GW Prices . . . Better Value Than You May Think!

CM69z1LWEAA2HA0

It’s been a while, but Thrawn is back to discuss some more GW stuff . . . this time pricing!

I’ve been hearing a lot regarding GW’s new prices.

“Asinine,” say some.

“Outrageous,” say others.

Here’s an article by Larry showing what I mean:

Behold the Glory of the Varanguard & Review

However, I think the price is not nearly as bad as you may think. Here are some comparisons that I believe will make you rethink whether or not GW’s new prices accurately reflect their value, and IMHO they do.

Let’s start with Archaon. Likely one of the most expensive models GW’s ever made. At $165.00 per model this thing weighs in at more than the Imperial Knight, Stompa, Khorne Lord of Skulls or the Wraithknight (all of comparable size). Well what is he comparable too in the other games systems? To begin with most game systems don’t even have models that big, but for those that do:

71094_GlacierKing_WEB

Privateer Press is offering a comparably sized model for $135 ($30 cheaper). Here is the sticking point for me though; Archaon is all plastic, vs the resin/metal you get from the PP model, and although some people prefer the metal/resin, for the most part the plastic is better. It is easier to work with, easier to assemble, less likely to break during transportation and gaming, and although back in the day plastic molding was inferior to the metal or resin sculpts, that is simply no longer the case. The new plastic sculpts by GW are as good (if not better) than any metal or resin sculpts offered by their competitors.

To address Larry’s example, he talks about the new Varanguard being too expensive (compared to the old Chaos Knights). Yes of course, on a price per model count at first glance it seems the Varaguard are outrageously priced, but is this a fair comparison? Let’s compare the difference in size shall we?

varanguard_size

I mean there is no size comparison . . . these guys are even way bigger then Juggers who were some of the most impressive monstrous cavalry GW ever made (and also set a record for price per model when they were first introduced). Can we compare the Varanguard to Chaos Knights? No I don’t think we can. They are instead comparable to a Chaos Character on a Daemonic Mount.

99810201005_ChaosLordonDaemonicMountNEW01

These models are comparable in size and quality, and as you can see, also in price. In fact I’m thinking of buying the Varanguard just so I can use them as Chaos Heroes on daemonic mounts (sorry, I don’t play AoS, but we do play 9th Age and I’d encourage all Warhammer fans to check it out).

Finally, let’s compare the Varanguard to other manufacturers . . . let’s take PP again just because I’m most familiar with their product (Warmahordes is the other game our group plays and I got a pretty big Cygnar army). An equivalently sized model to a Varanguard would be a WarJack, and just to compare apples to apples let’s take a plastic war jack. I recently purchased the Stormclad/Reliant model. This is a very nice model and I don’t have too many complaints. It is, however, rather plain, not dynamic, not a lot of ingenuity when it comes to its assembly, and the quality of the plastic was very soft and poor (the bits were peeling off the sprues instead of snapping off). When you compare these to GW’s Varanguard (equivalently sized models) there is almost no comparison. The detail is jaw dropping, the pose is dynamic and the quality is brilliant (molded in the UK instead of China). Now compare that they are both approximately $40 per model . . . well ya you get much better value per dollar with GW product.

31095_Reliant_WEB

So ya, if you compare the models, side by side, and what you get both with respect to size and quality, I feel that GWs models are priced higher than most, but not nearly as much as what people make them out to be, and for me personally, I’d rather pay a premium (from what I can see approximately a 15% premium) but get a superior product.

GW’s accessories though, such as dice, paints, brushes, glue, t-shirts, etc. . . . I can’t and won’t even start to defend those prices! J

~What do you think of GW’s prices? Too high, or are you getting what you pay for?

  • SundaySilence

    This is going to be fun… riled up Star Wars fan boy GW haters incoming!

    • Xodis

      Did you bring your popcorn? lol

  • Old zogwort

    GW is pricing its models the same way apple does.
    On the higher side just to add to the idea of a premium product.
    As long as a large enough part of the community is willing to pay for it the prices will remain high.

    • WellSpokenMan

      It has the advantage of perpetuating a sunk cost fallacy as well. How many people stick with 40k simply because they have spent so much time and money on it?

      • Havik110

        I have not bought anything from GW since the voidraven came out…I will not buy anything until the DE / BA are fixed.

      • Spacefrisian

        Sticking with 40k and buying new 40k models are 2 different things. (notice the models part, that doesnt include books and all that other paperwork)

        • WellSpokenMan

          Sure, you can buy models from other manufacturers, or you can just play with what you have. If 40k is your game though, and part of the reason it’s your game is that you have spent so much time and money on it, then that is going to be a factor in how you value what GW is putting out. It shouldn’t be, but human nature being what it is, it usually will be.

        • Erik Setzer

          Yeah, but that’s why they change rules and come out with new models that have better rules, to try to make it so you have to buy the new stuff or your army is suddenly no good.

          • Muninwing

            as much as i know some people think that this is a deliberate (and shady) business plan, this is not necessarily their goal.

            look at the DA Nephilim. one of the most expensive models in an entire army type, utterly not worth buying when it debuted. and the Deathwing Knights, new DW models with new loadouts, thoroughly meh rules.

            there are tons of other examples.

            more likely, when we see that we can do better with new options, we resent it and feel it’s a deliberate slight rather than part of a new take on an older army.

            it also would not feel that way if we were not constantly barraged with optimized-for-tournament analyses of armies and their most cost-effective builds, rather than what works less well but has interesting uses or tactics. and of course game balanced being ignored is part of that mess too.

            still, GW time and time again denies the tournament-style thinking that would best promote their product if this was their strategy.

            correlation does not mean causation.

          • Mutilators! *shakes fist*

          • Muninwing

            perfect example.

            if the Warptalons weren’t a multiuse kit, they’d be on the list too.

          • Haha yeah, along with Forge Fiends, Wraithblades and Assault Centurions

          • While I have no doubt that they make some choices based on incentivizing sales (Gladius free vehicles, Decurion tomb blades, dropping the base price and upping unit sizes of lesser daemons) but yeah they often whiff completely.

    • Erik Setzer

      Fewer people willing to pay the prices, hence the dropping sales. They remain profitable only by cutting as much cost as possible, which at some point can’t help but impact quality.

      • Xodis

        “Over the six month period we have seen modest sales growth at constant currency.”

        The current release we received from their Half-Year Trading Update.

        • Crevab

          Don’t leave out the rest of that paragraph, “However, the adverse impact of a stronger pound will result in a small decline in reported sales for the period.”

          Which taken as a whole (if I’m reading my corporatese right) means, “Sales went up as long as you ignore the changes in currency.”

          • Xodis

            I know its a fun past time to hate on GW, but I dont think the strength of the British Pound can be used against them. A moderate increase in sales, but due to international exchange rates having to “report” a slight dip in sales, is better than just a complete dip in sales IMO.

  • Frank O’Donnell

    If your just painting then their not bad value, however if your playing the games more so 40K then thing have become a lot more expensive as the price of model to buy has risen while the pts costs in the game has falling making it a lot more expensive to play.

    • Ed Butlar

      I don’t doubt this. I think the whole issue might be the mismatch between the tournament players expectations and what the company now offers.

    • pskontz

      and compainring it to other games is kinda moot anyhow. warmahoards only needs a handful of models on the table were as a SM army may need 3-5x more. so not only is it 15% or so hgher but you need a ton more. its the overall sticker shock that freaks many people out that I deal with

      • You don’t actually need to play huge games, but people who like 40K tend to be collectors and thus like bigger games because it lets you put more on the table. If you want to play kill teams or 500 pt or 1k point games there’s nothing stopping you

        • mikethefish

          Well….that’s not exactly true is it? I mean you CAN play small games, but the system (not the greatest even in the best of times) isn’t nearly as effective at smaller points levels. And the average game in most game stores is pretty large – even among non-collectors. If you want to “fully” join your local shop’s meta, you’re going to need a reasonably sizable force.

          So yes, you can technically play small games. However it’s usually a lesser experience, and most shop metas are playing more “serious” points levels

          • Not really, no. It’s a game, “meta” implies a rigid framework that forces you to do things a certain way, but that’s not what 40K is

        • pskontz

          you can play small games but really anythign under 500 hould be ill team and if I want a skirmish game there is a lot more games otu there that do skirmish better. you dont need anythgin really but the game is designed for bigger games wee 1500-2k seems to be the sweet spot. anything bigger is long and cumbersome anything smaller turns into skirmish…and inifitny (to me) is better for that)

      • Muninwing

        i don’t play WM/H… because small-model-count skirmish games are just not my thing.

        it’s why i’m still ticked about AoS. replacing one form of game with another was a jerk move.

        the issue is that the average player and painter is going to (in theory) buy a box, then assemble and paint that box, then buy a new box… meaning a layout over time, not all at once. but the average player who does not want to paint wants it all now, and feels like painting is a detriment and not a part… meaning they feel it is far more expensive on top of inconvenient.

        but most prices aren’t higher when you figure in added extras (bitz, weapons, etc), and add inflation going by the kit’s debut.

        look at Terminators. plastic SM terms debuted nine years ago at $50 for five. currently, it’s… $50. but SW and DA terminators that come with more specialized bitz and weapons are $60. inflation from then to now using US CPI (which for whatever reason seems the best scale) means that the $50 then is actually worth just over $60 now. so you get a better and more detailed kit with more additions for the equivalent price from the kit’s introduction.

        or look at Space Marines. nine years ago, the kit was $35 for 10… but came with one special and one heavy weapon, which you would have to buy bitz for or buy a metal blister model with the weapon (adding another model but another $7-10 or so to overall cost). plus, a sergeant with certain weapons would need a metal for wysiwyg. now it’s $40, and comes with a ton of extras.

        meaning that they are ($40 for 10) $4/model with tons of extras instead of ($35+$6+$8+$10, or $59, for 13…) $4.50/model with few to no extra bitz.

        it’s actually a better deal now. add in inflation and a kit that was $35 a decade ago should be going for $42.50 without any additions. so it’s even cheaper than it should be…

        • Severius_Tolluck

          That is a proper analysis. People just get blinded by rising inflation versus value. However since the average joes pay is not increasing it is becoming a heavier burden, especially to the newer players who need much more product then the vets.

      • Severius_Tolluck

        Not necessarily true. It depends on what faction you are playing and your play style, and the game does scale up. When you pass the 50 point mark (average tourney game) it gets probably even more expensive then 40k, mainly due to so many metals. For example it is 130 dollars for a squad of three trollkin cavalry. Very near another 3 man box set no?

      • Sutr

        well, if you go competitive with warmahordes you need 2 lists as far as i know. that should balance out army costs with that game

        • Yriel_The_Angelic

          Yea, I do competitive and Tournament level practice and playing for WarmaHordes. I can honestly say, without a doubt, that sadly, when it comes down to it, a majority of lists you need to produce to actually keep up and compete in the “big leagues” are often composed of units in multiples which you’ll never use outside of that list. Also the game balances out at 50 points as below that it skews hard, so it forces players to purchase more.

          So a majority of the time you’re purchasing models that in a year can be completely invalidated because the tournament meta changes so hard to a list style that due to either new releases or people “unlocking” an old model that it becomes hard to keep up.

          The change from 3-list standard to 2-list in tournaments only made these worse. As in 3-lists you were able to cover a wide range of trouble match-ups, it was here where you also saw “non-optimized” lists as they were created to deal with extremely troubling match-ups. Now with 2-lists you have to min-max as hard as possible as you don’t have as much available resources. ADR helped alleviate it a bit…but it isn’t the same as 3-lists.

          Before anyone creates the standard contrarian argument that WarmaHordes has more units/models that can be used as they’re as effective as the player, the “no model sucks, only you do” argument is clearly a fanboi and delusional as it is extremely well-known among the actual PP Forum folk and tournament players that there are a multi-tude of horrible models that are frequently questioned. Including recent releases. I encourage folk to go visit these forums to understand what i’m talking about as i’ll just rant like crazy about each of the factions (with a focus on Menoth as they’re my primary)

          Thank god at least there is no new-release creep…

      • happy_inquisitor

        Seriously? 750 point games are a blast.

        Why do you think you even need so many points; because that is what the Tournament scene tells you that you need? I get that sometimes we want to put lots of models on the table but that is entirely out of choice and not because the game magically “works” at some arbitrary large scale.

