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.

 Jidmah wrote:
Thanks for posting the video, it was quite interesting.

The only thing that bugged me is that he used the plague marine reinforcements box to get to 10 plague marines. That box was specifically announced to be a collector item and not meant for getting the best bang for your bucks, especially since we also had ETB plague marines until recently.

That said, I agree that it doesn't represent the price hikes that have been going on properly. I started getting into the game somewhere near the end of 4th/beginning of 5th and I still have invoices from wayland games were the exact same models we can buy today are almost 50% less expensive than they are now, which means that the price hike from 1997 was to 2020 is roughly the same as the price hike from 2010 to 2020.

Plus the prices were not always consistent across countries. I went to Germany in 2000/2001ish and the regiment boxes there were 30dm. Back then the exchange rate was 3dm to £1 so they were still a tenner a box there. I only remember that quite distinctly as I immediately bragged to my friends back home how I'd found a bunch of cheap(er) 40k stuff after the UK had had its recent price hike on them, taking them up to £12 IIRC.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It is a very disengenuous stance for the video to take, intentionally manipulating the data to portray an altered picture of what is actually there. Basically the same as the ideological spin US news puts on everything these days, no surprise it's getting some eye rolls.

The majority of the 'big' Warhammer YouTube channels are now more or less influencers or people trying to get GW's attention to become the former now. Whilst I can hardly be called unbias when it comes to the opposite opinion, the painful spin of it does reek of the usual YouTuber "golly gee aren't GW great fellow consumner? Check out my next video where wonderful and glorious GW sent me the latest release for free to """review"""!"

About the only channels I can watch these days are battle reports and painters who do things other than tongue bathe GW models exclusively. The rest either seem to be those damn 'lore' channels where they just read straight off the wiki, or an extension of GW's marketing department.

 Arbitrator wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It is a very disengenuous stance for the video to take, intentionally manipulating the data to portray an altered picture of what is actually there. Basically the same as the ideological spin US news puts on everything these days, no surprise it's getting some eye rolls.

The majority of the 'big' Warhammer YouTube channels are more or less influencers/people trying to get GW's attention to become the former now. Whilst I can hardly be called unbias when it comes to the opposite opinion, the painful spin of it does reek of the usual YouTuber "golly gee aren't GW great fellow consumner? Check out my next video where wonderful and glorious GW sent me the latest release for free to """review"""!"

It's frankly like games journalism on youtube: the hallmark of a good reviewer is, if he (or she) doesn't get review copies anymore from a whole slew of companies.

Germany at that time had odd pricing everywhere though because it was right before the change to Euro - prices everywhere basically froze during that time and then almost doubled when the new currency was officially to be used.

In addition, the British pound was always much more valuable than the German Mark, while the Euro is roughly the same.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It is a very disengenuous stance for the video to take, intentionally manipulating the data to portray an altered picture of what is actually there. Basically the same as the ideological spin US news puts on everything these days, no surprise it's getting some eye rolls.

The majority of the 'big' Warhammer YouTube channels are more or less influencers/people trying to get GW's attention to become the former now. Whilst I can hardly be called unbias when it comes to the opposite opinion, the painful spin of it does reek of the usual YouTuber "golly gee aren't GW great fellow consumner? Check out my next video where wonderful and glorious GW sent me the latest release for free to """review"""!"

It's frankly like games journalism on youtube: the hallmark of a good reviewer is, if he (or she) doesn't get review copies anymore from a whole slew of companies.

Unfortunately it seems that unlike video games, it's largely the shill channels who manage to trigger the algorithms and overwhelmingly get the views. That probably has a lot more to do with how fewer wargaming channels there are to video games of course, but it could also be to do with people wanting their opinions reaffirmed - having Valrak stop short of wetting himself every time a new Primaris kit's out will do a lot to affirm someone's expensive purchase I suppose.

 Jidmah wrote:
Germany at that time had odd pricing everywhere though because it was right before the change to Euro - prices everywhere basically froze during that time and then almost doubled when the new currency was officially to be used.

