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.

MtG is the biggest money sink on the planet. I will never go back to that nightmare good rules or not.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
GWs biggest long term failure is that they are slow to realize that by improving their rules writing they will grow their market share. Releasing tons of minis is great and works well, and follows the monetizing mode of video games that use “custom skins” etc. But what has made a game like magic the gathering eternal is the fact that the rules are considered to be well designed and so it entices new people to pick the game up. GW products are still considered to be a “dark shame” because the game system is weak and poorly designed relative to other war games. And that is their own doing. Dungeons and dragons and magic the gathering endure because of their game design. GW will endure through elegant model design, but by neglecting to write good rules, they do concede market share.

Not sure about this. To whom are they losing their market share with their "bad rules?" A Magic player is not necessarily a lost 40K player - they might have not inclination to miniatures. And what is this "dark shame?" Are we playing the same game?

Lots of fans of strategy games are turned off by GW sloppy rules writing..skewed list building, weird gaming of unintended edge-cases and so on. Im not saying MTG or D&D are perfect...I am simply saying that those games are loved because of the perception that the designers care about their ruleset. Whereas GW games tend to be loved more for their models. If GW paid more attention to their rules they would draw in more players who want to play a strategy game more than they want to horde model kits.

I am not sure D&D is a good counter example. If anything I see it in the same boat as 40k. Both are popular to the point of being dominant, readily available and well supported, but uninspired rules wise with better if niche alternatives available for most aspect thereof.

Thus, GW may have a viable business strategy, but it is lacking in some or many aspects and does alienate portions of the market.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
MtG is the biggest money sink on the planet. I will never go back to that nightmare good rules or not.

The cost is pretty bad right now, yes. The game is still fun, for the most part. You can play Commander without an expensive deck, and of course there's Pauper, there best format.

I would argue the key difference is, deservedly or not (usually not) the cards do have their present value, and powerful cards usually keep it to a degree.

Blastaar wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
MtG is the biggest money sink on the planet. I will never go back to that nightmare good rules or not.

The cost is pretty bad right now, yes. The game is still fun, for the most part. You can play Commander without an expensive deck, and of course there's Pauper, there best format.

I would argue the key difference is, deservedly or not (usually not) the cards do have their present value, and powerful cards usually keep it to a degree.

There are also free ways to play MtG in both physical and digital formats. My playgroup proxies cards by printing them and sleeving them over lands so we can all afford to play and don't have to put arbitrary price restrictions on our decks, it won't work for playing at a shop or sanctioned event but it's 100% legal and with an eco tank printer nearly free after the start-up cost.

Yea I am foiled by my desire to be overly competitive. I tried online, but just felt like I was treading water against people who bought decks/packs.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea I am foiled by my desire to be overly competitive. I tried online, but just felt like I was treading water against people who bought decks/packs.

Have you tried MtG Arena? I hear that with the wild cards it's pretty easy to get a deck or two that works in Standard for essentially free.

EDIT: You'll still hit that treading water point but that's kind of the point of a skill-based matchmaking system. You'll go 50/50 until you figure out the meta/fall off the meta and start to rise or sink again. It can be frustrating but also a great challenge for your skills.

I know the MtG comparison crops up a lot, but it just is not comparable to 40k. Not even apples to oranges, more like apples to potatoes.

MtG is a money sink as well as 40k or more

yet, buying a premade Deck Box to play at home with wife and kids is a no-brainer
while doing the same with 40k, will cost much more and you know in advance that unless everyone gets the same Marine Patrol Box the fun will be one sided

Sadly the answer is NO.

Gw has skyrocketed ever since Kirby left and the transition toward 8th and 9th edition philosophies that focus on army building.

It has been a resounding success and will probably continue to be. Espically so if via word of mouth and friendship groups the hobby continues to be exposed to more people.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I know the MtG comparison crops up a lot, but it just is not comparable to 40k. Not even apples to oranges, more like apples to potatoes.

If you asked the French they would be inclined to disagree; apples are very much like potatoes!

 Wunzlez wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I know the MtG comparison crops up a lot, but it just is not comparable to 40k. Not even apples to oranges, more like apples to potatoes.

If you asked the French they would be inclined to disagree; apples are very much like potatoes!