        • pskontz

          750 are fun but really at that level Id rather a skirmish game that is better designed for skirmish. (persinally prefer infinity) but some army struggle at less than 1000 40k sweet spot tends to be 1500-2k anything larger is cumebrsom andything smaller is skirmish and there are better skirmish games out there. but to each thier own (and i have no problem spending mony on a game I like I can put out 30k of imperial in one go if I could find a opponant here who could match me)

  • Old zogwort

    If you want to see how much value you get for your money try comparing how much plastic sprues you are getting now for your money compared with how much you would get when you started the hobby.

    • Old zogwort

      You can even compare prices of old and new releases.
      Tree lord 2 big sprues 50 euro -> 25 euro a sprue
      Archaon Everchosen 3 big sprues 130 euro ->43 euro a sprue
      That is a price increase of 173% in only a few years

    • Cergorach

      You of course mean that it’s a price increase of 73% per sprue. A 173% increase would mean x2.73.

      I remember the price I paid for the initial release for 40k Black Reach starter, that’s less then half what I pay now for the 40k Dark Vengeance starter. The problem isn’t just the GW price rises, it’s also the bad EURO vs GBP and the crackdown on webstore discounts.

    • georgelabour

      I can’t quite remember how much the 40k scaled imperial knight kits went for back in 1994…

      Do you perhaps have an old GW catalogue page to link to for that information?

      • Mud_Duck

        If memory serves the Armorcast Warhound was $70 and the Reaver was $90.

        • Muninwing

          or, adjusted for inflation, $112 and $144

          and with one set of static options, not customizable ranges and thus extra bitz…

          • Severius_Tolluck

            plus super ugly, unless you like that wolf grinning knuckle dragger.

        • georgelabour

          But not the all plastic imperial knight kit.

    • Nameless

      the first Imperial guard infantry I bought where £19.50 for 20, they are currently £18 for 10. same kit, still lacking most specail weapons, any heavy weapons. Equally combined kits being used by the local manager as an excuse for higher prices when having a combined kit makes little difference to the consumer but reduces shelf space.

      For the most part I don’t complain about prices, but I certainly buy less by value (and a lot fewer by number of kits) than I did and I don’t think I am alone in that.

      • Sutr

        that’s still bellow £2 per model. fairly priced i’d say and perfectly within the price range of other games/companies.

    • Steven Hyche

      Ummm have you seen how big the sprue is compared to the treeman? Sorry but your comparison is silly. If you want to go down that route then the single model blisters are the best value since they are 15 dollars a sprue.

  • paddy alexander

    The Privateer Press model as mentioned in the article is resin and metal, the similar sized models they produce in hard plastic (the same material that geedub use) are both priced at $70, half of what gw is charging dispite the fact that PP have to pay a third company to produce them.

    Lets compare apples to apples here.

    • Cergorach

      The problem with PP is that they have so few good plastic releases, the Stormclad/Reliant costs $35, best compared to a SM Dread $46-$54, that’s still a pretty big difference. The problem with PP is that their other stompy steam robots also cost $35 and are made of a horrible PVC, I have a lot less of a problem paying 50% more for a proper plastic from GW when the alternative is cast crap. PVC is doable if there’s not a ton of moldlines, or mismatched mold halves.

      It’s not really fair to compare the $165 expensive unique character to the $70 not unique battle engine. In size and function it’s more comparable to a $66 Adeptus Mechanicus Onager Dunecrawler or a $85 Riptide. The $140 Knight and $150 Storm surge are huge.

      BUT that’s only for the US, in the EU on the other hand I’m paying at a discount webstore €29 for a plastic Stormclad/Reliant and for a plastic GW Dread €29-€34, the price difference is suddely a lot less. The battle engines are €59 vs €42 Onager and €52 Riptide, both cheaper then the PP counterparts. And with GW I can actually buy these plastics in Battleforce/army boxes for an additional 20% discount.

      When PP does most of the range in good quality plastics and also have those units in discounted army boxes we can do a proper shootout…

      Th Dreads from the BaC sets were somewhere in the €10-€15 a piece.

      • Emprah

        As awesome and beyond any reproach GW’s plastic greatness is….

        Their Citadel Finecast metals are horrible mismatch mouldline monsters, and Forge World’s Resin is just as derp and bad.
        And those cost even more.

        So yeah , GW’s pricing can be outrageous. But it is only “worse than average” when we discount their plastics.

        And if you buy GW, you should buy their plastics.

        • georgelabour

          And they’re phasing out finecast as quickly as they can.

          When was the last time they even released a new model in finecast that wasn’t for The Hobbit?

          • Muninwing

            though to be fair, doing any hobbying or customizing in finecast is so much easier than metal…

          • georgelabour

            As someone who had to convert vostroyan and steel legion to have several weapon options they didn’t originally have I can attest to that.

            Which is why it’s almost a pity they never redid the redshirt models in finecast.

            Almost.

          • Muninwing

            so many melta barrels stuck to flamers…

        • I pretty much only buy resin when it is the only option, I convert any characters I can’t find in metal (I still love a metal IC for whatever reason, but I hate my metal monstrous creatures)

    • Sutr

      you mean PP pays a 3rd party company chinese company while GW produces theirs (except some terrain) in england and that’s the base for your argument?

  • Smurf

    I don’t think this was a fair comparison because you’ve taken the models out of their gaming context. I’m afraid I don’t know much about warmachine and I know even less about AoS. But both games seem to be smaller in scale than classic warhammer and 40k. If people are still using the models to play 9th age and 40k, then the sheer volume of models you are expected to purchase simply to play the game means that their monetary value is judged as too high. The start-up cost for a new 40k player is outrageously high for example. I’d be interested to know just how many of us buy GW models simply for their aesthetic ‘display’ qualities. If that truly is a tangible market then maybe they are individually well priced. However, I’d argue that within the context of the game they are a rip-off.

    • Vomkrieg

      You can play WM with smaller forces than 40k really works wellat. But most people who get into it do end up buying a lot more figures than they can field in a single game.

      Hobbyists are hobbyists after all. I could probably field 10 WM forces for the same faction from my collection.

      • Smurf

        Ah yes I understand the pitfalls of hobby all too well! But on a game by game basis, would you agree that WM would require fewer models to play a decent game compared to classic warhammer or 40k?

        • Vomkrieg

          Absolutely, depending on caster though. Some 50 point Cryx infantry spam lists can have 70 odd models.

          But 25-40 sounds like a more normal model count for a 50 point game. But the number can swing wildly as some lists uses loads of beasts/warjacks while others might have only 1 and piles of infantry.

          And 50 points is the regular “large scale” game. The game works very well at 35 and reasonably well at 25, which are both relatively common play values.

        • Xodis

          Isn’t that also a double edged sword though?
          Assuming the regular hobbyist always ends up with more models than he needs (GW and PP), dont you want to eventually field everything you have?

          I personally thought that is why 40K and WHFB was so ridiculous to get into is because all the Vets have giant armies and want to play them. Sure 40K CAN be played at lower points cost (some of the “crappier” armies even work better at it) but it’s the community really setting that standard.

      • mikethefish

        Sure most folks will eventually buy a lot of PP models to flesh out their army.

        You completely missed the poster’s point that GW’s initial outlay is far higher. In order to get playing at an “average” points level (i.e. – what most local shops play at on game nights), you basically have to sell a kidney.

        • Vomkrieg

          Sure, you can start WM with 1 list and that list is way cheaper than 40k list. No doubt.

          But most WM events use multiple lists for starters, and WM lends itself to tweaking and fiddling with lists, so people tend to like options. I’ve never met any WM players who do the 40k thing of “building a theme army and sticking to it”, lists are tweaked and changed constantly as the meta evolves.

          That said, as 40k models cost at least twice what WM models do in my country, my entire whomping big Cygnar army probably cost about the same as a 2000 point list of marines. Oh, and WM is just a better game to play at events.

  • Stealthbadger

    I’ve thought this for a while now. Look at Armada models, a single plastic model made of what feels like cheap plastic and basically painted for between £15 and £35 and no one says a thing. GW offers you between 10 infantry and 1 tank for the same price and people hit the roof over price gouging.

    Maybe models do cost more than 1996 but hey, that’s inflation and the increased costs of doing business for you.

    At the end of the day people mistake price for value. The price is a number but value is a perception. There are always going to be a contingent who perceive any price point other than free as poor value. Just look at the current complaints on the gamers edition codexes.

    There’s no right or wrong answer on value as that is decided by each individual. I would say a Gucci bag at £3,000 is poor value for a bag. A Gucci customer might call it a steal. I don’t value Gucci branding or their product but I don’t find those that do are ‘wrong’.

    • Smurf

      I think the problems become more obvious when you compare GW pricing to something like warlord games. Now, it’s certainly true that you can’t compare the products in terms of model quality because GW plastics are simply better. However, warlord games’ model quality is still good and the pricing is bang on excellent value when you place them in the context of their game. You can purchase an average of 30 good quality miniatures for £24. That’s usually enough infantry to furnish a brand new army. For the very similar price of £26 you get a 10 man tactical squad from GW. It’s comparisons like this that start to challenge GW’s value I feel.

      • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

        exactly. GWs prices have artificially inflated the perceived value of sci-fi minis so most sci-fi and fantasy manufacturers minis are overpriced. Compare sci-fi minis to historicals and we see the real difference. Plastic historical infantry in particular are often 1/5th or less the cost of sci-fi plastic from any manufacturer, and comparable vehicles around 1/2 the price.

        Among the sci-fi manufacturers GW are probably the most expensive, but not by much. Compare to historicals and you can see how artificially jacked up the prices are.

        • Smurf

          The final straw for me was when I spent £60 on two of the most disappointing codex products I have ever seen from GW, Orks and Ghazghulls Whaaagh! A week later I’d dropped £100 on an entire army for BA and I haven’t looked back since. I like to spread the love around the various manufacturers of WW2 minis and they’re all similarly priced and at much lower levels than GW. You really do feel like you’re getting value for your money and the games a lot of fun too.

          • Erik Setzer

            I bought the special edition of the Ork codex because I’m all about Orks, absolutely love them, have for over 20 years, even would play them in non-GW games like Warcraft… but I barely play my Orks now because I’d like to have a chance to win. Then they had the audacity to release things like the $46 Mek Gunz that were rather small (and needed a battery of five in the game, so $230 for something that wasn’t even 200 points when maxed out); the $105 Orkanauts that look nice but are junk in the game (and for some reason aren’t super-heavies?!?); the $50-for-5 Flash Gitz with rules that make them not even remotely worth it versus the rest of the crowded Heavy Support section… Really, the best release was the Mega-Nobz kit, which was still a bit too much, but they’re nice models. Sadly, lack of an invulnerable save means they tend to get brutally murdered in combat, if they even get there past fields of plasma and lascannon fire.

            As an added bonus, I painted up a second Ork army in preparation for the codex, and now all those wonderful Blood Axes just sit in cases wishing they were a more viable army.

          • Severius_Tolluck

            Which is funny because most of the older gamers that I play historicals with refuse to buy battlefront minis or warlord stating they are outrageously priced, and use models from the 70s.. so lol I suppose it’s a case of getting older and holding onto our old prices!

        • euansmith

          I like the Clockwork Goblin idea where they brought out special units for their game set in 1947 but don’t do the rank and file as you can get 15mm WW2 stuff from Plastic Soldier Company and the like. Now they are doing the same with their 28mm models.

          • Smurf

            and are in partnership with warlord games to produce a weird war range of walkers for use with BA

          • euansmith

            Their designs are really cool. If they make the jump to hard plastic, I will be very, very tempted.

          • Smurf

            Yeah me too. Now I’m involved in historical games, I find myself being a bit of a historical purist! But a big part of me is tempted by the weird war element!

        • Stealthbadger

          Over priced is perception. Everything ultimately is only worth what you are prepared to pay for it. Given money is an arbitrary benchmark the Gucci bag in my example is overpriced and great value at the same time.

          Personally, GW prices are OK for me albeit I buy with an online discount. When I look at the money spent over the time the product is used to include painting and playing the pound to minute ratio is probably better than most video games I ever bough. Hell Spectre cost me £15 at the cinema for a2 hour movie I’ve basically seen before. I enjoyed it but entertainment wise for me personally 40k is pretty good value.

          Im sure if other manufacturers could charge more, without compromising market share too much, they would, otherwise they are poor businesses really.