In addition, the British pound was always much more valuable than the German Mark, while the Euro is roughly the same.

Yeah, not been back recently; but to teenage me it was like stumbling on a gold mine as the deep discounters weren't really a thing back then. It was buy GW retail prices or jog on.

 Jidmah wrote:
Thanks for posting the video, it was quite interesting.

The only thing that bugged me is that he used the plague marine reinforcements box to get to 10 plague marines. That box was specifically announced to be a collector item and not meant for getting the best bang for your bucks, especially since we also had ETB plague marines until recently.

That said, I agree that it doesn't represent the price hikes that have been going on properly. I started getting into the game somewhere near the end of 4th/beginning of 5th and I still have invoices from wayland games were the exact same models we can buy today are almost 50% less expensive than they are now, which means that the price hike from 1997 was to 2020 is roughly the same as the price hike from 2010 to 2020.

Yeah, in fact orks in 2008-2010 were actually cheaper than orks in mid-late 90s when most of the stuff were metal or plastic+metal. In 3rd edition to field a typical squad of boyz the ork player needed to buy the plastic infantry kit (16 dudes) then a blister with a metal nob and 2-3 blisters with orks with special weapons, because in 3rd spamming as many special weapons in all infantry squads was the way to go. In 5th edition getting two plastic boxes, cheaper than the older 16man kit, was enough to field a functioning squad, probably even redundant.

Warbikes were sold in packs of 1, then in packs of 3 with just double the price, not 3x.

Let's not even start with gretchins which were sold in packs of 3 or 4 and you also needed another blister with the runtherd. 8+ single metal blisters just to field the 99 points unit.

Price hikes from 1997 to 2010 weren't significant, in fact many things were actually cheaper. Price hikes from 2010 to 2020 are significant though.

 Arbitrator wrote:

About the only channels I can watch these days are battle reports and painters who do things other than tongue bathe GW models exclusively. The rest either seem to be those damn 'lore' channels where they just read straight off the wiki, or an extension of GW's marketing department.

Likewise. Miniac is one of my personal faves as he covers a lot of stuff, not just GW. Same for BlackMagicCraft.

As for lore, seriously- look into Oculus Imperia, they're a relatively new channel where the entire thing is done in an in-universe style. The narrator plays one of the new Logos Historica that have been appointed by Gulliman so it is done 100% kayfabe and not just reading from the Wiki like so many other channels (*cough* Onemindsyndcate *cough*) do.

 Arbitrator wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It is a very disengenuous stance for the video to take, intentionally manipulating the data to portray an altered picture of what is actually there. Basically the same as the ideological spin US news puts on everything these days, no surprise it's getting some eye rolls.

The majority of the 'big' Warhammer YouTube channels are more or less influencers/people trying to get GW's attention to become the former now. Whilst I can hardly be called unbias when it comes to the opposite opinion, the painful spin of it does reek of the usual YouTuber "golly gee aren't GW great fellow consumner? Check out my next video where wonderful and glorious GW sent me the latest release for free to """review"""!"

It's frankly like games journalism on youtube: the hallmark of a good reviewer is, if he (or she) doesn't get review copies anymore from a whole slew of companies.

Unfortunately it seems that unlike video games, it's largely the shill channels who manage to trigger the algorithms and overwhelmingly get the views. That probably has a lot more to do with how fewer wargaming channels there are to video games of course, but it could also be to do with people wanting their opinions reaffirmed - having Valrak stop short of wetting himself every time a new Primaris kit's out will do a lot to affirm someone's expensive purchase I suppose.

now now, no need to be mean to valrak.
But yeah, overall , more sceptical channels do indeed seem to get the "short end" from the algorithm.
The price hikes though are also often just an "issue" for veterans really. I mean, someone wants to start guard now he will never know that he could've had double the minis for the same price as now for the half.
Then there is the whole GW cosmos, which if you leave and go look for 3rd parties, something also more often done by vets, suddendly show the kind of margins GW is working with.
F.e. i can get 30 28mm plastic figures with 90 head options from Wargames atlantic, which do look better then the cadians for the same price 10 cadians cost me.

 catbarf wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That is a different (and entirely valid) topic.]