J'ai compris cette référence

Tango you forget the days when Warmachine was on a strong rise and Warhammer was losing many of its more experienced players. Models were good, but the rules were dire and updates were sluggishly slow. Armies could wait and miss whole editions before getting a rules update.

It's not until 9th edition and 2.0 for AoS that GW actually managed to update armies within a year of a new edition (something every other firm does on mostly the same day as a new edition).

GW's rules have always been a bit loose on the specific and balance, mostly because of the attitude and style of how they make them and the staff involved. They don't use technical writing as well as they could or should by this stage and other firms do show them up.

What masks it is model quality; market dominance; ease of getting into the game and also things like marketing and their ability to be the first port of call. Good lore and artwork also helps be a big draw.




In short its not as bad now as it was, but GW still has a longish road to travel toward better writing and balance. I think they are slowly heading along the right path, but they aren't going full speed.

In a way its surprising that they've actually avoided the whole concept of "geek sports" which almost every other major game or such that has built up over the last 20 odd years has reached out for with open arms. GW didn't even get into online streaming until very late

In short its not as bad now as it was, but GW still has a longish road to travel toward better writing and balance. I think they are slowly heading along the right path, but they aren't going full speed.

I don't think it is that level of a timeline.

The switch between RPG esq 2nd and squad battle 3rd was a huge change for the game. even with 3rd/4th still more focused on lore based rules in stand alone codexes it wasn't until 5th that the core rules themselves really became universally acceptable. aside from the most notable codex power creep problems with certain writers *cough* matt ward *cough* and the marketing department along with the apparent lack of internal communications between the codex writing teams talking to each other or not even understanding the core rules of their own game from time to time. the game was actually headed in a good direction until the disaster that was 6th edition hit the shelves. with a slight bounce for the "fixed" 7th edition that later killed itself on the alter of formation spam(that 30K once again fixed).

So players who are new converts may think the game is on the right path with 9th especially if they knew nothing prior to 8th. however there is a general revolt among many veteran players about the path the game is currently on both in core rules and release focus. one has to only look at the popularity of the pro-hammer and old hammer topics to see this.


As another example of this as somebody who has been playing actively for 20 years, aside from the abstract market discussions or lore discussion i have all but stopped following 40Ks new releases. i don't know about any of the rules updates or new units for primaris or any other force for that matter in the last 6 months or so and frankly do not care. I am having great fun playing 5th, or battlefleet gothic, epic or some other non-GW game.

 aphyon wrote:

So players who are new converts may think the game is on the right path with 9th especially if they knew nothing prior to 8th. however there is a general revolt among many veteran players about the path the game is currently on both in core rules and release focus. one has to only look at the popularity of the pro-hammer and old hammer topics to see this.


As another example of this as somebody who has been playing actively for 20 years, aside from the abstract market discussions or lore discussion i have all but stopped following 40Ks new releases. i don't know about any of the rules updates or new units for primaris or any other force for that matter in the last 6 months or so and frankly do not care. I am having great fun playing 5th, or battlefleet gothic, epic or some other non-GW game.

I've been playing now for....32 years.

Beware about claiming a consensus on the grognards. You'll also see people peel off book by book when their army gets sorted.

I don't think it is that level of a timeline.

It very much is. GW went too fast for their capabilities in 8th. I hope they go fast in 9th, but with more experience and care.

Profits keep going up so people must keep buying it. In increasing numbers. So I can’t see how they are shouting themselves in the foot. Would anyone care to venture the price point at which they will step away from the hobby. GW, like other companies such as Apple, are very good at creating demand amongst their existing customers. And every now and then they will throw us something that’s very good value for money. Indomitus for example.

The running joke of the backlog of models that every collector has is A) mostly true and B) evidence that people are going to buy things they don’t need at the point of purchase

I've been playing now for....32 years.

Beware about claiming a consensus on the grognards. You'll also see people peel off book by book when their army gets sorted.

Weee i started playing TT miniatures (classic battletech in 1987/88) only 40K since 2,000.

The point stands, there is a movement/interest on the part of a segment of the veteran gamers away from 9th for various reasons that newer players do not understand.

 Overread wrote:
Tango you forget the days when Warmachine was on a strong rise and Warhammer was losing many of its more experienced players. Models were good, but the rules were dire and updates were sluggishly slow. Armies could wait and miss whole editions before getting a rules update.

