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.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
The idea that GW would produce/sell any product at a loss is completely asinine.

I wonder how many GK models GW physically made and how many books they printed, that didn't get sold in the end.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
The idea that GW would produce/sell any product at a loss is completely asinine.

Indeed, hence my point.

Karol wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
The idea that GW would produce/sell any product at a loss is completely asinine.

I wonder how many GK models GW physically made and how many books they printed, that didn't get sold in the end.

Books are an open question, though the modern day book printing industry makes cheap and intentionally disposable things, and GW can plan around finite lifespans for books.

Models, none. There hasn't been any 'end' for any GK plastics.
The far more limited metal range is old enough that it doesn't matter.

I'd be interested to know if "design" is paid on this supposedly piece-work basis.

It just seems more likely today you'd have a design studio told "right, this year we are making SM/Necrons/Gargants/Lumineth/Vampires, get on with it" and you pay for the whole lot rather than explicitly identifying £15k of design work for this Primaris Captain, £50k for the Elves on Kangaroos etc.

By contrast things like the molds are a marginal cost they have to cover.

It just seems to me that if GW did have to sell 5k of these individual clam packs to break even, and thought that was unlikely, they wouldn't seemingly be churning them out like no tomorrow.

there was this one interview with the design studio that left, that spilled the beans about the Wright Knight point costs. But he also said, he was designing one of the side games more or less on his own, and he was expected to do playtesting on his own. And then he told stories how his friends, not working at GW, helped him doing it for free. I don't know if they do that the same today, I hope they don't, but it would explain some of their projects.

People in my area got crazy angry at GW about the Indomitus update for kill team.

Tyel wrote:
I'd be interested to know if "design" is paid on this supposedly piece-work basis.

It just seems more likely today you'd have a design studio told "right, this year we are making SM/Necrons/Gargants/Lumineth/Vampires, get on with it" and you pay for the whole lot rather than explicitly identifying £15k of design work for this Primaris Captain, £50k for the Elves on Kangaroos etc.

By contrast things like the molds are a marginal cost they have to cover.

It just seems to me that if GW did have to sell 5k of these individual clam packs to break even, and thought that was unlikely, they wouldn't seemingly be churning them out like no tomorrow.

Paying them by the lot or by singular design changes only how that number figures in the ledger.

Doesn't change the business plan behind the single model.

They made their money that's for sure. I can't even get a sly marbo at any local shop nor a severina.