Greybeard86

I guess we moved to a lore discussion. Well played, GW, well played :P Honestly, both Fantasy and 40K started as a simple collection of scifi and tolkienesque fantasy tropes cranked up to absurdity, mixed in with some broader "ideas" of the era. It was like to "geek culture" what "scary movie" is meant to be to horror films. So no, I do not think it is a very well thought out "political satire" or anything like that. However, over the years that absurdity of scarcely veiled copy pastes from existing tropes has developed its own character. I do believe the tone is more serious now, which IMHO goes against the original spirit. Of course, fascist themes and saviors and xenophobia, all very present in 40k, are at the center of the political debate now. No surprise that 40k "lore" becomes an extension of the traditional political battlefield. But I think it probably has to do more with what we project into it than what it was "designed" to be. That said, I do not think the original GW produced "lore" was very "minority" friendly at all, but I think this has to do with the source more than with GW's design. More recently, perhaps there is more of a concerted effort to "shape its own course" in GW. But it also coincides with a period in which I have been more detached from the hobby, so can't truly say much about it yet.

Once you abandon the realm of "competitive markets prices are no longer "mostly about costs". To the people mentioning the prices of musical instruments, let's look at the different margins that the piano maker Kawai has vs games workshop. https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xdus/g7w/performance https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xtks/7952/performance I mean, everyone knows this, even though you get the "but what about the costs of development and..." sort of comments time and again. Yes, GW is charging "a lot" because they are "very dominant" in the wargaming market, and yes, their "very high prices" mean that there are people who could be served at a profit who are "priced out" because GW prefers to charge at a far above competitive market price. I mean, it is a classic example of what market power brings, and one of the main reasons why we (as societies) actively fight against market concentration.

Quoting you, but answering to all the "but golf is more expensive!" or "I get enjoyment at 2 cents an hour from GW products". Typically, complains about GW prices come from the fact that we customers believe that the current prices are the result of market power, and that in a different market structure (multiple competing similar wargames) we would have lower prices. E.g. we could potentially have megagargants sold at a profit for half or less of the price, but GW uses its market dominance to keep prices "high". Whether the gargants are "valuable" enough to you for their price is a different matter. People complain because they do think that we could have "cheaper" gargants we may want to buy but GW is locking some people out of the market to make more profit out of the models. And, as a matter of fact, this is absolutely true. GW is most certainly using market power to keep prices "high", and that is absolutely "pricing out" some people that would otherwise participate. Obviously, those complaining the most are the group that are "outpriced".

Yep! I would like to see a lot more of that, specially at a "regional" or "local" level. Yep. They can help, but it is hard for them to be the main drivers without it quickly ending up like warcom. Now, I think that calling an "infomercial" focused website warhammer "community" is a bit tacky.

Indeed! I would love something like the old "Dogs of War", with a combination of "racial" regiments (human pikemen, ogre shock troops, dwarf hammerers) and "multiracial" troops (e.g. a multi racial cannon kit). I think the issue with fyreslayers is that they get very "samey". Slayers were fun in dwarf armies because they brought some "tone variation". I understand that in AoS you can do "alliance" armies but they seem to lose out on a lot of "faction" specific bonuses. This seems to lead to very "samey" army compositions (naked dwarves with axes, eel riders, kurnoth hunters spam).

Regarding new releases: can we get some duardin love? I understand they want to focus on "new" dwarf factions, but still. I would love some new slayers fyreslayers. Haven't had anything new in years (or have I missed anything?). Also, I miss my "normies". Is there no chance to get an update to freeguilds? It is such a wonderful aesthethic, I always think of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutterij#/media/File:The_Nightwatch_by_Rembrandt_-_Rijksmuseum.jpg I think a freeguild line representing multiracial militia would be so flavourful.

It is tricky, indeed. But I wouldn't make such absolute statements. Suppose that GW organizes monthly painting competitions. They simply provide a website to display it and the infraestructure, while the votes are from costumers / viewers. Is this marketing? Yes. Is it "dishonest" / "misleading"? Well, depends on how that would be organized. Suppose that in an underhanded way they promote new sculpts "too much" (by placing it in the announcements of the competition, by posting the new model submission at the top of the page, or similar tactics). Then, that is in my eyes "dishonest". If they don't fo such things, then I understand they are rising awareness for their product but I don't see it as a "dishonest" endeveour. That is not the vibe I get from that website. They opted for the "infomercial" style, which is not the same as a direct ad. They could provide support for community run inicitatives (painting competitions, tournaments). The more "conditions" attached to that support, the more it would look "greedy".