        • I think that says more about the lack of value being created by rehashing WW2 though. There’s going to be a lot more competition when you make something generic vs the more distinctive look and feel of the various high priced game systems out there (40K, AoS, Infinity, Malifaux, etc). There are plenty of people who buy 3rd party models for those systems (lord knows I have a lot of Mantic zombies kitbashed with Wargames Factory Stormtroopers), but there’s going to be a decent chunk of any army that comes from the original game maker due to how specific and iconic the look and feel of the army is. That’s the sculptor creating value and there’s nothing artificial about it. There’s so many leisure activities competing with Wargaming, to say nothing of competing game systems, the fact that those companies command those prices means they are in fact creating more value than someone making yet another WW2 model.

        • Severius_Tolluck

          Yes and no, IF we were to look at straight up model kits that have no game functionality at all, those have nearly e up in cost 5X since I was a child, hell even a teen. So what was once let’s say 15 dollars for a Tamaya historical 1/75th tank in 2002 now costs roughly 60 at most retailers. However many older gaming companies used to charge even less for their historical models, but the more main stream a company gets the more prices seem to fall in line. Warlord are really as you say testing the waters and are basically performing a honeypot or a loss lead to establish themselves in the market place. Eventually they may normalize their costs, and maybe, just maybe they may remain cheaper. But you also have to look at the system and what it demands. On a base for base comparison it may be near the same or more, but you need so much less for bolt action for example. I say we do live in interesting times and I am rather excited to see what else comes out in the future of our hobby, and cheap or not, everything is fighting for my wallet as neater and more diverse products are hitting shelves daily.

        • Valeli

          That’s very true. I was looking around at various historical plastic minis I might be tempted to use with Mantic rules when GW killed fantasy. I always knew they would be cheaper, but I was shocked at just how much cheaper they were.

          To be sure, things like dragons are missing from those historical publishers, but still. There were some truly excellent models available for knights and infantry. The plastic might have been worse than GW in most of those, but the models were easily as good.

          I also agree greatly with the first post here though – it’s easy to conflate price and value. Clearly enough people think it’s worth paying current prices for GW’s stuff. I (generally) disagree, but I suppose there’s no way to say they (or I) are objectively wrong.

      • Stealthbadger

        I get that to some extent but with the new deals coming it seems you could put a 500 point army together for around £100 especially with certain bidding sites providing second hand books.

        It’s how I started so I really don’t understand why the general view is you must own 2000 points to play. 500 all is for some flexibility whilst also avoiding too many USR to remember for a beginner.

        Yes you could say I can play a bigger different game system for that but then that is like saying why buy call of duty 3 for £50 when the original wolfenstein is also a shooter you can get for free.

        • WellSpokenMan

          Depends on where you play. In a UK gaming club, 500 points is probably fine. In a US FLGS finding a game below 1500 points is very difficult. It comes down to the community, and form what I’ve seen online the UK has a better community than most US cities.

          • Stealthbadger

            I agree, I forget at times as auk gamer, and a northern uk gamer at that what I see may not reflect the worldwide community. The US seems to be alright place to get a friendly game in by accounts on here. I.m lucky to have a nice little gaming club so close by where you can prearrange games and people are flexible on most parts of the game to accommodate newbies and smaller games.

            Its the club aspect I’d look to promote if I were GW but by the account of our secretary it’s not an area of interest for them previously. Maybe with the new changes this will change too.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            even here although you’d find a game at 500 eventually I think you’d run out of opponents as most people want 1500 or 2000.

            500 point games are tricky because you can’t remotely take an all comers list at that points level, so unless you can rely on your opponent to not be an @rse and you basically write your army lists together you could have a lousy game.

            Plus the book missions don’t really work at that level.

          • Don’t be silly, that’s not how it works at all.

            GW deliberately puts out OP armies so you can play with 500pts of them and still be competitive with a 2000pts army from a lesser Codex.

            So everybody gets to play. It’s all part of the master plan – they do it because they care.

            😉

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            it would be an interesting experiment to play min-maxed armis against each other, one at 2000 and one at different points levels, players taking it in turns to play each side, until you arrived at a 50% win rate for each army. Then you could work out how many points of army X is equal to army Y, and come up with a handicapping system.

            I suspect that you would need around 2600 points of CSM to equal 2000 of Eldar, as a rough guess

          • I suspect that this has been tried many times in gaming groups all over the world, but after a few initial correlations, the enormity of the task trying to make a catch-all balanced system would make most people give it up.

            We all know GW did. And they get paid to do it.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            yes it would be impossible even between two codexes, but the attempt would be informative. Get some experts to agree on the strongest builds of the two and then adjust the points.

        • Smurf

          I understand your argument and I certainly have used discount stores, websites and bidding sites in the past when I was heavily into 40k. But the fact that you are using these sites to make your 40k hobby more affordable sort of undermines your argument about value. The fact that you seem unwilling to pay full price for items suggests that actually, they are overpriced. Perhaps the fact discount stores and sites exist in the first place suggests that GW products are overpriced. I won’t caim to know anything about business but if others can sell cheaper, why not GW?

          I will admit that the argument over ‘what is value?’ is interesting. I heard somewhere that the McDonalds brand name is worth more than all the physical assets of the company combined!

          • Stealthbadger

            I wouldn’t say that indicates they are overpriced, more that I see it as I can effectively buy two get one free on the basis of most GW to online prices.

            If I were limited to GW prices only though… I think I would still be here but certainly be a lot poorer.

            The online retailer must be a headache for the uk arm though as its effectively making your own competition and cheating your own stores out of sales. If I were a brutal CEO I’d shut all stores and concentrate on four or five regional gaming centres similar in size to the set up of the tables at Nottingham HQ. Cut my rent and utilities and other overheads to just a handful of locations whilst also promoting a friendly gaming environment. Would put a lot of people out of a job though….

      • E65

        But I have never met an infantryman who needs spikes and skulls, rides giant ‘thingies’, or has to get bigger and bigger to incorporate ever more outlandish details to be called “a high quality model”.

    • Malthrak

      You can’t just blame stuff on inflation. You can plot out inflation, and GW’s prices have risen far more than inflation would account for, especially for products that haven’t changed or that is nearly identical, particularly relatively staple things like Land Raiders & Rulebooks.

      • Stealthbadger

        Truth be told I’ve not done the maths. Give me a comparable example and I can give it a go. You are right though, it’s not just inflation. There will be some price creep but don’t forget production costs have increased too. GW seem to wholly own their supply chain for models so staff, energy, materials and other costs will all affect the ultimate price.

        The bigger the company gets the more money the top guys want to see. I’m not saying this is good but GW are no different from any other luxury goods company in that respect really.

        • Sutr

          Might i sugest you try out a comparible example?

          A squad of SM from the pewter days to a brand new squad you can buy nowadays.

          You’d need 3 blisters of bolter marines, that makes 9 and they came in blisters of 3 thou you only needed 7.
          1 special weapon, came 2 per blister.
          1 hw, came 1 per blister i think.
          1 sargent.

        • Malthrak

          For inflation, we can look at something that was around in say, 2006? Lets take a basic Land Raider (since I remember the price on that off the top of my head), that was $55 then (and, IIRC, $50 in 2003). It’s $74.25 now, while inflation would put it at ~$64. Likewise, Predator Tanks were $40 in 2006, but are now $57.75 while inflation would put them at ~$47, and the kit hasn’t changed at all. Dire Avengers were $40 for 10 when the plastic kit was released in 2006, they’re $35 for 5 now (or $70 for 10) instead of the ~$47 that inflation would put them at, again for the exact same kit. Cadian Guardsmen were $35 for 20 in 2007 and then got reboxed to $25 for 10 in 2009 and now that’s risen to $29 for 10. Metal Kasrkin were $40 for 10 in 2006 and $50 for 10 in 2013 (last year they were available IIRC), the new plastic Tempestus Scions are $35 for 5.

          Their production costs have, if anything, decreased with the change to plastic. Big up front cost infrastructure & design cost, for a vastly decreased production cost. That’s the entire reason GW has gone so heavily into plastics and abandoned metals.

          Likewise, they’ve been vertically integrated basically forever, back into the 80’s, nothing really has changed in that regard except they’ve cut staff down to 1 basically at most locations.

          According to their investor relations releases & financial statements, their costs have decreased over time, not increased.

          From a business perspective, I just find it very hard to see where such massive price adjustments are warranted, and is likely directly related to the 11-year long decline in inflation-adjusted revenue.

          • Stealthbadger

            Ok, thank you for the information. So, I used to work as an injury lawyer. When calculating damages I often had to use an inflation calculator.

            So let’s take your land raider:-

            I’m in the uk and according to CURRENT exchange rates $55 is £36.95 more or less. So 2006 price £37

            I ran that through the inflation calculator I used to use which is based on real UK inflation data (you can see how accuracy is important for damages) and the figure it kicked out for today’s price is £49.64 so let’s say £50 or $74 at current exchange rates. RPI for 2006 193.4 and 2015 is 259.8.

            Pretty much bang on I’d say…

            Possible that the use of current rates throws it a bit but I don’t have historical data on that. Given GW uses uk prices I’d say inflation explains a lot here. As for the other kits though whilst the price may be explained I agree the halving of models degrades the value. But then comparing spruces what are the old options like by comparison are you getting less models but more options.
            As an aside I can buy a landraider in the uk brand new from a web retailer for £33.75 which would actually imply the hobby has got cheaper for some kits…

    • E65

      What about the “other stuff” you get with each Xwing or Armada ship though. Data cards, upgrade cards, ship defense tokens. A complete package, ready to go. GW Don’t do complete packages ready to go.

      • Stealthbadger

        True, though they do seem to have started including rules with the newer kits.

        Also remember armada needs the core set too to play, as does swing. You can just buy a couple of models and away you go. Then when you compare core kits I think dark vengeance and AoS are far more generous in terms of ‘stuff’.

        Don’t get me wrong though, I love both systems and its a good time to be a table top gamer overall.

        • Erik Setzer

          Actually, no, you don’t.

          Armada rules:
          https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/products/star-wars-armada/

          X-Wing rules: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/products/x-wing/

          Also full FAQ there as well.

          You can get dice from FFG, and the maneuvering template from Armada. The card templates are the only things left, and there are a lot of sources selling them, even customized versions. (I’m sure FFG will get around to releasing them separate, since they’d put everything else out there, but it’s probably a matter of figuring out the best way to do so.)

          • Stealthbadger

            Wow, did not know that. Again FFG do fine work.

            But to be fair as you say yourself you’re hardly ‘good to go’ with the PDFs, you needs dice etc. ( I know this is no different from 40k) And I note all the models I bought still seem to say you need the core set to play. At best this is good advice, at worst if, it were GW, I’m sure someone would say it’s an evil trick to get you to buy things you don’t need.

            To be honest though if GW were to provide the rules for free that would be a lot of PDFs… Their own fault, maybe.

            Remember also that FFG are trying to open the market here so this was no doubt a loss leader for them.

            Without doubt Armada is cheaper to get into but the argument is whether 40k is poor value. For me it’s not, for you maybe it is. Shame we will probably never get a game in with you Orks. I assure you you’d probably win. As much as I love 40k I’m pretty terrible at it. Our local ork player rarely loses though, even took down my decurion on victory points admittedly in our last game. But this another debate for another time….

        • E65

          My comments were slated towards 40K as I didn’t know how GW handle AoS unit rules for models not part of the starter set until you mentioned it. Yes, I think DV was good value too.

    • Erik Setzer

      Yes, let’s look at Armada models. The most expensive one right now is the $50 ISD. It’s comparable in size to GW tanks that cost $74. You might think it “feels cheap” because it’s light weight, but my box of Armada ships (really need to get them into something better) has gone through some unfortunate falls or slid all around a car and not had anything break. The biggest potential for something breaking is a tiny “antenna” like thing on top of a ship, but, well, there’s a reason I stopped putting antennae on my GW tanks (in case you didn’t figure it out: they break off, all the time). So the plastic isn’t “cheap.” It’s also already painted, yes, and comes with full rules, options, play counters, etc. For less than a comparable sized GW kit, you get something literally ready to play out of the box. If you want to repaint it, that’s simple enough to do. (There’s a pretty active Facebook group dedicated to doing repaints on Star Wars miniatures, it’s nice to see all the stuff people do with their ships.)