The video is comparing the cost of 10 Catachans in 1997 to the cost of 10 Catachans in 2020 directly.

Otherwise we’d need to look into what 10 metal Catachans cost immediately prior to the 20 strong box of plastics as well.

Again, that is of course an entirely valid discussion topic. But, isn’t covered in the video we’re discussing.

Cherry picking by having that book. Somebody has prices of year x feel free to do.

Newsflash: to compare prices of year x you need to have prices of that year at hand. Who holds pricelist of every year? Lol. Do you? If not stop the high attitude, he used what he had available

If the purpose of the video is 'have GW's prices actually trended upwards in excess of inflation?', then cherry-picking a year that represents a historical high point, prior to the release less-expensive and still-current models, does not accurately or completely answer the question.

If the question was 'were GW models in specifically 1997 less expensive than their current design equivalents after accounting for inflation?', then it'd be accurate. But it's clearly making a much more general point than that.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Sentinel kit has changed. Original had a choice of Multi-Laser or Heavy Flamer, with further weapons added as Hybrid Kits.

The current one offers all the weapon options, and if memory serves, leg articulation.

Ok ya got me but I ask you considering the Armageddon Steel Legion sentinel was also cheap and that had different weapons. Is leg articulation really deserving the extra £10+ price tag?

Personally, not a chance in hell. But that's just me. I can't really accept the fact that they make you pay more money for 10 models than you used to for 20 for the same kit. I like horde armies and that there sucks the big time.

I give him A for effort, but it's another incomplete explanation that will do little more than stir the pot.

 oni wrote:
I give him A for effort, but it's another incomplete explanation that will do little more than stir the pot.

Yeah. It seems like people constantly try to push the agenda that GW isn't that expensive by making poor comparisons or just really don't understand why it's commonly thought of being more expensive than their competition.

So things like this come off as little more than pro-GW propaganda

Well that will stop me moaning about prices. (A bit)

 KRakarth wrote:
Well that will stop me moaning about prices. (A bit)

not really, because the video is faulty AF.

Something touched on earlier was an increase in the quality of the models, leading to a higher cost.

Now, quite frankly, improvement is something that every company should be striving for. And it most certainly does not have to come with increase costs.

However, the other aspect is whether some of the "increases in quality" have even been warranted. For example, I'd put forth that many people would prefer that troop units be affordable and of adequate quality than expensive but very high quality.

Likewise, we've seen models - even very basic HQ/Elite choices - turn from single characters into entire dioramas. This again seems like an unnecessary "improvement", and something that should be done as a special edition or promotional model, not as the standard version of such.

This can also be seen in other areas, like Codices. My 5th edition DE book was ~£15.50. It had a lot of nice artwork, fluff and other stuff. However, the 7th edition and 8th edition DE books were about £25.00. Most of the art has been replaced by photoghraphs of the models (you know, exactly like the ones in catalogues that other companies give away for free), and the ones that are there are poorly-drawn and/or badly-coloured. But it was a hardback book with high-quality paper, so of course it had to cost much more.

The problem is, these are not long-term books. Because every new book invalidates the previous ones. Hence, I would much rather stick with the cheaper, softback books than these glorified adverts.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that, unless you are increasing quality without also increasing cost, it seems well worth considering whether such an increase is necessary in the first place.

Inflation is the poors man invisible tax. Theres a ton of economic theory around it , but no, GW has become MUCH more expensive, not only accounting for inflation.

Wayniac wrote:

 oni wrote:
I give him A for effort, but it's another incomplete explanation that will do little more than stir the pot.

Yeah. It seems like people constantly try to push the agenda that GW isn't that expensive by making poor comparisons or just really don't understand why it's commonly thought of being more expensive than their competition.

