Getting Priced Out

[plavski]

People would complain about prices less if they could just stick with one army... but they have to keep buying, and buying, and buying!

[Greybeard86]

1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:

@MitGas finding bad examples of money spent is easy, in contrast here are done subjectively better ways to spent your money on more or less free time activities:

- Fishing: Low costs, joy for life (at the cost of Fish‘s life‘s ofc, yet GW might kill more fish with all the waste they‘re producing)

Why do people keep comparing it to other hobbies? Collecting diamon pinky rings is expensive, ergo GW is cheap is not a valid reasoning.

The business GW has consists in manufacturing something for a cost X, then adding games rules and lots of marketing (direct marketing, like the warhammer community ads, and indirect marketing, like the novels based on the setting they publish) to sell it for X+Y (yes, turning grey funk into a sculpt is also creating value! :)).  I am assuming that due to economies of scale X is relatively cheap, and then Y depends on a number of factors.

• Do we like the setting/lore in terms of its aesthethics, coherence, "epicness" or whatever we value?
• Are the rules for the model "powerful", are they "balanced"?
• Is it easy to find players to use the model in "matches"?
• How "easy" is it to replace the model by a cheaper 3rd party one? They try hard here, attempting to control tournament rules (goodbye ITC) and enforcing no 3rd party minis rules. I strongly believe the whole "heroic scale" is also an attempt to make other 3rd party models look out of place next to them (unique look).
• Is the model aesthetically pleasing? Is it durable? Easy to build? Pleasant to paint?

GW tries extremely hard to boost Y, and to bring get value out of things that are not strictly related to the physical model, but rather the "universe" surrounding it.

Megagargants are more expensive than glotkin because GW thinks that by giving them a book, a specific lore "story", good rules (they are powerful in game), and direct marketing support (besides novels, I mean traditional marketing) they can boost their "value" and thus command a higher price.

For some people they managed to increase Y so that X+Y is still below the reservation price of the consumer, what we are willing to pay. For others, they do not. I believe that, besides income, there are many other reasons why they might succeed at boosting Y for some people more than others.

But can we all admit that we have, to an extent, bought into the Y sold by GW? Because GW certainly isn't the best price per pound in minis, even adjusting for quality.

Edited October 12, 2020 by Greybeard86

[JackStreicher]

1 minute ago, Greybeard86 said:

But can we all admit that we have, to an extent, bought into the Y sold by GW? Because GW certainly isn't the best price per pound in minis, even adjusting for quality.

Being on this forum should be proof enough

[zilberfrid]

24 minutes ago, plavski said:

People would complain about prices less if they could just stick with one army... but they have to keep buying, and buying, and buying!

Well, after a while all the models are finished.

Then what?

Actually play the game? That's not for me.

[schwabbele]

I think the only way this could change is due to serious competition. See Amd / Intel and what happened to the CPU market over the last 3 years.

Sure there are a lot of "mini" companies out there, but to be honest none of them can even remotely match what GW build up over the decades. On the other hand the wargaming hobby seems to be a great niche market, so maybe a cash loaded investor might try something

 

[Mcthew]

It will be interesting to see how 'recession proof' the GW model is.

IMHO, the current prices for new ranges are not what I call 'recession proof'. But they need to be seen in context to wider GW prices.

SoB will be niche. It's doubtful you will see mega gargants rampaging the Mortal Realms at will. About as likely as seeing lead giants roaming the battlefields of WFB back in the day (yeah, loved the model but waaaay too expensive to consider).

So why produce them if you're not gonna sell many? For the same reason you sell Imperial Knights, the Khorne dragon thing, and all those other minis/monsters that cost as much as a long weekend in Amsterdam (unless you already live there!).

It's for the prestige and endeavour. And the choice for those who can buy them and want to.

Lumineth Realmlords are a different problem. This is a whole new range being released during a recession, and from what I've seen,  it shows. Resellers are practically giving away the limited edition battletome, and our local hobbyist has sold less than half of their boxsets. This could be due to a number of factors, but pricing might be one of them. Comparing entry level costs of new armies to old, and it makes sense to go with Skaven, Stormcast and Mawtribes, than OBRs, LRLs and SoB. 