It's not until 9th edition and 2.0 for AoS that GW actually managed to update armies within a year of a new edition (something every other firm does on mostly the same day as a new edition).

I suppose you are right - to your point I stepped out of 40K when 7th came out. I came back for 8th. Why did I leave? I had grown increasingly disenchanted in 6th Ed. Deployed for a year, came back to see 7th being played and stopped. I was playing FOW at the time. I saw Warmachine being played - didn't interest me due to a combo of unengaging lore, unengaging models and a play style that did not set the hook.

Can rules drive away players? Sure. Are there diminishing marginal returns on "rules improvements" in terms of retaining/attracting new players? Probably. I am no market analyst, but I figure that players are attacted and retained by a combination of models, lore/background, rules and the ability to get a game in.

I do not see players being driven away right now by rules. COVID makes it hard to judge, but our local 40K game scene was active before COVID hit and came back between lockdowns. New 40K stuff sells out. If you are looking for Warmachine you can find it under the Infinity models in the 50% discount bin.

I started in 2nd Ed, and I found 3rd Ed very jarring. 5th had some good moments, but I have no interest in going back in time to play that edition. I could get behind playing the odd game of 2nd Ed for nostalgia. Its anecdotal, but there are returning players in my area who played 2nd/3rd and have returned for 8th/9th.

Edit - to try to come back to the thread, I suppose that price is also a factor. Entry cost for new players is probably important, perhaps more so than for veterans? Having said that, when I came back from deployment in 2015 I had no interest in forking out for books to keep up with an edition change that didn't seem to be an improvement. The 9th Edition Starter Sets certainly seem to be aimed at folks considering jumping in with regards to price and what you get. The Patrol Boxes are a mixed bag, but I they seem OK in terms of value for someone taking the plunge.

Going back to the OP. It’s kind of a conclusion looking for evidence to support it.

Are GW putting up prices? Yes.

Have they always increased prices? Also yes.

Is this their sole strategy? Absolutely not.

They have their stores for recruitment. They also have officials tie-ins with both The Scout Movement and Duke of Edinburgh, both sizeable youth organisations within the U.K.

We’ve also seen a massive diversification in their offerings in a relatively short period of time.

It’s really not that long ago they only offered 40K and WHFB. Two games, both quite long in the tooth.

Since then, we’ve seen classics redesigned and rereleased (Blood Bowl, Necromunda, Warhammer Quest, Adeptus Titanicus) and entirely new products (Underworld, Kill Team, War Cry, Aeronautica Imperialis).

Each of these offer radically different buy-in prices.

Despite a couple of price rises, Underworlds remains pretty good value for a wargame. Whilst there is some emphasis on getting all the cards, each Warband is ultimately self contained. This keeps the cost of expanding your experience pretty low.

Warhammer Quest? Again, all you need is a core set. BSF is £95 undiscounted. Yes some of the expansions are oddly priced, but not bank breakingly so, and again like Underworlds they’re entirely optional.

Blood Bowl? Depending on how you want to build your team, you only need a couple of boxes at most, maybe the odd star player if you’re so inclined.

Necromunda? Well, one could spend a poo load on it. But at the end of the day, all you need in terms of GW products are the Rulebook and Gangs of the Underhive. That’s right, you don’t even need to use GW’s models - there are plenty of suitable alternatives. Terrain can either be practically free (building your own from scratch) or quite expensive (buy GW’s own kits. My wallet says Hi!).

And so and so forth. On each you could spend a huge chunk of dosh on it if you want to - but the need is greatly reduced.

None of these are short term investments. Each is a game in its own right, and each suits a different depth of pocket.

In short, there’s no evidence whatsoever GW is following a short term plan, whether by accident or design.

Blastaar 795915 11050020 wrote:5d.jpg]

The cost is pretty bad right now, yes. The game is still fun, for the most part. You can play Commander without an expensive deck, and of course there's Pauper, there best format.

I would argue the key difference is, deservedly or not (usually not) the cards do have their present value, and powerful cards usually keep it to a degree.

that is true if you live in the US. If your live outside of it, suddenly you find out that some core products are region lockted or that WotC doesn't have a representative in your region, and doesn't plan to have one, making it really hard for some people to get cards they want.

GW is not a very friendly company, but they are still behind stuff Hasbro is willing to do to its customers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Going back to the OP. It’s kind of a conclusion looking for evidence to support it.