      You can’t compare infantry to something that’s basically a tank. That’s ridiculous. (And if you go that route, we can compare AoS character models on foot at $33-$40 vs. the $50 ISD, which is much larger and, again, ready to play out of the box.)

      That’s to say nothing of things like the larger ships for X-Wing coming in at cheaper than a Bloodthirster or Orkanaut, while being quite a bit larger. (I have all three sitting on a shelf, plus a Knight. Well, the Bloodthirster’s on a different shelf… he’s not quite painted yet like the others are.)

      And we’re not even talking about discounts, where I can get a nice sized CR-90 for cheaper than a Land Raider.

      Inflation doesn’t cover what happened with the price of models. Especially as in 1996 if you bought ten IG, they were metal. Space Marines were usually at least metal bodies (head, torso, and legs). Things are made of cheaper materials now for a lot more money.

      But heck, if you want to see where GW’s price scheme has nothing to do with inflation or the cost of production, look to White Dwarf, which has become a $4 a week ($16/$20 a month) advertising pamphlet which, while costing as much per weekly issue as it did when it was a larger, more useful monthly magazine (and just barely less than it did at its height when it also had card stock and all), is so cheap to produce that they will just chuck out unsold copies after a week. They finally stopped doing that in some stores because they realized people will actually buy issues they missed a week or two ago (especially in a place like Jacksonville, where we have a lot of military members who miss time due to drilling or whatever). So their flyers are so cheap to produce they can just throw them away after a week on the shelf, but they’re charging $16-$20 a month for them. Tell me again how that has anything to do with inflation and isn’t just a company overcharging because there are people who will make excuses for it.

      • Stealthbadger

        Whoa there buddy. Ok, so you have fair points but there a few things further to consider.

        I think the main thing is, how are GW overcharging? This implies the item has an intrinsic value and then GW go above this. These are luxury items and as such have no real intrinsic value. To me a land raider is worth the £30 or £40 I paid for it but I assure you to my fiancé it’s a total waste of money as it has no value. If she buys me one for Christmas is she overcharged?

        As for armada here’s a weird point, I guess you are US based where armada seems a fair bit cheaper. I’m in the Uk and the biggest ship is around £40 online so may be $80, I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong. This is probably why we’re off on that part.

        As for your points on cheapness, I’m not criticising the quality. It’s just when you hold home one and when you hold a predator tank which here can be bought for the same amount the fomer feels like cheaper grade plastic. It’s lighter and the reality is it has a lot less detail. It’s a simpler model. Really it was silly of me to try and compare the two. I do love the armada models but I really don’t think the quality is the same as GW kits. Then again this is purely subjective and I have nothing to back this up with other than my feelings. So you may be right on this.

        A lot of you points relate more to robustness than quality and I can definitely see how home one dropped from my roof would fair better than my land raider. That said though that doesn’t to me assist in relation to quality as neither is designed to be used that way.

        As a side note anecdotally all three of my vSD’s had wonky aerials and my nebulon was warped right out of the box. Props to FFG who shipped no quibbles replcements but still it was the first time I’ve bought duff models which was a bit off putting, it’s not fair to criticise them for this over GW as I’m sure any of their models would be a jigsaw if shipped pre built but it does go a bit towards quality.

        Overall I totally understand that people think GW prices are too high but I don’t get why people seem to then just middles sly bash the company over it. At the end of the day I can’t afford a Ferrari. I don’t hate them for charging what they do its just a fact of life. Props to them for getting people to hand over that amount of cash. Props to GW for convincing me to hand over cash but then I’m happy enough and so are they presumably. There really isn’t much more to it than that.

      • The funny thing is, lack of build options and variety and the ready to go out do the box nature of Armada are what makes it seem like not a great deal to me. I spend about a year working on an army for 40K before it is game ready, and in that time I’ll play with it a couple times to start getting a feel for what direction to go in, but they don’t really become game pieces to me until I’ve put hundreds and hundred of hours into Making them my own. I pay the high prices I do for options, customizabiliy, extra bits, etc.

        When I look at the cost of the Armada starter and the ships I just don’t see the value, instead I see another board game that will sit on my shelf with its ready to play brothers Relic and Conquest. Do I want it? Yeah, I’ll probably pick it up second hand at a bits swap some time, but to me it is of low value because the vast majority of time I spend on a model is getting it ready to play with (and most have never been on a gaming table). Could I repaint them? I guess, but they don’t even seem that interesting to paint due to their scale

    • Severius_Tolluck

      very true, value is subjective. Different things are worth more or less to me than the next person. To me the Armada ships do come with lots of stuff and are rather large, but the material and because they are pre painted to me does not seem such a good value, and makes GW models seem cheaper on a base comparison.

    • Vomkrieg

      Exactly, price isn’t value.

      But, To a lot of people, the pre-painted armada ship, from a premium IP, with all the cards and tokens needed to play is far greater value than any unpainted model from another game. After all, unless you model and paint, a GW model is just a chunk of plastic bits.

      To the modelling hobbyist, GW stuff is considerably better. To a casual gamer who doesn’t paint, the fact the figures come with, while not great, certainly good by “toy standards” paint jobs, is huge. A lot of people I know love this, as they either don’t paint, or work and/or have kids and finding the time for modelling is difficult. Pre-paints make it easy for them to just buy a model, and put it on the table for a game.

      We’re trying to compare very different sets of customer expectations and products. It’s like the annual meeting of the pizza fanatics saying that taco’s aren’t as good value as pizza, because pizza is clearly best.

  • Vomkrieg

    Those numbers might look ok to you, but here is my reality.

    Archaon costs me $330 NZ to buy.

    The Glacier King is 134.99 US or $200 NZ dollars from privateer press. $130 NZ is a sizable difference.

    But, I can order it miniature market at a discount of $101.24 US dollars or $150 NZ. That’s less than half the price.

    No one I know buys PP models at full price from the PP store. PP models are readily available at significantly reduced prices from a number of online retailers. GW has nothing like that service.

    Even after paying shipping (normally 25% of the model cost), it’s no contest.

  • Aaditya Rangan

    What’s the deal with those $20.00 gundam model kits? How do they compare to, say, a riptide?

    • While being completely poseable, no less.Dynamically even, since the joints fit together with rubbery material.
      Also you usually don’t have to glue anything with those.

      Yup, GW can learn a lot from Bandai.

    • WellSpokenMan

      The manufacturing processes for those are almost completely automated, allowing the Japanese to keep costs low. TT gaming is a hard sell in Japan because space is at a premium. If they decided to jump into this market they would clobber GW on price and quality. It would be like Toyota vs British Leyland.

      • Ed Butlar

        Would be interesting to see how the two companies compare as far as how much tax they pay, how much they pay their workers, how much money they have on outgoings etc.

    • Spacefrisian

      Dont know a better word than…superior.

      And with 1 Hammerhead kit you even can make some Tau guns Wysiwyg (the big Ion Cannon)

  • Ross Webb-Wagg

    Try that argument in Australia! Vangaurd $170 AUD# – $100 US (138.39 AUD), Archaon $280 AUD# – $165 US (228.34 AUD) vs
    Reliant $41.99 AUD* – $34.99 (48.37 AUD) and Glacier King $160.99 AUD* – $134.99 US (186.81 AUD)

    # How much GW Australia sells them for.
    * How much local hobby shops like The Combat Company sells them for.

    • Ed Butlar

      You are kinda on the other side of the planet though. Are other things expensive over there compared to the uk?

      • Ross Webb-Wagg

        Well before GW localised selling of their products, it was cheaper to order it from the UK and pay postage to Australia. Privateer Press is about the same as the US.

        I believe beef is cheaper here 🙂

        • Ed Butlar

          arn’t ciggarettes insane prices?

          • Ross Webb-Wagg

            Thats because the government taxes them so heavily to dissuade people in taking up smoking.

  • bginer

    So I don’t play AoS or Warmahordes, but I was curious as to the comparison by the author between the Varanguard, and the Warjack. What’s the unit size on these things in game?

    Basically how many would somebody field of each in an average game?

    • standardleft

      I played yesterday with 3. I don;t think I would need more than that unless I was fielding Archaon. They took on a oldblood on a carnosaur over 4 rounds.

      I I wanted an everchosen army, I would want Archaon, 6 Varanguard, some warriors and a caster. I think that would be a cool elite force.

      It would be a very expensive army though. More of a collectors/painters display than an army.

      • bginer

        OK, now I have some idea of their role I think.

        Thanks!

        • standardleft

          Yeah they are just like a unit of hero stat cavalry with magic resistance, and with archaon it gives them some nice combo opportunities with larger armies.

          I use them to rush ahead of my Nurgle’s Deluge army, covered with a rain of nurglings to tie up the enemy forces that would counter charge them. They can create a hard to ignore distraction, used by my blight kings/plaguebearers and the rest of my slow moving infantry to march up across the board.

          They also draw some fire from Morbidex (one of the big Maggoth lords), so he can vomit out some more nurglings.

          • bginer

            vomit out some more nurglings…

            Sounds delightful!

            🙂

            Thanks man.

    • oldgrue

      Typically a 50 point Warmachine army is 23-40 models – roughly equivalent to a 1800 point 40k game.
      Typically no more than three heavy (like the mentioned reliant) warjacks are taken in a game, but can skew either way significantly (less than 10 to more than 60 models) in a competitive environment.

      • bginer

        Thanks for the knowledge.

  • Morollan

    Single model comparisons are not the whole picture though. Firstly, let’s look at a unit. A box of 6 plastic Cataphract Incindiarii for Hordes cost $49.99 ($8.33/model). A box of 5 plastic Stormcast Paladins cost $58.00 ($11.60/model, ~40% more than the PP models). Both are plastic, multi-part kits of a similar size although I will admit that the GW models are of a higher quality in terms of material used and versatility although not necessarily in terms of the sculpts.

    Then there’s the amount of models required to play a game. I can pick up a complete 35 point Hordes army including a copy of the rulebook for $145. What’s the cost of a 1500 point 40k army? Even if you pick one of the armies from the Dark Vengeance starter set ($110) you still need to spend a good $2-300 on top of that to get a starting army. Infinity – I can get an entire army for <$150. Same with X-Wing, Armada, Malifaux etc.

    Cost per model is high for GW but you can argue about quality etc so it's perhaps not exorbitant. Cost of playing however is ridiculously high, and that's also ignoring the fact that pretty much every other game out there is actively supported by the company that produces it, with FAQ's, tournaments, online presence etc.

    • Cost of playing is heavily influenced by the fact that people who play 40K tend to be collectors with lots of extra stuff, though, and the biggest cost of 40K is in vehicles, which tend to be low points cost and fairly pricey. You could easily play Zone Mortalis at 1k points and need to invest substantially less into your force to play those games. It comes down to what people want to play, there’s definitely nothing in 40K forcing people to play 1850-2k

      • highwind

        Well, nobody is “forcing” anybody but fielding 1 Captain and 2 Tactical Squads vs 1 Farseer and 2 Squads of Jetbikes just isnt much fun…
        40k lives from the the complex tactical combination of troops and effects and that just doesnt work very good in games with low point values

  • Crevab

    Remember when resin and metal were the more expensive materials? Then GW decided on cost savings AND price increases .

    • ZeeLobby

      Honestly a huge slap in the face ha-ha.

    • Spacefrisian

      I remember, it was right after JJ claimed that prices would drop (when the White Dwarf was still a magazine worthy of being bought)

  • ZeeLobby

    Ugh. BoLs with its fanboy blinders on yet again. A glacier king is 36% of an average 50pt game. We’ll ignore AoS for the moment as thweres no way to quantify an in-game model (making it pointless to compare). An imperial knigjht costs more and is around 20-25% of an 1850pt game (which seems to be today’s standard). So yes. Still more expensive. PP models price tend to coincide with their table value. GWs tend to vary wildly. 1850 of imperial guardsmen can be crazy expensive by compared to other lists and will lose 90% of the time, unlike pretty much any of WHs lists in the hands of a good player. So for the gamer, yes GW is overpriced. According to GW were a minority tho so…

    • BoLS is not a singular entity, this is an opinion piece by a specific person, attributing it to the blog itself is tiresome and silly.