As the older armies are still cheaper to get into (throwing in Start Collecting boxsets into the mix) so I think the GW model still works to some degree. And like anything 'new', getting the latest thing comes at a cost.

That's not being priced out of a hobby, just limiting people's choices. Which is not fun, true, but it's always been that way since the 1980s.

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Mcthew

[zilberfrid]

11 minutes ago, schwabbele said:

I think the only way this could change is due to serious competition. See Amd / Intel and what happened to the CPU market over the last 3 years.

Sure there are a lot of "mini" companies out there, but to be honest none of them can even remotely match what GW build up over the decades. On the other hand the wargaming hobby seems to be a great niche market, so maybe a cash loaded investor might try something

More than with CPU's, with miniatures, be the change you want to happen.

If you never try any games other than GW games, you're not helping those other games grow.

Mantic did a thing, but I don't know people that play their games.

The Frostgrave environment isn't tiny, but it's not that big either. Oathmark suffers from the release date of April of the year of Nurgle (making in-person games harder), and Frostgrave 2 from the release date this August. Frostgrave 1 was well received, but it's his first game and it shows in places. Rangers, however, could grow quite well because it has a solo option.

Recent Renedra castings are good, I have old ones which have poor quality, but the Frostgrave line and Warlord Landsknechts require less cleanup than the GW sets I have and are detailed to a good point in my painting ability.

Miniature kickstarters fund almost instantly, and could be great drivers for the multitude of miniature agnostic games available. 3d printers also make quite a few options widely available, and they'll have less of a scale issue because you can choose that scale (as long as the shape is right). This makes stocking and shipping non-factors.

Overall, I think the time is right for people to pick and choose any game they like. You have to, you know, just do so.

[Beastmaster]

Sometimes I ask myself if choice is really an advantage, or even wanted. When I look at my little RPG group, our main problem at the moment is choosing which of all those interesting options we’ll play this time. They all have their pluses and minuses, so deciding to commit to one is difficult, but system hopping does get annoying too. Miniature gaming seems to go that exact same route for me, I fear.

Maybe I just spend too much time reading rulebooks.

[zilberfrid]

15 minutes ago, Beastmaster said:

Sometimes I ask myself if choice is really an advantage, or even wanted. When I look at my little RPG group, our main problem at the moment is choosing which of all those interesting options we’ll play this time. They all have their pluses and minuses, so deciding to commit to one is difficult, but system hopping does get annoying too. Miniature gaming seems to go that exact same route for me, I fear.

Maybe I just spend too much time reading rulebooks.

I get what you mean, but do think having a few options is a good idea.

When I start a new TTRPG campaign, I settle for a system. I make/choose a setting, implement a few houserules when needed, and we set about to play. When the campaign is coming to a close, I test a few systems in one shots, then settle on a new one. Overall, my current campaign runs for two years, and will probably end at around 2.5 years. The next one will be Pathfinder 2.

We're currently running a Rangers campaign, as well as a Frostgrave one. The current Frostgrave campaign isn't played that much, so we'll start a new, more narrative one soonish in Frostgrave 2 (though we could change to Frostgrave 2 without issue).

Let's say we amuse ourselves with the current games for a year in total. We can then choose to do a new Rangers game (there are a lot of scenarios), try to find another cooperative wargame, or decide cooperative wargaming isn't our thing.

Any way you slice it, we'll have mini's. Enough for a skirmish game, not quite enough for a bigger one, though (through our own collections and kickstarters), we'll have enough lads and ladies to round everything out up to the size of full fledged AoS armies.

Keeping with miniature agnostic games will let us use all of them, and costs are low enough that I can have multiple for the price of what I have in battletome +GHB+AoS Skirmish rules (which I purchased, but they are bad).

As for spaces? I have had some talk about running a Rangers game in a game store, but well, 2020. When everything is back to normal, they are happy to try it out with a few people, and Frostgrave is already played there. You don't need that much space if you want to play at home, any kitchen table will do.

[EccentricCircle]

23 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

I get what you mean, but do think having a few options is a good idea.