Are GW putting up prices? Yes.

Have they always increased prices? Also yes.

Is this their sole strategy? Absolutely not.

They have their stores for recruitment. They also have officials tie-ins with both The Scout Movement and Duke of Edinburgh, both sizeable youth organisations within the U.K.

That is all nice and good for people living in UK. People that have non or one per country GW store, get no where near the support. And some games, just can't be ordered. Even idomitus, UK and US got enough boxs to have left overs, at the same time other places in the world did not. Ordering some of specialists stuff, is impossible, because it is either locked by ordering so much stuff that will never sell, that is just not valid to do for stores, or they plain being told that GW is not going to let FLGS sell the items.

Also don't forget they also use models in "board games" as well to market into bookshops and other retail markets not just hobby stores. I forget the names, but the "lite/different" versions of things like Bloodbowl and warcry. Basically really simple games that are designed with push fit models to get gaming fast and to sell to different demographics. Cornering them and exposing them to the GW brands and the temptation to go further.


I suspect we'll see the very same with their eventual TV shows and they've already done well with their computer game licences.

mrFickle wrote:
Would anyone care to venture the price point at which they will step away from the hobby.

Well MY hobby is miniature wargaming.

Believe me, even if I limited my hobby to only playing GW games, I have enough stuff for several of us to play games for the rest of our lives without ever buying another new (or used!) model/book.

As for playing future current GW editions & rising prices?
Like I said, I'm already set for minis for the rest of my life....
So that leaves picking up new rules. The cost of books would have to rise to astronomical prices.
And if that happens? Well, I've already got zero issues pirating stuff

As long as I've got people to play games (GW or otherwise) with my hobby will continue.
So no, there is no price point that will force me out of my hobby.

I think the increasing consequence is more people will rely on eBay purchases, which will severely wound local stores.

GW gets 52% of its revenue from FLGS, 19% from their website, and the rest from retail. An FLGS pays 50% retail so they make whatever else is left depending on discounts.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think the increasing consequence is more people will rely on eBay purchases, which will severely wound local stores.

GW gets 52% of its revenue from FLGS, 19% from their website, and the rest from retail. An FLGS pays 50% retail so they make whatever else is left depending on discounts.

Well too bad for the LGS then. Sounds like GW needs to get its act together regarding pricing. Ya know, address the core root of the problem here.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think the increasing consequence is more people will rely on eBay purchases, which will severely wound local stores.

GW gets 52% of its revenue from FLGS, 19% from their website, and the rest from retail. An FLGS pays 50% retail so they make whatever else is left depending on discounts.

Not sure that follows, and is making an unsafe assumption about overall price elasticity.

eBay simply isn’t all that cheap, unless you’re really working on a fixer upper squad. The second hand market is also finite, limited as it is to models not only already in circulation, but ones people are wanting to move on.

There’s also the question of where the money from eBay sales is going. Since the days of Portent, there’s been an assumption relied upon that said money is not reentering the hobby.

Sure, some will of course be people selling up entirely, never intending to return. Yet others will be people funding a new army by selling off an old one.

eBay prices are also informed by retail. The higher the RRP, the higher the second hand price.

Webstores and any B&M retailers will always be a matter of Comparative Value. Example? This month I bought a pair of Monoliths for my Necrons. They retail on GW for £105.00, which is of course a fat old price tag. Element’s price? £89.25. I could’ve save even more at Darksphere, as their price is £78.75. Their prices will always look more appealing than GW’s own, because of discounts and how many people perceive value.

A quick squizz shows prices comparable to Darksphere and eBay

Whilst only the merest sliver of an example, it shows that for at least Big Ticket prices, eBay offers no to negligible savings.

Let’s expand it, sticking with Necrons because I do like a consistent theme. Necron Warriors on GW are £29. Element and Darksphere £24.65 and £21.75 respectively. eBay? Prices all of the shop. New on sprue (for the closest comparison) seem to be £12.49 upwards, due to Indomitus.

Factor in that not everyone is going to want second hand models. Some will want to build and paint for themselves. That hits the eBay discount somewhat.

In summary? eBay doesn’t look to be the death of FLGS - because both have co-existed for yonks now, amid ongoing GW price increases. Indeed, many FLGS will sell stuff on eBay themself, which given they have overheads they need to cover somewhat mitigates particularly large savings.