      • ZeeLobby

        What you’re saying makes sense in an open forum, but BoLS is not an open forum (I can’t post articles here for example). People are hired and chosen to be writers based on what characterizes them in this specialty. It is financially beneficial for writers on BoLS to be positive about the hobby (same could be said for their podcast), as positivity will always draw a larger audience than negativity, larger audiences=larger ad revenue. it’s why i’d wager 99% of the “opinion” pieces on this site are positive. To ignore this is “tiresome and silly”.

        • Xodis

          We see negative articles directed against GW all the time though. While you can not write an article at this time, you surely can at some point if you were to sign up. I believe they even had an article asking for guest bloggers/posters at quite a few points in its history.

          • ZeeLobby

            I’d argue the “negative” articles are far and few between, and are normally tag-lined with “but X Y and Z makes it OK”. I think you may be confusing the blog for the comments section, haha. The most critical writer on here is Pimpcron, and half of his stuff is difficult to read through to begin with. Most of the other writers simply regurgitate rumors, repost rumors, or offer a glowing review of X.

            Like I said, I don’t think BoLS would want me as a writer. I’d be critical of most gaming systems, because honestly I just expect more for my money, and they’d probably think it’s rubbing their audience the wrong way. There’s plenty of ranty blogs out there (not saying I’d rant, I tend to use logic), and they tend to have very few followers.

        • There’s no hiring, they have open calls for interested bloggers fairly regularly, and bols makes money based on clicks, which means controversy, if you want to write for them you could email Larry and unless your writing is atrocious (and in some cases despite that) more than likely they’d add you to the blog. Its not like this is a job where editors assign writers topics, half the posts are aggregated content from Spikeybits with no editorial changes.

          • ZeeLobby

            It is tempting. It’d be nice to add more discussion based posts to the blog than just praise or repost. I’ll think about it. I spend enough time writing comments on it, haha.

          • Exactly, if I put half as much energy into blogging as i do commenting… I’ve thought about it too, but its also work, so for now I demure, haha.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, haha, in the same boat. I honestly like the back and forth of the comment section as well. In order to not go in sane I’m pretty sure I’d have to write an article, get it posted, and then never visit it again. Not sure if I’m capable of that self-control…

    • Sutr

      Why does everyone seams to forget you actualy need 2 lists to play wh in a competitive level?

      Wouldn’t that make the diference that much smaller?

      • ZeeLobby

        That just depends on what two casters you want to run. There are def builds in each faction where switching the caster and maybe only 1 or 2 other units is enough to drastically change tactics. One of the best things about WM/H. To be honest, if Warhammer 40K was serious about competition, 40K tournaments would have sideboards as well.

        • Sutr

          that’s just fanboy talking.
          you use an infantary AM army as an example and then come here saying there are cases where you just need to change the caster and a couple units.
          using the same level of comparison you need 2 lists for competitive play in W/H and that’s it.
          double the price you report in your previous post, at least since you included stuff from core sets wich would not be used on both lists.

          • ZeeLobby

            ROFL. Great comeback. Way to make an argument. There are plenty of competitive builds in 40k that cost as much as 2 WM/H lists anyway, especially once you add forgeworld into the mix. To be competitive in 40k you need to change your list or in many cases buy a whole new army every 3-6 months. That’s why you see the same tournament players in the top but with completely different lists throughout the year. In WM/H, there are many tournament rankers who’ve only played 1 or 2 factions since mk2 was released.

            And why are you so sticking the butt abouit co petitive play? I didn’t reference AM as a competitive option. Just to clearly demonstrate the imbalance of financial cost to battlefield value in 40K, and GW games in general. Have fun building your super cool ork horde list only to lose your next 10 games of “fun” play against an eldar friend.

          • Sutr

            how is that not the same with w/h? the 2 lists policy is exactly to prevent the paper/rock/scisors format of w/h so that example is moot. also, pointing out that there are competitive lists that are more expensive than GW’s ones just leaves behind those that are cheaper.
            regardless, this conversation is just going to go round and round until both of us realize that the cost of both games is preaty much the same.

          • ZeeLobby

            Well I play both, compete in both, and can compare costs factually, and it just isn’t. I have easily dumped 2K+ into keeping my 40k armies competitive in the past year. I haven’t dumped nearly that much into any of my WM/H factions, and I have several of those. To ignore how expensive GW is (or has gotten) is just to be ignorant. I started back when store openings used to actually have sales. It IS simply just more expensive. My WM/H rulebook cost $20 from my local store. The 40K one is 4x that, AND I need to buy the codex to support my army. I’m a fan of both game systems, but I’m not in denial.

  • WellSpokenMan

    There are a few problems with this argument:

    First of all, you’ve chosen just one manufacturer and zeroed in on that comparison to be your proof that GW is not overpriced. It would be a lot more convincing if you’d used more than one data point.

    Second, 40k models come with a hefty rules tax. To use any 40k faction required a $50 (Recently cut to $25) codex. This is on top of an already expensive BRB. Since the rules severely effect the model’s utility, they should be factored in as well. Compare 40k to Infinity, for example. Infinity’s Ice Storm is about $100 vs Dark Vengeance at $110. Dark Vengeance looks to be a much better value initially, offering a lot more minis for just a smidge more. However, if you want to play the full 40k game, you have to spend another $50 on rules. At $160 the two sets are much closer in value.

    Third, 40k is played on a much larger scale than most games. This isn’t good or bad, but it does have an impact on the value of individual models. Take the comparison above. The Ice Storm starter provides you half of what you need to play at a common points level. Dark Vengeance does not. This effects individual models as well. A box of 5 Terminators or a Leman Russ might be $50, but it will be a small part of your overall army. $50 worth of models in other games can be over half of your force (Malifaux) or a third (Infinity). The large size of 40k games diminishes the utility of each individual model.

    These are the economic arguments, and now I will add a bonus personal one.

    Bonus, stop the income shaming. It makes you sound like a jerk. You might believe that you are better than someone else because you have more disposable income, but you aren’t supposed to say so out loud. It is better for all concerned if you keep your delusions to yourself. This is a hobby, and how much money someone chooses to waste on it has nothing to do with their self worth. Even if GW believes this crap themselves, it does the company no favors to have an image of 40k players as elitist jerks who sneer at the “little people.”

    Counterpoint, GW’s models aren’t overpriced as long as they sell. GW is pricing themselves out of certain demographics, that is true. However, as long as people still buy their stuff, it means that those people still value the models enough to pay for them. People do pay for $100+ for yoga pants, and as long as those pants make them happy, they aren’t overpriced. It is consumer who makes the final determination of value.

    • Sebastien Bazinet

      DV comes with a small rule book btw

      • WellSpokenMan

        Yes it does. Most starter sets do. What I’m talking about is the faction specific rules (codex) that most games do no have. In order to play DV with the full rules, you need a CSM codex and a DA codex. Until last week those codices would have cost you an additional $100. They now can be had in stripped down digital form for $25 each. This is a positive move from GW, but it still adds $50 to the cost of DV.

  • dave long island

    A discussion about GW’s prices?? Whaaaa?? What a unique topic for a conversation!…

    • WellSpokenMan

      Yes, but the clicks will roll in. Particularly with that image of DiCaprio playing a DB trying to troll a federal agent. It’s begging for a fight.

  • I used to argue similar points. At the model vs model level GW is still pretty high but other companies are comparably high.

    Then I started to realize people aren’t arguing from a model vs model level. They are arguing from an army vs army level.

    Privateer could come out with a $200 lump of poop with googly eyes that says “haidy ho” when you push its fecaline belly. But if that was most of the army, people wouldn’t care, even though he costs more than archaon because the army total would still be around $200 or whatever, whereas the GW model is usually only part of the army and you need another $400 – $500 to complete the army.

    GW sees itself as a modeling company – and taking away the games and just straight up comparing model for model, then yes there can be *some* argument that a lot of other companies have similarly overpriced models.

    But gamers don’t care about that – they are looking at the overall total cost of a tournament ready force vs the total cost of another tournament ready force (and Age of Sigmar has no tournament circuit so its already blasted out of the water) and that is the value that they care about.

    • Absolutely.

      This is another fluff piece. I realize they don’t like people leaving the game in droves but the writing is on the wall.

      For BoLS, It’s way past time to start the painful process of breaking up with GW.

      • WellSpokenMan

        Not going to happen. They have a symbiotic relationship. Most of the content here is about 40k with other content targeted at players who play another game in addition to 40k. There are other websites that cover games more broadly than BoLS.

    • Thatroubleshootah

      This and only this. Plus many other game systems do have great looking models. They just don’t put a crapload of skulls and scrolls on everything.

    • I think that makes the case though why GW says they don’t see their core customer as gamers. Do they play with the models? Of course, but if I wasn’t buying GW minis I’d be buying the same quantity of minis from other manufacturers whether or not I need them in game because gaming accounts for a tiny portion of the value of a model for me. I love building, customizing, painting. Gaming can be fun but it’s also something of a hassle and not as convenient as walking downstairs and spending an hour getting some infantry painted. For people like me (which as a 40K gamer is most of the gamers I know) game size is irrelevant, In the last year I’ve bought and built like 7K worth of Daemonkin. Do I intend to plays with all of it? God no, I just wanted to collect all the minis I got.

      • Xodis

        Yeah, I thought I was a gamer, then I calculated the ratio of game time to play time (time spent doing everything else with the hobby that doesnt include playing the game) and I dont game nearly enough to call myself an actual gamer when it comes to Wargames lol. Like the % is stupidly small.

  • Frankly, GW’s rising prices have never bothered me. Are they expensive? Of course, and I don’t think anyone disputes that, but the prices are right there on the products; they aren’t trying to “trick” anyone.

    If it’s too expensive, don’t buy them. Sorry if you picked an expensive hobby; it’s certainly not the only one out there. Did it used to be cheaper? Of course; astute observation all you bitter detectives out there. Almost everything was.

    Is a piece of rock (diamond), pieces of paper (comic book), or hunk of metal (car) inherently valuable? Not really, it’s the value we attach to it. There is little difference between this and the plastic men we all love so dearly.

    • WellSpokenMan

      The concept you are talking about is utility. It’s part of how a free market works. Each person gets to decide on their own what the utility of something is. This particular hobby comes with a lot of sunk cost (that’s another economic term). People feel that abandoning 40k is incurring a loss, so they spend more than they really want to in order to keep it going. That’s a mistake, but it’s also part of human nature.
      The bigger issue for me is that this hobby seems to be increasingly populated by people who think that their willingness to buy GWs products somehow makes them superior to someone who thinks that the price is too high for what you get.

      • Some good points. Agreed there is a significant price-of-entry, much more so than many other hobbies.

        I don’t think it has much to do with superiority however, observing that prices will increase due to internal (ROI) or external (market) pressures, among other things. Bemoaning GW price hikes in this light seems like a very narrow view to base an opinion on, but people are certainly welcome to do so.

        IMO “willingness” is different than “ability” to purchase. It’s relatively apolitical and straight forward to me: you can either afford this hobby or not. If you can’t, you’re welcome to voice your concerns, I’m just not sure what people hope to accomplish other than misery loves company. But perhaps I’m missing something

        • WellSpokenMan

          GW isn’t the hobby. If someone wants to play 40k and can’t because it’s too expensive, then they should play something cheaper (which is almost everything). Diversify your hobby by playing different games, making some terrain or a gaming table, etc., and GW’s price hikes will be easier to weather. That’s the advice I give people. It’s a lot more productive to buy into another game than it is to complain about GW.

          • Well said Wellspoken

          • Shiwan8

            Well said and works as long as the gamer does not care at all about the setting.

    • Nameless

      if a video game doesn’t allow reviews before its release, if a film prohibits any non assosciated magazine from covering their new film then more often that not they are doing so to withhold information from the consumer, information that would negativly impact on their sales.

      Games Workshop goes to more than reasonable lenghs to hide their releases, as well as the rules for these releases for as long as they can. lets not forget that they also released an expensive campiagn book for a system that was discontinued 4 months later. Games workshop certainly do attempt to mislead their customers into spending money in the beleive that they are buying something worthwile only for it to be redundant only a short while later.

  • Chaosrex

    Compare a WArjack and a Chaos varangarde…

    Difference is that the Warjack, if you need one, you will only buy one, while the Varangarde you don’t have a choice, you buy the three of them and you pay the cost…

    Also the bit with Dicaprio is actually funny, un-accurate but funny.