When I start a new TTRPG campaign, I settle for a system. I make/choose a setting, implement a few houserules when needed, and we set about to play. When the campaign is coming to a close, I test a few systems in one shots, then settle on a new one. Overall, my current campaign runs for two years, and will probably end at around 2.5 years. The next one will be Pathfinder 2.

We're currently running a Rangers campaign, as well as a Frostgrave one. The current Frostgrave campaign isn't played that much, so we'll start a new, more narrative one soonish in Frostgrave 2 (though we could change to Frostgrave 2 without issue).

Let's say we amuse ourselves with the current games for a year in total. We can then choose to do a new Rangers game (there are a lot of scenarios), try to find another cooperative wargame, or decide cooperative wargaming isn't our thing.

Any way you slice it, we'll have mini's. Enough for a skirmish game, not quite enough for a bigger one, though (through our own collections and kickstarters), we'll have enough lads and ladies to round everything out up to the size of full fledged AoS armies.

Keeping with miniature agnostic games will let us use all of them, and costs are low enough that I can have multiple for the price of what I have in battletome +GHB+AoS Skirmish rules (which I purchased, but they are bad).

As for spaces? I have had some talk about running a Rangers game in a game store, but well, 2020. When everything is back to normal, they are happy to try it out with a few people, and Frostgrave is already played there. You don't need that much space if you want to play at home, any kitchen table will do.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Mini agnostic games have a huge advantage over GW ones.

In many ways the biggest con GW ever pulled on their fanbase was convincing us that each set of rules can only be used with a very specific model from their range!

[schwabbele]

1 hour ago, zilberfrid said:

Overall, I think the time is right for people to pick and choose any game they like. You have to, you know, just do so.

Well I did it already and GW won this round. Although I still buy other models because why not. But there is nothing out there what provides nearly the same overall expierience like GW does. For some it might be necesarry for others not.  And if I look at this here : 

https://www.manticgames.com/news/visit-mantic-games-hq/

I mean just look at the table... seriously? In an HQ ? Every GW store has nicer tables. And this you buy too when you buy GW.

 

25 minutes ago, EccentricCircle said:

con

Con sounds a little hard...

They usually provide a full package to the customer, and customers seem to like it? If the models were utter ****** no one would buy them and more people would buy other models.

You can always use other models except on their events.

Edited October 12, 2020 by schwabbele

[MitGas]

3 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

@MitGas finding bad examples of money spent is easy, in contrast here are done subjectively better ways to spent your money on more or less free time activities:

- Fishing: Low costs, joy for life (at the cost of Fish‘s life‘s ofc, yet GW might kill more fish with all the waste they‘re producing)

- Most Tabletop Games that are  not manufactured by GW

- Board Games: A whole game for X players, with rules, lore and everything in one box, insanity!

- Computer Games: While this can be a worse way to spent money in some cases it‘s a better way: Once you‘ve spent 200+ hours in a game you enjoy the Game was an objectively good Investment, without producing any waste (Purely digital games on steam)

- Sports: Once you have the equipment you are good to go for years, while also training your body and improving your mental and physical health.

- DnD: Low cost of entry, all you need is friends and your fantasy, isn‘t that marvelous?

- A little sarcastic this one: Drugs, they cost as much as the TT hobby provided by GW and, just as GW’s products they leave you With a soar body, a short feeling of joy, a hole where your wallet once was and an insatiable addiction for more. Side effects include (depending on product quality) a lingering feeling of unnatural wrath, guilt, disappointment and an everlasting yearning for all your unfulfilled dreams.🤣

Well, obviously it's all about how much it is worth to "YOU" / how much one is willing to pay for that - but unless you don't earn enough it's a manageable expense nonetheless. Me not naming better ways for fun is kinda obvious though, I mean most activities are cheaper. A good coat costs as much as an army. A good leather jacket more. If you manage your expenses somewhere else, it's easily doable over time, especially if you only collect an army or two. But like I said, I understand everyone that doesn't want to pay such high prices and use that money for something else. Also I'm neither married nor have children so I don't take those things into account which might change the situation for many.

