should have zero influence in what is played there yet here we are.

GW do not have a monopoly LOL. It sounds to me like the people you describe simply prefer Games Workshop stuff.

I suggest you look up the word "de facto" and come back once you understand what that means and what we are saying....

stratigo wrote:

Tavis75 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
It's still insanely expensive compared to most non - GW games.

Is GW stuff really that much more expensive than other companies products? Saw people on here complaining about the latest price rise and saying they would be switching to Marvel Crisis Protocol, went and had a look at that and you're generally looking at £39.99 for two human sized models, so pretty close to GWs character model prices and the model quality looks a long way behind, looks similar to the FFG Star Wars Legion stuff. You do get a few cards etc. but I remember people moaning about the traitor command set for Blackstone Fortress from GW being ridiculously overpriced, and that's 2 models (one larger than human sized) and some cards (including thick cardstock) and it's £37.50.

I haven't bought crisis protocol, but I have seen many of the models and... they look just as good as GW models. I don't know why you're slagging them off for their appearance. They're good models.

One can't argue the aesthetic, if he thinks MCP models look worse then so be it. I mean, being as objective as you can they all have a very clearly established base line for how they are supposed to look, given some of the characters have been around for approaching a century, they mostly very closely resemble what they're supposed to. I don't know what else you'd want?

As for price? Well that's a massive red herring.

The cost per model is high, but you only need 3 or 4 to play a game, from a choice of 10 (the points size of a game is arrived at as part of the game set up, so you "draft" a team from your roster of 10, you only actually need 3-5 models for a game, so that can be worked around with a cooperative opponent.) All rules are included with the model, so there is no cost of rules supplements and the core rules are free to download.

I wouldn't hold it up as a paragon of economy wargaming (the mouse needs his pound of flesh after all) but it is still much easier to experience the game in a full and rounded fashion for much less money than you can with 40K.

I don't understand what you're arguing now? Yes GW is currently running a 28% profit margin - Companies don't plan out that kind of profit margin it happens when things go right for a Company. They are also using that profit margin to exponentially expand - films, tv shows, kids shows, phone games, videogames, etc... To expand into those kinds of 'unexplored' avenues for a company that makes plastic toy Soldiers they have to find the right talent and right executives to explore those avenues.

If they weren't making a profit do you think they would expand?

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:


Ah you're taking my statement and changing what I said to drive your narrative. I didn't say the company was increasing prices to reinvest hiring or development. I said they have to run a profit to do those things. A company doesn't have the available funds to bring in competitive talent or conduct R&D if they are barely breaking even.

No, I'm taking your statement and applying it to GW, which runs 28% profit margins. 28% profit margins are not "barely breaking even." 28% profit margins are incredible. A company does not run profit margins anywhere near that high if it is concerned about its talent pool; it uses that money to invest in shoring up that weakness.

The only reason a company ever runs margins that high (aside from a one-time windfall or something like that, which is not the case here) is because it literally does not have anything it can do with that money to grow its business.

It isn't just a question of whether the business survives or not though. I want GW not just to survive but to prosper, because I want them to still be there in 5 years and 10 years and forever on. I want them to still have a store near me so I can get my models and paints whenever suits me. I want them to continue raising the bar on detailed, spectacular, centrepiece kits. I want them to take risks by making new factions like the Arkanauts and reworking old factions like Sisters and Necrons (and OMG hopefully one day Eldar). I want them to make plastic kits for niche options like Salamander accessory sprues and female Genestealer Magi that might not sell as much as other options.

All of these things come from a business that prospers but they probably don't come from a business that just gets by.











Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

soviet13 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

stratigo wrote:

What GW's done is attempt to create themselves a monopoly, with some success. Strictly they aren't one world wide, but in many areas and gaming communities they really are the only game in town and you can either play GW or not wargame. This allows them to charge much higher rates then any of their supposed competitors. They rely on this dominance to create even more barriers to switching out of their products via peer pressure. They then funnel money into marketing and licensing to make it seem to low info consumers (eg, most) that they are the only hobby company out there. All of this allows for them to manage demand. And, from a strictly free market perspective, super unethical. But free markets are a pipe dream and, essentially, prayer mantra that don't exist. They're as realistic as a truly communist state.