    Because when i started you had a box of marines for 20$ and Land Raiders where 2 for 35$.

    Now yes there is a huge difference between the kits of then and now, and i won’t say that for the most, GW actual plastic Tech is amazing.

    But there is the amazing that you are willing to pay and that in retrospect you don’t regret, and then there is amazing that leave a bitter taste in the mouth because its not worth it.

  • Spacefrisian

    Wouldnt that new Denegrha version on dragon be a better comparison to Archeon on Dragon than that Mountain Troll? Just saying, rider on dragon and such.

  • Drew

    The thing about the Varanguard/Warjack argument, however, is that $100 gets you three Varanguard. $35 gets you one heavy warjack, and depending on your army, that may be the only one you need.

    If you could buy/field Varanguard individually, it’d be a more solid comparison.

    • Nameless

      I think the Vanguard would have been much more palitable if they where sold indurvidually. having to buy them in 3’s makes the cost seem a lot bigger than it is per model

      • I agree. I really only wanted four, one for each god’s champion (the four horsemen).

        I did buy two boxes so I could make four and have two extras but I wish they’d have been sold in clam packs.

  • Dennis Finan Jr

    They are all exspensive, as are most hobbies

    • Ed Butlar

      Its not as expensive as paint balling that’s for sure.

      • Dennis Finan Jr

        Doesnt hurt as much either!

  • vyrago

    “I’d rather pay a premium (from what I can see approximately a 15% premium) but get a superior product.”

    How’s that Kool-Aid taste?

  • Gridloc

    Instead of a model vs model article, please show us an starting army vs starting army between systems. BOLS does tons of game company reviews. It may even open the eyes to other games people didn’t hear about.

    Such as a starting
    Infinity (Nomad) army at 300 pts (standard size) ~ $125
    vs
    PP (cygnar) 50pt list ~$175
    vs
    Bolt Action (German) 2000pts ~ $140
    vs
    GW(Dark Angels) 1850pt ~$430

    show what models people could get…

    yeah GW may be most expensive but if you show an army break out, maybe people will see value or won’t based of what is presented. A model to model can take the context out of the true value of something.

  • Erik Setzer

    FFS, guys, did you wake up and decide today is the day you stopped pretending to not be paid by Games Workshop to write articles painting them as the Savior?

    Your first example is to compare two models of comparable size, one of which is $30, but you say “plastic’s better to work with,” although two things:

    1. The cheaper model is made of more expensive materials.
    2. That plastic kit is still a mess to try to modify, as are most of GW’s newer plastic character kits, and if you want to change posing you have to break out the saw, reposition things, then do some very hefty green stuff work to cover up what you did (realistically, in some cases you’ll have to completely rebuild whole parts of a limb). So the advantage is lost due to their method of making the models.

    So the example completely falls apart, but especially because, again, THE THIRTY DOLLAR CHEAPER MODEL IS MADE OF MORE EXPENSIVE MATERIALS. Don’t give me some garbage about “well, plastic’s easier to work with, so it should cost more.” That’s stupid. Don’t charge me more when it costs you less to make. GW was in such a hurry to get away from metal that it rushed out the worst resin seen with models, and there are still blister packs at the local GW that will never sell because the models are warped. (Plus my wonderful $30 character model I’ll never get around to painting and using because all those skinny bits on him are super fragile and snap at the slightest provocation, leaving what should be a nice model in shambles.)

    Then you try saying, “Well, look, these new Varanguard are bigger than some of GW’s other overpriced stuff, so it’s okay to charge almost twice as much as they are for those other models.” Which is a ridiculous argument, and still doesn’t show “value.”

    Then you once again try to compare to a PP model. The GW model just has more stuff thrown on the model, that doesn’t make it look “better” (unless you think a model must be overly busy to look good). The GW model also can’t be posed, it’s stuck in the stock position. But since you like that position more, you claim it’s “better.”

    Then you claim something is obviously of better quality because it’s made in the UK rather than China? Companies don’t accept junk from China, the quality is still going to be fine, it’s just the labor practices that are questionable. (Now, if you were to bring up the knockoffs, that’s different. But those are black market copies, not a company having something manufactured.)

    Warmachine’s prices aren’t that great these days, which is why I didn’t really jump into it, but they at least have the excuse they’re using more expensive materials. No, I will not pay even more over what those guys cost, just to have a premium brand name. But then, I still have my integrity and am not being paid off by GW to tell everyone they’re the best and amazing value, like you guys are.

    The “value” you so highly tout fell apart for me even more with the Stormfiends. Really nice models, but bloody expensive. Oh, and you can only make one each of three completely different weapon setups… but there were six options, and each body accepted two options. If you wanted a useful unit of three, you had to buy three boxes, nearly $200 with taxes. Sure, you now have three units of three… but in each unit, every model looks EXACTLY THE SAME. The models are designed in such a way that you can’t even convert them, you’d have to rebuild the whole model, and why are you paying $20+ a model if you have to rebuild it? Even the store manager admitted the only way to not make it look so painfully obvious they’re all the same was trying to face them in different directions on their bases, a trick that doesn’t really work as well with round bases. And it didn’t even do much to disguise the issue then. It doesn’t matter if they’re “dynamically posed” if every freaking model in the unit looks the same right down to the piece of terrain they’re standing on. (And the same issue happens with the Harlequins… for my second unit, I spent most of the assembly time carefully slicing them off of terrain pieces and finding something else to have them posed on. Their “dynamic posing” makes them look awful in multiples, without putting in so much work you might as well be making your own models.)

    And as much as you looooove Archaon so much, you can only really build him one way. That’s it. He also has issues with things like those horrible chunky chains they keep slapping on stuff in their CAD creation.

    At this point, you’re just showing off that you have no interest in being unbiased. But this is beyond bias, it’s an advertisement for a company disguised as an article.

    • Ed Butlar

      Its an opinion article isn’t it?

  • Ed Butlar

    I don’t think Warhammer games have ever been produced with the tournament scene as their main focus, that’s in my opinion anyway, could be wrong. I certainly don’t remember as a kid ever getting involved and worrying too much about points costs etc apart from with Blood bowl, I just brought my guys along and played. I would imagine it could get very very very expensive keeping up with the meta and producing a force that meets the various requirements of a tournament. I love the look of some of the other games like star wars but the whole enjoyment for me comes from the painting and modelling side, at the moment that is. I don’t think a game could ever be all things to all gamers and I am certain that if I was trying to be a tournament gamer I wouldn’t try and keep up with GW. I remember thinking how much the prices had gone up about 12 years ago, I bought a few models at the time but couldn’t afford it. I restarted a few years ago and perhaps I was doing better but I found the prices reasonable if a little high. However the recent forge world upgrade pack for £44 (I think it is) crossed the line for me. If future price increases mimic this crazy price then I simply won’t be purchasing any more.

  • Orodruin

    I still think they’re way too expensive. Even after a 25% discount, most new kits are still too expensive. So I patiently stalk eBay and snap up the poorly assembled/painted minis for about 50% off when possible. The extra work is a trade off, of course.

    I understand they’ve got shareholders to please, but as far as I’m concerned their prices are ridiculous. Maybe if I made triple my income I’d buy new kits from 3rd party sellers now and then, but until that happens I refuse to pay GW prices.

    • Ed Butlar

      I buy occasionally from the local shop but unless you play in store its not really worth it. Agreed the prices are high but I spend ages painting so it evens out.

      • Orodruin

        Yeah, I try to buy paints and brushes from my local store, at least. I would like to use their tables more often but feel lame doing so if I never buy anything.

        • Ed Butlar

          I find the shopping experience in store a bit cringe worthy tbh. Not for me. Although I do drop in now and then to buy paints etc like urself. I think I’m going to play the game how it was intended; with a few mates at home with beers.

          • Orodruin

            Not a local GW store, mind you. I feel way too lame playing there and literally never buying a thing. My friends and I have access to a small space with 2 tables and some terrain. Allows us to have exactly the experience you describe.

          • Ed Butlar

            To be fair though I think their paint prices are fine and things like the imperial knight were reasonably priced, others not so however.

  • Seismic Ghost

    The Stately Shill has visited us! Just in time for the holidays! It’s a Christmas Miracle!

  • A friend of mine in the industry told me about 10 years ago that GW will not produce a model without it being able to have an 8X markup (so if it costs a $1 then they won’t do it unless they can sell it for $8).

    GW has made business decisions to make the prices what they are – retail policies, product lines, relationships with distributors and so on. That’s their right as a business and their responsibility as a public company.

    I don’t go to concerts or professional sporting events anymore because the price to value ratio is skewed. I feel the same about GW. I’m not going to make my hobby hostage to GW policies. There are too many other games that I think I will enjoy.

    So GW has irritated me enough that I got into the Warpath Kickstarter, the Hawk Kickstarter, the Imperial Fleets Kickstarter and the Battle Systems Kickstarter. That’s money GW will not get because of their policies.

    • TweetleBeetle

      Their policies which you are unaware of, unable to define or prove, and are otherwise just basing on the words of a friend who was supposedly in the know at one point in time.

      GW has the best, most expensive sculptors. They have the best CAD process. They produce the highest quality stuff across the board, have the largest distribution area, and pump out more product than any other company in the genre by leaps and bounds. They also have more employees. All of that costs more money.

      The direct cost of plastic to sticker price on the shelf has virtually nothing to do with the total mark up.

      Value is also in the eyes of the beholder. You get out of it what you want. Sporting event attendance is way up despite your boycott, for example. The iPhone is a joke compared to the best offerings from Samsung, LG, and HTC, yet it still sells like crazy despite having a higher price tag. Why? Because value in an extracurricular product market is a perception thing (for the most part). Likewise, 40k sales are pulverizing every other game. AoS has sold better than Fantasy did in almost ten years. The Specialist Range will also be huge.

      This article was absolutely accurate, and based on observable truths, not emotions or principles.

      • Gridloc

        “Value is in the eye of the beholder”…

        This can be said to disprove your first statement that GW is the bestest in the world. They have some nice models, but best??? Sorry again its in that beholders eye. So you should have stated, i believe GW has the best…

        Just like your iPhone comment (which i agree with) you are part of the iphone crowd when it comes to GW. So of course if i say, so and so game is better, you much like an iphone fan would do to someone showing him an non-iphone, ignore the facts and evidence and say ‘nope my iphone (GW) is best”.

        I know your a GW fan man, and applaud your dedication to the company that you love. Nothing wrong with that, but realize your mimicking the iphone fanboy ideology of burying your head in the sand and chanting ‘GW is best’

      • If you knew who I was talking about you would not dismiss his comments so lightly. Since they were made to me in private I don’t feel like I can share his name.

        You stated:

        “The direct cost of plastic to sticker price on the shelf has virtually nothing to do with the total mark up.

        Value is also in the eyes of the beholder.”

        That I agree with. GW’s price is driven by perception more than anything. I would not buy Apple products for a number of reasons but mainly because they are overpriced. I feel the same way about GW’s prices. My point about concerts and sporting events mirrors what you are saying.

        On the other hand, if the NFL announced at the start of a playing season that they were going to start playing rugby instead of football, I imagine the reaction of the fans would be similar to that about AoS.

        As to best sculptors, most expensive CAD, biggest yadda yadda, I don’t buy it. I have heard politicians say “trust me, I have the best plan” too often to trust public corporations.

    • So presumably you won’t buy a coke from McDonald’s (100x markup) or any downloaded software (infinity x markup). I wonder what job you do that doesn’t involve a large markup at some point enabling you to be paid a fair wage?

      6x-10x markup is fairly average across other industries. You were not given any deep secret insight by your friend, I’m afraid.

      By the way, doing Kickstarters only gives you a big discount because paying in advance for goods that haven’t been produced yet (and offer no financial risk to the suppliers, but plenty for you), means the speculative costs of making new product are much cheaper. It’s not generosity on the part of the suppliers.

      Kickstarter suppliers will not produce a model if they haven’t got a guaranteed profit already in the bank. You can’t see the product before it is paid for and shipped. The risk is all on you, the customer. And their markup is probably 8x too, if they want to have a hope of selling any at retail once the Kickstarter is finished.

      But go ahead and use your insider information to stick it to the man, if that’s what makes you happy. Just remember, nobody on their death bed ever said “I wish I had paid more attention to price to value ratios and not gone to all those concerts and professional sporting events, having fun that could have possibly been cheaper but wasn’t because other people valued the fun higher than what I did. Euuuurrrgh.”