If anything I think some of older veteran players are fine with some of the rules and update policies GW have because they remember the Bad Old Days. You cannot say with a straight face that the way GW handles its games now is worse than it was in the late 00's to the mid 10's. They have objectively gotten better at that and you can easily look back and compare.

If there is dissatisfaction and a general revolt brewing against company practices I'd say it's from people who only joined in 8th onwards. These are people with much different expectations and no previous experience of GW's practices, so any feth up or bad decisions look extra bad. Especially within the wider context of where GW games sit, in a world where F2P video games exist, with regular free updates and balance patches. Not only that but you have a wealth of strong 40k video games that have brought and continue to bring people into the game every year and these games can fill an expectation in a new players mind that is not currently being met on the tabletop: that 40k is a proper factional game.

In fact if there's one thing that might unite these two groups, it is that expectation. That, despite Marines being the poster boys, overall the game system and release schedule should at least be somewhat varied and equal. New players who get into the game playing a non-Marine force might come to the conclusion that their chosen faction might never see proper support ever again. New players playing a Marine force and hoping to get lots of varied games in against the various non-Imperium threats the setting has to offer might be sorely disappointed and disillusioned when all they can find are matches against other Loyalists.

All I know is, around my area 8th brought a ton of old players back into the game, many of whom who had not played in 10 years and they've all been mostly fine with how 40k has been handled. Even the ones that never stopped playing remember 6-7th and don't feel a need to go back to that game or that company. But some of the newer evergreen players have been the loudest in their criticisms about the way 40k is continually developed and updated. An older player might shrug off the time between codexes, because at least every faction gets a codex in the edition now and they still come out (delays included) faster than they used to pre-8th. But a newer player has no frame of reference for any of this. All they see is some armies potentially rotting away with un-updated old rules for potentially years and it's not good enough for them.

(Please bear in mind I am not intending these to be completely blanket statements, I know plenty of older players, like myself, are dissatisfied with the release schedule)

Mm, well, it may be different here in the US. Our eBay listings are all bigger FLGS stores capable of running a webstore. We don't have a lot of directly run webstores like the UK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Well too bad for the LGS then. Sounds like GW needs to get its act together regarding pricing. Ya know, address the core root of the problem here.

They picked up an additional +400 trade accounts so far this year so they're not there - yet.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
MtG is the biggest money sink on the planet. I will never go back to that nightmare good rules or not.

Yeah it makes miniature games look affordable.

Hecaton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
MtG is the biggest money sink on the planet. I will never go back to that nightmare good rules or not.

Yeah it makes miniature games look affordable.

Yeah and sadly they've made it so regular in updating things that even a casual collector can't really keep up without sinking a lot into it. Its a shame as I do have a fondness of opening random packs; sorting cards; packing and binding them and all that. It can be a nice simple level of enjoyment - likely similar to those who like playing solitaire. Sadly with the costs and speed of how fast a new block appears and one cycles out its just not really viable unless you're willing to start sinking a lot of money regularly into it.

If blocks lasted two years or so and updated slower chances are I would jump in again (since I'm not good enough a player) as a collector; but right now with a 1 year or less cycle and so many products and releases; its just too much volume for me.



Of course its clearly working for MTG so I don't begrudge them

 Overread wrote:
Yeah and sadly they've made it so regular in updating things that even a casual collector can't really keep up without sinking a lot into it. Its a shame as I do have a fondness of opening random packs; sorting cards; packing and binding them and all that. It can be a nice simple level of enjoyment - likely similar to those who like playing solitaire. Sadly with the costs and speed of how fast a new block appears and one cycles out its just not really viable unless you're willing to start sinking a lot of money regularly into it.

If blocks lasted two years or so and updated slower chances are I would jump in again (since I'm not good enough a player) as a collector; but right now with a 1 year or less cycle and so many products and releases; its just too much volume for me.

I'm not going to pretend that rotation doesn't drive sales, but part of the reason they rotate at the rate they do is that the larger the pool of legal cards the more powerful and potentially unfun the game becomes. This only widens the gulf between the haves and have nots rather than shrinking it because those who have things like duel lands will that stay legal for two years will keep them and thus keep the price of the singles high. Quicker rotation can actually drive down costs by shaking up metas and giving players a chance to discover a new powerful brew before it's obvious to all the card prices spike.