Gotta agree with that. GW have engineered it, from the closed ecosystem of their shops and renaming them to "Warhammer" (as many people equate wargaming=Warhammer and GW is colloquially known as "The Warhammer shop". The latter reason being GW's own reasoning, before any white knight jumps down from their horse and accuse me of some kind of tinfoil hat theory...). Too many people only know GW, even in an environment where GW should have no control.

I've seen it happen where I live, to varying degrees of what some might call "success". There are many places I dub "GW towns", where GW has been the only game in town for so long people are reluctant to look outside of the bubble, even when the opportunity presents itself. Certain people within our local club wanted at one point it to be a "GW only" club, with no other games being played; despite GW having zero authority on said subject (one of the more misguided members was convinced they did due to the club being a part of the GCN, which was run by GW...), the irony being that a few years back for the first time ever the club had zero GW games being played one night, with WMH, X-Wing and Bolt Action taking place instead.

We got our first FLGS 6 years ago, and even there after the initial burst of people playing other games down there for the sheer novelty it wore off pretty quick, now I firmly believe this is a one-two punch of what I mentioned plus (as said FLGS owner puts it) gamers being the "flakiest bunch of people he's ever met". no-one wanting to play anything. I tried for many many wasted months to get our small group of WMH players expanded but to no avail, the players were firmly entrenched in playing 40k and/or claiming they "could not afford it" (Yes you can. Just don't buy a fething Domino's for one day... ). You have an FLGS, where GW should have zero influence in what is played there yet here we are.

GW do not have a monopoly LOL. It sounds to me like the people you describe simply prefer Games Workshop stuff.

I suggest you look up the word "de facto" and come back once you understand what that means and what we are saying....

De facto is two words and I know what it means. What do you think they have a de facto monopoly on? Wargaming? Their own models? How do they maintain this monopoly?

 Jjohnso11 wrote:

Spoiler:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:


Ah you're taking my statement and changing what I said to drive your narrative. I didn't say the company was increasing prices to reinvest hiring or development. I said they have to run a profit to do those things. A company doesn't have the available funds to bring in competitive talent or conduct R&D if they are barely breaking even.

No, I'm taking your statement and applying it to GW, which runs 28% profit margins. 28% profit margins are not "barely breaking even." 28% profit margins are incredible. A company does not run profit margins anywhere near that high if it is concerned about its talent pool; it uses that money to invest in shoring up that weakness.

The only reason a company ever runs margins that high (aside from a one-time windfall or something like that, which is not the case here) is because it literally does not have anything it can do with that money to grow its business.

I don't understand what you're arguing now? Yes GW is currently running a 28% profit margin - Companies don't plan out that kind of profit margin it happens when things go right for a Company. They are also using that profit margin to exponentially expand - films, tv shows, kids shows, phone games, videogames, etc... To expand into those kinds of 'unexplored' avenues for a company that makes plastic toy Soldiers they have to find the right talent and right executives to explore those avenues.

If they weren't making a profit do you think they would expand?

What I don't think you've got is he's talking about the money left over after they've paid for all the things you're talking about.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:

Spoiler:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:


Ah you're taking my statement and changing what I said to drive your narrative. I didn't say the company was increasing prices to reinvest hiring or development. I said they have to run a profit to do those things. A company doesn't have the available funds to bring in competitive talent or conduct R&D if they are barely breaking even.

No, I'm taking your statement and applying it to GW, which runs 28% profit margins. 28% profit margins are not "barely breaking even." 28% profit margins are incredible. A company does not run profit margins anywhere near that high if it is concerned about its talent pool; it uses that money to invest in shoring up that weakness.

The only reason a company ever runs margins that high (aside from a one-time windfall or something like that, which is not the case here) is because it literally does not have anything it can do with that money to grow its business.

I don't understand what you're arguing now? Yes GW is currently running a 28% profit margin - Companies don't plan out that kind of profit margin it happens when things go right for a Company. They are also using that profit margin to exponentially expand - films, tv shows, kids shows, phone games, videogames, etc... To expand into those kinds of 'unexplored' avenues for a company that makes plastic toy Soldiers they have to find the right talent and right executives to explore those avenues.

If they weren't making a profit do you think they would expand?

What I don't think you've got is he's talking about the money left over after they've paid for all the things you're talking about.

For maintaining existing staff yes but any new hires would have to be paid for out of that profit margin.