      • It’s interesting that I made a comment about GW prices and both of you got incensed yet there’s a guy on the thread who stated that he pirates codices and no one even burped.

        I agree, GW can charge whatever they want for the product. They use the same justification for price raises, cost of materials, market changes, flatulence, whatever. I won’t pay those prices anymore because the miniatures are not worth that much to me. If they are to you, wonderful, I hope they give you a lot of joy because that’s what the hobby is about.

        As for McDs, I can buy any size soda for a dollar, stand there at the fountain and drink my fill (unless I am in a college town, Seattle, or NYC where you don’t get refills under pain of death.) I have quit buying Coke through the supermarket because the price has gone from $1.29 for 2 liters to $1.79 in the last three years. Their pricing policy in a fair market, my choice as a consumer. No big deal.

        Either way, I wish you both a Merry Christmas. And I think, @GreyTide, that on my death bed (and I’m 62 so I can see it off in the distance right over there) I will be worried more about how my relationship with my spouse and family is than whether or not I enjoyed some silly hobby or concert.

        • Well, pirates are beyond saving once they start. Getting into an argument with one is an exercise in futility.

          You, on the other hand, are a grumpy old man who stands by the soda fountain at McDonald’s and drinks until he can’t walk any more, just to get maximum value. 🙂

          And I don’t mean grumpy old man as an insult – I aspire to be one! 🙂

          McDonald’s still make an 8x markup if you refill 12 times. They must dread camels going in there. But as you say, you have the choice as a consumer, and it’s no big deal. And that’s kind of the point.

          I envy your life if you think what I wrote was being “incensed” – you must have been very sheltered from people who actually are. Maybe it’s the free refills where you live that chills everyone out.

          And while I’m nitpicking, you call me out for not responding to a pirate in a separate thread, yet you don’t respond to my dissection of Kickstarters in this thread, so am I to assume you agree? 🙂

          BTW, you’re still about 20 years away from your death bed, so don’t go gettin’ maudlin just yet.

          I sincerely wish you merry Christmas, and at least another 20 of them! 🙂

  • TweetleBeetle

    Everything said in this article is absolutely true. Unfortunately, players and fans believe in emotionally driven anecdotes instead of logic and reason. In other words, they are like the mainstream media.

    They will scream and rage, and talk about mark ups (without knowing how much higher the costs and overhead are for GW, of course), but completely ignore the cold, hard, and irrefutable observational truth.

    • Ed Butlar

      To be fair a few GW products are expensive, but I agree the majority are pretty well priced. I guess it depends how much you earn and where you are int he world. But, noone ever forced people to buy it. Unfortunately this place is full of people with militant and polar opposite views. I used to hate it but now I just enjoy the fireworks.

      • Countdiscount

        BoLS is an echo chamber for complaining. I’m not rich, and yeah, GW products aren’t cheap, but I get a lot of enjoyment from them, so why complain?

        • Shiwan8

          It’s like if GW was selling cars, they asked for double the price compared to their closest competition that sells super high end sports cars but GW would deliver half the quality than of junk yard car pressed to a cube.

          This is why people complain. The promotional info and the actual product do not match. On top of that the actual platform (the game) is like windows 98 but half as good, twice as buggy and as stable as an epileptic sniper having a seizure.

          • Countdiscount

            I don’t know about you, but I neither buy, nor complain about things I don’t like day in and day out. That’s the difference around here.

            Someone doesn’t like GW pricing, models, or games, cool, go play something else. Problem solved. No need to complain incessantly.

          • Shiwan8

            Ok. Let’s put that logic in use somewhere else and see how it holds.

            “Don’t like war? Cool. Kick the bucket. Problem solved.”
            “You don’t like food. Cool. Don’t eat. Problem solved.”
            “You don’t like your mother in law. Cool. “Erase” her. Problem solved.”
            “You don’t like your headache. Cool. Amputate your head. Problem solved.”

            You see how your “solution” is not a solution to the actual problem? It just removes the problem from that particular persons immediate vicinity. Directly or indirectly it’s still someone else’s problem. The problem persists.

            Solution to the problem is for example a mass boycott against GW. Mass migration to other hobbies is just as good. Anything that forces them to either quit the business or adjust the quality to reasonable level is a solution.

            Solutions make problems either insignificant or nonexistent. What you suggested is just fleeing from the problem. Running, cowardice. Not that critique is particularly brave, but it’s still more than what you suggested.

            Just to be clear, the cost is not the issue. The quality is. The way GW does things they should pay us to have their product. Then again, it’s not stupidity to ask ludicrous amounts of money for proverbial dung. It’s stupidity to pay for that. Especially now that the product is not even fertilizer in any useful way.

          • Countdiscount

            That’s one of the most asinine answers you could give. This is not a topic you can’t avoid, nor is it important, like war, it’s a freaking game company that you never need to give another dollar to if you so choose. Lol, Yes you can stop talking about it and the problem is solved, unless you think you’re saving some innocent soul from the evils of GW by b******* incessantly about GW.

            GW is not the problem. Their games are not the problem. People that would rather complain and wine about them all day instead of moving on to something they actually like ARE the problem. You don’t like GW, don’t buy their stuff, and yes, it is that simple.

            You talk as if you have no control over your whining and you simply must complain about GW and whatever chosen aspect you dislike. JUST STOP. You can move on. Do something else with your life. Play a different game, and feel the warm contentment of knowing you don’t have to play any GW game ever again, yet here you are…. talking about something you obviously hate to no avail. You aren’t saving anyone, you’re just in an echo chamber of hate here. What do you get from this?

          • Shiwan8

            You people learned a new word (asinine), right? I mean, everyone is using it. It’s the BoLS version of “OMG”. 😀

            It’s a problem that already happened. It can not be avoided because it’s already there. I spent my money and many others did. There is no money back system here. The actual effect it produces just varies. I stopped buying their products because it’s frankly just dumb to not stop at the moment. Some others keep biting the bullet and complain about it. It’s not just something one can walk a way from at this point and claim that there was no effect to his or her life.

            What is or is not important is subjective. 100%.

            I wonder how many marriages died off because one or both parties just stopped talking about their problems. You know, did the thing you now claim is a solution to the problem. I’m betting that none of those people think that inaction is a solution to problems.

            So, you are a fanboy then. I mean, no informed even remotely objective person would ever claim that speaking the truth about the situation is b*******.

            You are right. The company is not the problem. The management and marketing people there are the problem. There is no way to shift their attitudes to right direction unless one makes the whole company suffer through diminishing sales. Well, I guess assassination or personal believable threats could do it, but that’s against the law.

            If GW would buy their products back from me with the present retail price added to the fact that I’m not buying their products…it would be that easy. That would be a solution on a personal level.

            I find it funny how you try to make me stop by throwing insults but you just do not see how ridiculous it makes you look like. Come on. At least try. Make a compelling argument.

            What I’m getting out of this? Well, not everyone is a diehard GW fanboy. If even one of those stops to think the utter futility of their attempt to make the hobby worth their time I’ve succeeded. It does not have to be you, we all know you can not fathom the concept of GW not being perfect. It’s ok. Still, you are just an opposite force to someone like me. You are pretty much just a low ranking minion to GW.

    • Shiwan8

      Have you considered getting in to politics? I mean, you are either stupid enough to be there or dishonest enough to be there.

      Logic and reason dictates that GW should have no customers at all. The game that is the almost lone reason for them having any sales at all is so bad that it’s not even funny anymore. Alas, people are stupid, mostly, and will not vote with their money even when blatantly misterated by the company.

  • Thatroubleshootah

    My beef with gw is not that all of their models are insanely priced, but that the elite models are. Tac squads and rhinos are not unreasonably priced, but Whirlwinds, predators and Vindicators are. A five man Sanguinary guard squad for thirty is not a bad deal but a five man squad of deathwing knights for sixty is nuts. On top of that I have to buy the rules for these models which presents a serious barrier to my buying models for armies I am not already involved in.

    All of the above limits the amount of money gw gets from my wallet.

    I pirate codexes, buy stuff off ebay and used from flgs. You can argue that I am hurting the hobby by not supporting gw, but that’s a two way street. My wallet has a finite amount of money in it. If gw wants any more of my money after I put together my ork, ba and da army they must lower prices because I am not planning on building a fourth gw army largely due to price.

    The other issue gw has is that Gw has raised their prices to the point that other companies offerings have taken a lot of market share.
    Here’s a comparison i bought almost everything available for my infinity aleph army for about two hundred fifty bucks. Some was used. A lot was heavily discounted online where i could buy it without having to jump through fifty hoops. Same with dropzone, firestorm armada and bolt action and beyond the gates of Antares. Same w/ frostgrave.

    If gw wants more of my money, because even though I am still buying gw product, just used and from china or third party people like bitspudlo, prices are going to have to come down.

    Bottom line is i won’t spend 700 to 1000 on an army again.

  • If GW prices weren’t so high, I’d need to buy a bigger house just to store all the unpainted models I would buy and never build. Property where I live is ridiculously expensive, so I’m actually saving money because of GW’s pricing. Hurrah!

    • Muninwing

      i wonder how many of us who have complained about prices (i do too on occasion) have shelves, boxes, stacks, of unpainted models, unfinished products, unopened kits… and yet would still go out and buy a whole army as a project if we were handed extra cash…

      and i wonder how much of the GW-blame comes from our resentment at not being able to have more, when we don;t use all we have…

      • Shiwan8

        I do not have that issue. I’m not rich but I’ve arranged my things so that I could march to the store and just buy a new imperial knight etc. army. I do not buy their products because the game in a word is crap. (“The game” because in all honesty GW has one game and one “lets play medieval fantasy hack ‘n slash with plastic dolls” thing that is just slightly more entertaining to a mentally adult(ish) or mature gamer than one of those play mats with 2d picture of a street complex. You know, one of those that is aimed at 0-3 year olds.)

        If they fix the game I’ll get back in to it and likely buy some new models from them, but as it is it’s just insultingly bad as a design and has pretty much no balance at all.

      • Pretty much everyone, I would guess.

        You don’t see crack addicts complaining to their dealers about the price of the next hit. Well, thinking about it, that’s probably because their dealer has a gun and a callous disregard for human life, but you get my point.

  • An_Enemy

    Such twisted logic.

    “Plastic is better so I don’t mind paying more than I would for resin or metal!”

    Yes…but plastic is a cheaper material than both. You’re paying more for a lower cost product.

    You can’t compare a $34 plastic single with a $30 metal single. One costs less than three dollars to make. Guess which one.

  • Simon

    “The new plastic sculpts by GW are as good (if not better) than any metal or resin sculpts offered by their competitors.” It’s not really acceptable to say “I like it better, so it’s objectively better,” and suggest that it’s fact.

    I really like some of the newer GW sculpts, find some of them uninspired at best, and find others absolutely wretched (also the case with many of their competitors’ products). The majority of the people in my gaming group that don’t like GW pricing, don’t like it because they don’t feel that the GW sculpts are necessarily better than their competitors.

    Some non-subjective numbers on GW’s pricing however…

    They raise their prices incrementally with nearly every release. Twenty-man Skaven core/special units are $35/$41. Ten-man Wood Elf core/special units are $39. Ten-man Dark Elf core/special units are $60. Similarly, the 50mm x 100mm large monsters/chariot-type units started out 8th Edition around $50, and then they were at $57, then $61, and now some of them are around $80.

    The increase is steady, and with each release the same-sized dolls that we paid $1 for yesterday, we’re paying $1.50 for tomorrow.

    Keep in mind, I included the word “nearly” above, as they don’t do it with every single release, but they do it often, and the proof is on their website.

    So don’t go telling me that I’m getting a better value for a doll that costs 30% more, when I might not even like the sculpt.

  • Xodis

    I agree, I like other brands of models too, but when comparing size, extra bits, quality, material, and price I think GW comes out on top, but isn’t SO great that they leave anyone behind either.

    • Shiwan8

      Even when you count the amount of models needed to play the game? Not very likely….

      • Xodis

        Which game? AoS is best at using very small numbers, and 40K is possible although I only hear about small games and never see them.

        • Shiwan8

          AoS is not a game any more than a 1 year old making noises and ramming a toy car around is a gamer.

          GW has one game, 40k.