[zilberfrid]

24 minutes ago, schwabbele said:

Well I did it already and GW won this round. Although I still buy other models because why not. But there is nothing out there what provides nearly the same overall expierience like GW does. For some it might be necesarry for others not.  And if I look at this here : 

https://www.manticgames.com/news/visit-mantic-games-hq/

I mean just look at the table... seriously? In an HQ ? Every GW store has nicer tables. And this you buy too when you buy GW.

I don't really care about the table at Mantic HQ, as I'm not going to visit it, but tables in the GW shop can be quite inviting to play on. If they go further in requiring players to provide the terrain, this will dissolve, of course. I have 15 trees, some 12 rock formations, 4 meter of walls, a stepped temple and quite a few other things like fountains, a village, a bridge and a lot of statues.

It took me about 50 euro's, which is about enough for the GW temple and three GW trees.

[Greybeard86]

40 minutes ago, EccentricCircle said:

In many ways the biggest con GW ever pulled on their fanbase was convincing us that each set of rules can only be used with a very specific model from their range!

 

28 minutes ago, schwabbele said:

You can always use other models except on their events.

They actually pushed hard for that. A lot of tournies go for it, and it has certainly permeated the way we play in the sense that using "proper" GW models and even WYSIWYG is expected among strangers. Obviously that is not a coincidence, GW is very interested in keeping it this way. Can yyou imagine if tournies started accepting similar 3rd party models widely? Man all those meta chasers with 3 color units, what are the odds they wouldn't also pick the cheapest miniature allowed?

[Clan's Cynic]

2 hours ago, Beastmaster said:

Sometimes I ask myself if choice is really an advantage, or even wanted. When I look at my little RPG group, our main problem at the moment is choosing which of all those interesting options we’ll play this time. They all have their pluses and minuses, so deciding to commit to one is difficult, but system hopping does get annoying too. Miniature gaming seems to go that exact same route for me, I fear.

Maybe I just spend too much time reading rulebooks.

That's more or less the crux of GW's success - there's a lot of choice, but people don't want to bet on the wrong horse and have that community die, which will never happen to GW no matter how many terrible decisions they make. The vast majority of non-historical wargamers start with GW and many don't even know alternatives existing, since GW actively tries to cultivate itself as a bubble (you can further see this with the moves they've made with 40k terrain, stops Lil Timmy finding out other companies make stuff like it). Therefore, when people have already 'invested' hundreds if not thousands into GW games, they're wary of splashing hundreds on another game which runs the risk of dying out when the small(er) group of players could move on. If you 'invest' in a 40k army and half the country gets destroyed overnight, chances are you can still take your army and get a game anywhere.

People stick with GW games not so much for the rules - which are by enlarge accepted as pretty terrible overall - but because of the community, or rather the sheer size of it, definitely not for the affordability of it either. Sure, other companies might be a lot cheaper - £25 Mantic Giants the same size as Mega Giants from GW being the most relevant example - but that low cost means nothing if you've spent £100 on Kings of War and can't get a game for it without driving two hours, or spending £500 on 40k but knowing you can pop down the street and play one of about thirty people. Hell, AoS even surviving past it's first year can be attributed to this, as any other company producing 1.0 would never have been heard about again, but the GW brand name was enough to incentivise people to pick it up come GHB.

It's also why smaller scale games like Infinity, Malifaux, Marvel Crisis Protocol etc tend to hang around a lot longer, because people are more willing to 'risk' spending in the region of £50-£100 on a skirmish game, because even if they only get maybe ten games in before GW's new Malibu Stacy distracts them, you've not spent that much.

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Clan's Cynic

[schwabbele]

1 hour ago, Greybeard86 said:

They actually pushed hard for that. A lot of tournies go for it

How did they do that? Can they force TOs to do that? 
 it’s a totally ass move but still understandable from their point of view - brand protection i guess. 

[zilberfrid]

52 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

They actually pushed hard for that. A lot of tournies go for it, and it has certainly permeated the way we play in the sense that using "proper" GW models and even WYSIWYG is expected among strangers. Obviously that is not a coincidence, GW is very interested in keeping it this way. Can you imagine if tournies started accepting similar 3rd party models widely? Man all those meta chasers with 3 color units, what are the odds they wouldn't also pick the cheapest miniature allowed?