So things like this come off as little more than pro-GW propaganda

That wasn’t the conclusion though, was it?

At no point did he say GW isn’t expensive. Rather, he was able to demonstrate that comparing prices from two fixed points show the price rises may not be as bad as they look on first impressions.

Again, this is a snapshot type thing. It’s not in-depth and doesn’t claim or pretend to be.

Sure, some kits were even better value before being resized and repriced (oh hi Imperial Guard). But that happened between the two fixed points used as reference. It’s 100% a solid conversation that should be had - but it’s a different subject to the one in the video.

My income has increased significantly since 1997 so economics are not the issue. I refuse to spend money on GW's expensive models because I have a higher rules standard than what they are willing to provide. I spend much more on hobby stuff now but only painting supplies from GW.

Tyel wrote:
Its a regular claim that wages have been static in the UK and US - but while I can't speak for the US, this doesn't really make sense based on consumer behaviour.

You'd expect consumption of all sorts of hobbies, entertainments, holidays etc to be static - or even declining, and at least prior to this year, it clear wasn't. This isn't meant to lead to some "haha, millennials eating that avocado toast again" takes - but this idea we are all penniless and hard up is hard to square with that reality. Especially since I'm pretty sure housing costs have gone up above inflation, as have probably other base essentials like energy. Food has gone down, but I'm not sure that would make enough of a difference.

Compared to cost of living increases wages have roughly stayed static or many people have had a real terms decline in wealth. However some people are better of, I.e although your statement is true at national level there are some individuals who are worse off since 2008 and some who are better of.

Also the government has increased tax free earning Threshold every year since 2008 so if you income hasn’t gone up your tax burden has gone down.

What would be interesting to see is what types of industry 40K players tend to be in because some industries have done well in terms of of salary increases and some have done worse. Let’s be a bit simple and suggest that many 40K fans work in IT. This is an industry that has performed well regardless of recession and there fore we could see the typical 40K fan is better off now than they were a decade ago, let alone 1997.

Also let’s assume that most people get into 40K young and then stay with the hobby for a 10-20 years. Typically people earn ore as they get older as there career advances.

This is the kind of detail you need to look at.

If all 40K players in UK were NHS nurses then GW would have gone out of business.

Ladies and Gentlemen, and those who are yet to decide (and indeed all the variations in between)?

Remember Dakka’s No Politics rule.

I fear we’re skirting that boundary right now.

mrFickle wrote:


Also let’s assume that most people get into 40K young and then stay with the hobby for a 10-20 years. Typically people earn ore as they get older as there career advances.

This is the key point. The average age of the GW customer has gone up dramatically over the 35ish years of the game's history - probably by decades - and with it, their spending ability. When 40k came out in '87 it would have been rare to see someone beyond the mid-30s playing the game and the target audience was teenage boys; now those same people are potentially in their 60s, with some still playing the game, and the average age of a 40k player is probably closer to 40 than to 20.

You can always tell who is shilling for GW when they leave out switching from Metal to Plastics and the change in value of the product.

Their production costs went drastically down but the prices went up, reasonably sure that doesn't correlate with inflation.

Compare that to Laptop computers. 2005 average price was 1k. In 2015 it went down to under $700. Why did the price go down? Because production costs went down and they passed the savings onto the customers. GW chose to go the opposite direction

SemperMortis wrote:
You can always tell who is shilling for GW when they leave out switching from Metal to Plastics and the change in value of the product.

Their production costs went drastically down but the prices went up, reasonably sure that doesn't correlate with inflation.

Compare that to Laptop computers. 2005 average price was 1k. In 2015 it went down to under $700. Why did the price go down? Because production costs went down and they passed the savings onto the customers. GW chose to go the opposite direction

Gw has ip quasi monopoloy. That allows them to not be exposed to as much competition therefore there less pressure to Pass on savings.

I also expect that GW now design their minis on a computer rather than sculpting and original model to make a cast. That must be cheaper (he says knowing nothing about this)

The comparison to laptops isn’t that useful though because laptops exist in a world where theirs is a computer in almost every house so you can drop prices and still increase profit.