          • Xodis

            We had this discussion, your definition of what a game is, is incorrect by definition and example. Per your definition not even a Tabletop RPG could be considered a game, since there is no goal that has winners/losers. There is a goal in AoS, just like there are winners and losers in AoS, so even by your definition it is a game.

          • Shiwan8

            We did, and proof proved that you are wrong. You can tell your self that it is not so, but no matter how long you go with that mantra the truth will not change to your benefit.
            Per the definition of a game, like I said before, tabletop RPG is a game at least most of the time because there is a goal and one can either reach it or fail to reach it.

            AoS is not, though. It lacks the defining elements.

            Sorry, but as I said before, facts and proof are against you. You do not have to like it, but it’s still so.

          • Xodis

            You provided no facts or proof though lol. I even GAVE you a goal that either player can reach when playing AoS, and if there is a “goal” that can be achieved or not than it is a game even by your standards.
            Still not sure why you’re dead set on AoS not being a game. I mean if you want to believe its a bad game that is your prerogative, but to say its not a game at all is a bit asinine.

          • Shiwan8

            Yes, you gave a thing that could be in AoS, but is not there. AoS is a thing where results are chosen. One guy brings his/her troops worth 1500p in 8th edition WHF and then the other ups that with what used to be 10k points. This is not a game, there is no goal in the actual activity. You could make a game out of the concept of who can make AoS look dumbest, but AoS in it self has no goal. Gamers can have goals related to AoS though, but that does not make it a game. Chess is a game, AoS is not. The distiction between the 2 should be blatantly obvious to everyone even if you discard the mechanics as a factor.

            Let me put it this way. There is no evidence at all that AoS is a game. GW calling it a game is not evidence, you calling it a game is not evidence, someone else calling it a game is not evidence. These are claims. Prove to everyone that your claim is true. Otherwise you are just full of it and can’t bear to admit it.
            You can start by showing how AoS has a goal by definition of a goal. Nothing let’s us believe that it has one or more of those, but if it has that/them then you can prove it.

          • David Bishop

            I don’t care for Age Of Sigmar particularly. I could see myself enjoying it if handed a ready made army but I don’t enjoy it enough to dedicate the hobby time required to play it and I get a ton of the criticisms, but trying to argue it’s not a game is just a stupidly indefensible premise.

          • Shiwan8

            A game has to have a goal. AoS has no goals that can be achieved during the session. This is because of the limitless deployment rules that let people “win” just by buying a lot of models.

          • David Bishop

            No, you’re just talking about games against strangers. Games against friends can be fine, because you can discuss the battle you’re about to have and adjust lists accordingly. Then you have the battle and both attempt to achieve your goals during the game. It’s not particularly convenient, and takes some work, but like the RPG example upthread, it’s about communication and working together to create a fun game.

            The issue you have (forgive me for interpreting your comments) is that you like the list-building aspect to be part of the game. That doesn’t really work for Sigmar, but it doesn’t stop it being a game.

          • Shiwan8

            Yeah, in theory that is true. In practice it is not a game.

          • David Bishop

            No (in your opinion) it’s not a GOOD game. It’s not (in your opinion) worth your time. It is, however, obviously a game. I don’t like Monopoly, I don’t like Snakes And Ladders – they are both, however, definitely games, as is Age Of Sigmar.

          • Shiwan8

            As a fact it does not meet the requirements to be a game. I have no idea of it’s quality, but it’s not a game. I don’t like monopoly or S&L either, but they are definately games unlike AoS because while the other 2 have a goal built in them, AoS does not. The goal related to AoS is that the gamer brings a huge amount of models compared to opponent. That is it, nothing more, nothing less and that is not a goal in the game, just one greated by it’s rules.

          • Xodis

            Goal – the object of a person’s ambition or effort; an aim or desired result.

            How does what I already described NOT fit the definition of a goal? Seriously at this point I think you are just trolling because you hate this GAME so much. There are even rules for different types of victories in the 4 pages of rules the game has. Victory being a goal, again proves you incorrect.

          • Shiwan8

            Because it is not a goal when it’s already achieved. If one could not just decide to win there would be a goal. Since all one has to do is bring significantly more units than the opposition the desired status has been reached before the ordeal starts and thus there is no goal in AoS. Victory is a goal, sure, but because it is achieved before AoS starts in stead of during or at the end of the ordeal, AoS is not a game.

            I do not hate AoS. I have zero experience with it and I did not play fantasy. I just will not call it a game since objectively speaking it is not one.

          • Xodis

            Ah, that’s where the confusion is coming from. See, thats not actually how the game works, you could theoretically bring as many models as you want and fill up a 6×4 board and still lose, there are safeguards in place for just that type of player. It makes the game challenging to achieve victory that way, but it is far from “decided”. So your entire premise is based off of zero experience and little more than theoryhammer. People theoryhammer all the time, and if theoryhammer were accurate TAU and Eldar would cause 40K to fall into this same “not a game” category you have marked out. I think most 40K players will argue that is not the case however. Bottom line is if you TRIED playing the game and even attempting your theory, you might quickly see how wrong that speculation is.

          • Shiwan8

            It’s based on the rules. It’s a fact. Like I said before theoretically it could be a game, but it is not one in real life. The proof still is against you.

          • Xodis

            Then you need to reread the rules, the proof is actually against you, I even mentioned specific rules that contradict your theory. So you opinion is no more fact than AoS being a bad game, its pure speculation.

          • Shiwan8

            Done. Still not a game. Still the only goal related to it is hobby based: Have so much more things on the table than your opponent that he/she has no chance.
            That is the only thing that is a goal in the context of AoS and it’s not in AoS but rather an external result of its rules.

            Compared to 40k: In 40k you aim for the victory. This starts as list building, it continues as understanding your opponent and his/her army. These are however no more goals in 40k than buying insane amount of models is a goal in AoS. The difference is, that when the battle starts, if both players are roughly equal in skill and luck and the terrain is not biased to either army, the fight in the game results to one gamer or the other winning. In other words, the difference is that in 40k what matters happens after the deployment while in AoS what matters happens before anyone decides to duke it out.

            In 40k you win by playing the game better than your opponent, in AoS you “win” by buying more miniatures than othe other person can handle. That is a goal in 40k and a goal out of AoS. This fact shows us how AoS is not a game with the current rule set.

            40k is an immensely bad game, but still a game. AoS might be fun, but it’s categorically not a game.

            Try to deal with this fact and merry christmas. 🙂

          • Xodis

            Learn that your facts are based off of some strange interpretation that is 100% untrue, so not actually a fact. Have a merry Christmas as well, as I got new toys for my GAME AoS 😀

          • David Bishop

            Actually if you fail to reach the goal in a tabletop RPG you have a piss-poor GM. You can have setbacks, pyrrhic victories etc, but you shouldn’t actually fail.

      • Andrew Thomas

        Don’t forget that those extra bits can’t even be used outside of their boxes, except as a cosmetic flourish.

        • Shiwan8

          True. Though I’m willing to pay more for “cool”. To a certain point…that GW has passed a long time ago.

  • Shiwan8

    I think you miss an important point there. Likely the most important point. While the other games have equally high price models in those games one is enough. You do not have to have 5-10 just to play the game.

    So, with PP you put out a 400$ budget and get pretty much what ever you want for one army. In GW games for the same cost you now have a base for an army that you have to spend at least another 400$ to bring up to reasonable size.

    So, while GW is not that outrageous with it’s prices per model, it’s games demand that you have a lot more models in your hands than any of the other competitors.

  • ted1138

    There’s more to miniatures and models than just size(no joke intended). There’s also what they do in game and how they change/affect your army/team/warband/squadron. Some games like x-wing just take a single miniature to completely change how your squadron works and what tactics you use. Others require the purchase of many models or sets of them to have an effect on your army, costing far far more.

  • Andrew Thomas

    The Eradicator Death Droid, from Warzone, is about the same size and level of detail as Arcs, good resin, and runs about $80 ($60 at my FLGS). I still think the price per model is a little ridiculous.

  • Sigh. Another one of these, huh?

    Did you price out a list for each game?
    Have you priced out the cost of sometimes scrapping entire units that occur with GW? Are we comparing models and not the cost of actually playing? Is anyone buying this?

    Bah, whatevs. Broken logic is broken.

  • Purple-Stater

    Since we’re talking about models that are smaller than a basketball, their specific size is nearly meaningless from the aspect of cost. They’re made of plastic after all. The materials cost of the new Archaon cannot be more than a dollar or so than the materials cost of an old Chaos Knight. Production costs are also largely irrelevant to the size of the model as all production nowadays is via CAD so the effort to design the model is unchanged, regardless of the final size.

    I tend to give other companies some slack on the price of larger models simply because they (usually) don’t have anything near the volume of sales that GW does to spread out the production costs.

  • sloth42

    the part that infuriates me is, although the models look great and everything, they dont even cost half of what they charge to produce. I was a buisness partner stocking GW and we paid 51% of retail value, now thinking this was a misunderstanding in the paperwork we contacted out sales rep, who stated that it wasn’t a mistake and that they sell at this price to stockists because it still procurs profit for GW, how much profit i dont know but you can bet that it will be more than 50%, which means for people buying at retail thats 75% profit GW make, per box/miniture.

    and i understand that there is upkeep of shops, and also wages to pay. but what about the webstore???
    most companies offer slight discounts when purchased online – why? because there is minimal upkeep.

  • Jay Mort

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000WNCI0K/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_3?pf_rd_p=1944687742&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B00DQXSGQ8&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1W5BC6RDHAZ9V8GQFH8E
    Almost 1 foot long, well detailed. Figures are proportioned correctly. Painting guide and water slide decals. Optional variant parts.
    Made of plastic.
    All for 40 bucks.
    ’nuff said

  • highwind

    I just let GW and/or FW create new models and charge whatever they want, cause two weeks later the china recaster has it in superb quality for a fraction oft the price anyway

  • mikethefish

    It’s a little misleading, this article. Yes, you can favorably compare some (and I do mean “some”) of GW’s models with other companies (PP being probably the most obvious choice). The main issue is that with most over competitors, the big expensive models are the exception rather than the rule. With GW you need a LOT of these big expensive pieces (many times, they are most effective when spammed), setting up a situation where GW is far more expensive.

    This is a hobby, and most of us don’t really begrudge the occasional big centerpiece purchase. The problem is that GW games are designed to work with a big collection of these expensive centerpieces. Additionally, GW does it’s level best to restrict the online places where you can get them more cheaply. That’s where most of the griping about GW prices occurs..

    • frank

      is that the exception for privateer? they use a lot of big minis and are gwish in costs minus the quality.

      • mikethefish

        Aside from the inferior plastic material, I would argue the quality issue, but let’s put that aside.

        It was my fault not making myself a bit more clear, so my apologies. By “exception” I mean that to play PP games effectively, I don’t have to purchase many huge, expensive kits. You maybe buy one Colossal for your army (135-150 dollars usually) and then you are done. With GW games, purchasing big expensive models is a far more common experience. You don’t just need that one big piece – chances are you are going to need multiples and then a bunch of fairly expensive vehicle/monster kits as well.

        Put it another way – my checking account doesn’t really care how much I am spending on one specific model. It only cares how much money I am devoting to my hobby budget, and in how short a time span. With GW, you are spending more, and you need to spend it quickly if you are going to get a reasonably playable army.

  • That’s an interesting point and admittedly, I haven’t really thought of it like that. Still, I have a wife and two kids that need supporting, so superior product to WM/H or even FFG or not, they simply priced me out for the most part. I do however enjoy combat patrol and kill team (and even the occasional smaller AoS game) so there’s that. We’ll see how they price the upcoming reintroduction of the Specialist Game line

  • Jay

    GW jacked up the prices too dramatically for so many people I know I would say this was around 2010-2012.

  • Andrew

    Model per model they are cheaper than most, but model count kills it. I started playing Malifaux recently, where six models cost me like $50. But, to have a lot of variety in my crew, I’ve only ended up spending maybe $50-$70 more for a bunch of other models. Compare that to my Dark Elf army, where I had to buy like four $35 boxes just to make one unit of spearmen. And then two $25 boxes for corsiars. And so forth. That’s where the difference lies.

  • Ed Butlar

    I think the big difference with other manufacturers and the one that might affect price is GW have their own shops. I would imagine that costs a huge amount of money, especially in the UK. Things in the uk are so expensive.