I do get that. I must admit to having painted about 80% of all the models the players in my group use (as well as all the monsters and terrain).

14 minutes ago, Clan's Cynic said:

That's more or less the crux of GW's success - there's a lot of choice, but people don't want to bet on the wrong horse and have that community die, which will never happen to GW no matter how many terrible decisions they make. The vast majority of non-historical wargamers start with GW and many don't even know alternatives existing, since GW actively tries to cultivate itself as a bubble (you can further see this with the moves they've made with 40k terrain, stops Lil Timmy finding out other companies make stuff like it). Therefore, when people have already 'invested' hundreds if not thousands into GW games, they're wary of splashing hundreds on another game which runs the risk of dying out when the small(er) group of players could move on. If you 'invest' in a 40k army and half the country gets destroyed overnight, chances are you can still take your army and get a game anywhere.

People stick with GW games not so much for the rules - which are by enlarge accepted as pretty terrible overall - but because of the community, or rather the sheer size of it, definitely not for the affordability of it either. Sure, other companies might be a lot cheaper - £25 Mantic Giants the same size as Mega Giants from GW being the most relevant example - but that low cost means nothing if you've spent £100 on Kings of War and can't get a game for it without driving two hours, or spending £500 on 40k but knowing you can pop down the street and play one of about thirty people. Hell, AoS even surviving past it's first year can be attributed to this, as any other company producing 1.0 would never have been heard about again, but the GW brand name was enough to incentivise people to pick it up come GHB.

It's also why smaller scale games like Infinity, Malifaux, Marvel Crisis Protocol etc tend to hang around a lot longer, because people are more willing to 'risk' spending in the region of £50-£100 on a skirmish game, because even if they only get maybe ten games in before GW's new Malibu Stacy distracts them, you've not spent that much.

I get not wanting to get into a game/faction that ultimately doesn't have a long life. It's what burned me on AoS, because I am entirely unconvinced CoS has longevity (though I am one Ironclad and a battletome away from a 2k points Kharadron army).

For me, mini agnostic games just solve that issue. Osprey isn't going to fold easily, and even if, I get to use everything I have in another miniature agnostic game.

Looking at Frostgrave, I'm also confident that I'd be able to get into a different skirmish game within, say, two hours if I am somewhere a different game is played. I don't mind losing the first few games as long as I'm learning.

[Greybeard86]

7 minutes ago, schwabbele said:

How did they do that? Can they force TOs to do that? 
 it’s a totally ass move but still understandable from their point of view - brand protection i guess. 

A lot of tournament organizers are also stores that carry GW product (e.g. frontline gaming in the US and the ITC infraestructure).

Here you have a list of events, see how many you can match to stores (I added 40k since it has more events):

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/40k-itc-calendar-of-events/

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/aos-itc-2016-calendar/

There are also gaming groups (vanguard tactics, tabletop tactics, etc.) which are beta testers, advance reviewers, and so on .  They often organize tournies too (I'd say the majority are stores, though).

To sum it up, a lot of the competitive scene is run by people who have a very obvious interest in being in good terms with GW. More recently, GW has been reaching out to those tourney organizers with their own rules. Notoriously in the case of the ITC organizers, that previously had their own package of missions (for 40k) and now have instead adopted the GW suggestion.

While the official tournament scene is only a fraction of the games, I'd say that they do set trends. That plus the coverage by popular websites is what most people see from the hobby, outside of their "dinning room" battles. And in the vast majority of those, we see GW products only. GW, obviously, does everything it can to keep it that way, whereas attempts to compete like mantic do the opposite to lure players away (without the fixed costs of rebuying an army).

When companies are strong, and consumer / player organizations weak, we see these kind of things.

[Overread]

1 hour ago, Greybeard86 said:

 

They actually pushed hard for that. A lot of tournies go for it, and it has certainly permeated the way we play in the sense that using "proper" GW models and even WYSIWYG is expected among strangers. Obviously that is not a coincidence, GW is very interested in keeping it this way. Can yyou imagine if tournies started accepting similar 3rd party models widely? 