If GW dropped their prices I don’t think their customer base would increase dramatically. So if GW want to get filthy rich they need to jack up their margin

Hearing about the Silent King's price tag led me to examine some anecdotal math; My first Marine army was purchased all at once: two tac squads, a Rhino, a Dreadnought, a Terminator squad, a Land speeder, a Chaplain, and a Whirlwind, as well as the core rulebook, the Marines codex, a paint set (and a couple on top, but I leave those out because I can't remember which ones or how many), the tools, scatter dice, and a can of primer spray. I feel like an Assault Squad may have been involved, but I'm unsure enough about that to leave it out.

The green LEDs of the Pegasus Games downtown branch cash register is still burned into my brain, because at the time it had me facepalming, partially unable to believe the stupidity of my financial decisions: USD$283.76. I know this was in 2001, because the 3rd Edition Tyranid Codex was the new hotness at the time.

Local sales tax of the store in question is 5.5%, so that calculates to $268.97 USD, which is roughly in line with what I recall them costing at the time, having added that up separately.

I calculate all that together now, using current prices; It comes to $526.75 USD, a markup of 196% when the inflation markup should be 147%; 49% over what was needed to be static from 2001 to 2020.

 CEO Kasen wrote:
Hearing about the Silent King's price tag led me to examine some anecdotal math; My first Marine army was purchased all at once: two tac squads, a Rhino, a Dreadnought, a Terminator squad, a Land speeder, a Chaplain, and a Whirlwind, as well as the core rulebook, the Marines codex, a paint set (and a couple on top, but I leave those out because I can't remember which ones or how many), the tools, scatter dice, and a can of primer spray. I feel like an Assault Squad may have been involved, but I'm unsure enough about that to leave it out.

The green LEDs of the Pegasus Games downtown branch cash register is still burned into my brain, because at the time it had me facepalming, partially unable to believe the stupidity of my financial decisions: USD$283.76. I know this was in 2001, because the 3rd Edition Tyranid Codex was the new hotness at the time.

Local sales tax of the store in question is 5.5%, so that calculates to $268.97 USD, which is roughly in line with what I recall them costing at the time, having added that up separately.

I calculate all that together now, using current prices; It comes to $526.75 USD, a markup of 196% when the inflation markup should be 147%; 49% over what was needed to be static from 2001 to 2020.

Ain't it funny, btw , that is just the consumer side, the production side technically also GOT alot cheaper. Which is not calculated in this, for it is simply to exemplify GW fantasy infaltion and conversion rates.

BTW did you eliminate potential hikes on sales taxes?

yukishiro1 wrote:
and the average age of a 40k player is probably closer to 40 than to 20.

That might be true where you are, but it sure doesn't match my experience. The vast majority of 40K players where I am are still teenage boys from middle-class families, exactly the same as it's been for the 30-ish years I've been in this hobby.

 vipoid wrote:

This can also be seen in other areas, like Codices. My 5th edition DE book was ~£15.50. It had a lot of nice artwork, fluff and other stuff. However, the 7th edition and 8th edition DE books were about £25.00. Most of the art has been replaced by photoghraphs of the models (you know, exactly like the ones in catalogues that other companies give away for free), and the ones that are there are poorly-drawn and/or badly-coloured. But it was a hardback book with high-quality paper, so of course it had to cost much more.
.

£ for upgrade to hardback doesn't seem that bad. More durability is always nice


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mrFickle wrote:
I also expect that GW now design their minis on a computer rather than sculpting and original model to make a cast. That must be cheaper (he says knowing nothing about this)

Not really. The big price is the cost of mould. That remains the same.

Insistation on plastic for everything does drive up prices for elites and characters though.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

I calculate all that together now, using current prices; It comes to $526.75 USD, a markup of 196% when the inflation markup should be 147%; 49% over what was needed to be static from 2001 to 2020.

and you won't have a standard size army from the above boxes