Thing is in my experience this is nothing new - its how things were 20 years ago (when 3rd parties were even fewer and not as easily found). 

That said from GW's perspective its less about direct sales. Tournaments are a smaller end of the scheme for GW and the official ones are even smaller; heck during the Kirby era they hardly even sponsored/attended them and even did away with some of their own major events. Tournament players might chase the meta, but they are often flipping secondhand models not brand new; and they are a much smaller percentage of total sales.

The reason GW wants only their models in stores/major events is because of advertising. It's not the person playing they worry about its the 20-30-40 however many watching them play (esp now that there's the online world and game streaming). It's the person who walks into the store or who joins the competition or sees it at a larger event. They are the people GW want to see GW models in GW games.

 

And lets face it most other brands want exactly the same thing. Any other brand that runs events has the very same rule; with some fuzz around optional parts and the like. GW is by far not abnormal; its purely the normal way of things. If you want to a Warmachine major event or an Infinity or Kings of War etc... It's all the same - they want their models at their event.s The only difference is GW has more influence in terms of having more events and more stores. 

[Greybeard86]

2 hours ago, Overread said:

And lets face it most other brands want exactly the same thing. Any other brand that runs events has the very same rule; with some fuzz around optional parts and the like. GW is by far not abnormal; its purely the normal way of things. If you want to a Warmachine major event or an Infinity or Kings of War etc... It's all the same - they want their models at their event.s The only difference is GW has more influence in terms of having more events and more stores. 

Never went to a KoW tournament, but I think in those you can play with 3rd party minis. Otherwose, read my reply above. I do agree with a lot of your points.

That said, regardless of the company doing this, the fact remains: there is a direct relationship between market power and prices, and that is reflected in the megagargants. Part of how this works is, as we are discussing now, through imposing restrictions in tournament play. Which they can do because they are a dominant company and tournies are store organized.

I firmly believe that if GW couldn't enforce the no 3rd party minis rule in so many settings, megagargants would be cheaper.

[zilberfrid]

On a separate note, Oathmark has a really interesting way of building armies that would work as a nice alternative to allies in AoS.

You build up your kingdom out of a 10 areas, and you put stuff there that generate options for your army, which are in a shape. In a campaign, you can gain and lose areas, even losing access to a certain unit.

This made me think of the City designer that ultimately never got into the book, where you pick different features for your city (Skyport, Stormkeep, Sylvaneth wood, Arcane College etc) that implied different recruitment options.

[EccentricCircle]

5 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

On a separate note, Oathmark has a really interesting way of building armies that would work as a nice alternative to allies in AoS.

You build up your kingdom out of a 10 areas, and you put stuff there that generate options for your army, which are in a shape. In a campaign, you can gain and lose areas, even losing access to a certain unit.

This made me think of the City designer that ultimately never got into the book, where you pick different features for your city (Skyport, Stormkeep, Sylvaneth wood, Arcane College etc) that implied different recruitment options.

Ooh, I'm intrigued. I've been wanting to do a campaign like that for years!

[zilberfrid]

2 minutes ago, EccentricCircle said:

Ooh, I'm intrigued. I've been wanting to do a campaign like that for years!

And, as a bonus, Kingmaker for Pathfinder 2 will come out soon, just about when my 5e campaign is ready. The combination seems like an excellent matchup. Pathfinder 2 for the RPG stuff, Oathmark if I want to invade them with armies,

[Grim Beasties]

Is there any other site with discounted prices like Element? (they don't ship to canada)

[EccentricCircle]

4 minutes ago, Grim Beasties said:

Is there any other site with discounted prices like Element? (they don't ship to canada)

As far as UK based ones go, I've used Dark Sphere, Triple Helix wargames, Goblin Gaming and Wayland Games. The discounts vary and I have no idea whether any of them do international shipping. Your best bet is probably to see if you can find anything similar more locally to you, but there I can't help. They are pretty common here, but that might not be universal.