No sympathy for a multimilion corporation with lots of market power and a stellar balance sheet performance in the last years. Absolutely not. I am having a blast putting together an army of OOP metal figures by GW. I am being critical of a marketing style that I find cringey worthy. I mean, shall we address the elephant in the room? You go around the threads of people complaining telling them "it is not GW, it is you", and "maybe you should just go away". The winks, the subtle not so subtle hints at something being "wrong" with the complainers, those are not too far from the things that make some of us cringe when we read warcom. Wait! I think it comes down to expectations; the gut reactions of different publics participating in this thread are interesting in that sense. Some people "expect" GW to use "fake comraderie" to sell, and don't get too annoyed by it. Of course it is an infomercial, it is a corporation putting out thinly disguissed ads! And these people don't understand the outrage, and may or may not read warcom without analyzing it. Then there are those who dislike the "dishonesty" in marketing, who think that ads for overpriced mediocre hobby supplies masked into "helpful" advice to cope with the pandemic are a bit out of place. I honestly didn't think of it at first until I re read the OP, and now I agree, it is a bit cringey. Finally, I suppose that some people might actually like warcom, and get excited by it, and buy as a result. Haven't really met anyone like that, but I am assuming they do exist (GW must be running at least focus groups?). The third group might find offensive the comments of the first, the second does not get whatthe big deal is, and the first gets annoyed at both the lack of "empathy" and what they (we) think is consumers having a lazy / too permissive attitude with regards to company's behaviors. So yeah, perfect thread for some good old internet brawl. And !

Looks very cool! I love some of the things the community created. As for the points, I think it is a safeguard to avoid people "abusing" the system and having to rely too much on good faith. I think that if you are going to use it accepting the point loss might be the safest route, rather than attempting to adjust it. I do get that it is frustrating, though.

I think we discussed enough their incentives regarding tournaments

Yes, it does give me that vibe too. What I think puts me off is trying to blend the sense of “community” and hardcore marketing. Is that truly necessary? Couldn’t they have a true community site, in the sense that they just showcase people’s armies, have invited articles, and so on, without the cringey sales pitches they mixed in? I get it, some marketing “genius” told them that mixing it gets people off guard. And that their ads would likely just get skipped if they didn’t mix them with something else. Then just freaking have a section for new minis or pure ads that are clearly differentiated from the rest. I guess that a lot of us would prefer to interact with a different company, closer to some of the truly friendly local stores (yes, there are super pushy ones even too) and less of a corporate I just want to get my hands in your pocket one. The article that you cite is an example of this more ruthless approach, since it is well known that a lot of hobby products GW sells are obscenely overpriced and not always good quality (some of the shades I like a lot, though!). At the end of the day, GW and other big corporations seem to think that sites like war com boost sales, while people like you or me think they actually lower them. Because after some cringey promotion I am actually less likely to buy a GW product. Without wanting to get too much (is it a bit late, already?:P) into the “moral” part of this, I think ultimately this will change when we consumers become a bit more demanding. Because sadly some people at the wheel in these companies think being “manipulative” is fair play. I recommend phishing for fools by some top notch economists if you are interested in the topic.

Yes, you are right: WarCom is one long infomercial, for the most part. The part that ticked me off is calling it "community" with no way for the community to interact with it (forums, comments, etc.); obviously any "community" content is heavily curated in there. That said, my recommendation if it irks you is to truly step away from it. Read whatever commentary others make on the news that may come from it, and avoid the source. That's what I do, the style does get to me, as it sounds extremely fake. Look, GW is a big corporation and it must be treated as such: one must be careful not to get suckered by marketing, make very guarded and rational choices purchasing, and expect them to exploit every single advantage that their dominant market power affords them. Do that, and focus on the positives; the more people that do that, the less they'll invest in that fake nice slightly hidden commercials.

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.

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.

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?

This makes sense to me, I have for sure seen it happen exactly this way. I think part of why the "gaming" parts are often negative is because there isn't any possibility of consensus being constructive. Ultimately, the rules, good or bad, are outside of the reach of players. In something like 9th age some possibility of changing the outcomes is there. When it comes to GW, thing seem more futile, as "broken" metas emerge all the time (and its always been this way) and players at the receiving end of the stick either switch armies or get stuck in "bad situations". This builds a lot of frustration. Absolutely! I do attempt this balance myself, always trying to have a "big" hobby project on the side.

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.

I think we might be losing perspective here. There are plenty of "controversial" purchases happening across industries and this megagargants are no different. From expensive coffees, to luxury items. OMG how could you spend so much money on a diamond ring, which has poor resale value; that fancy luxury car, that gourmet meal, that high end resort, etc. Sometimes, the cost of production (ridiculous item or not) is closer to the selling prices, in other cases the company manages to sneak in a huge margin. But oftentimes this is not information the buyer has. The truth is, GW is charging that much for megagargants because they think they can make them have that value through their "fluff" (it is not a piece of plastic, it is a megagargant) and their rules. Is it truly different from a glotkin? From a plastic / sculpt perspective, likely not. But it is a megagargant, not a glotkin, and GW can print some words in a piece of paper and automatically make it have more value (it kicks objectives!). Or GW can invest a certain amount in marketing and increase its value. Or perhaps on some "lore"/"fluff" books (another form of marketing), and make people want to play with that new toy because they are so "cool". This ideas of raising the value of a sculpt via "fluff" + "marketing" + "rules" is the entire foundation of the business. Just because they have priced it "too high" for some of us, it does not change the fact that we have been paying large amounts of money (above many alternatives) for plastic / resin / pewter because we bought into the GW "value" construct. I don't think we need to call others who will still buy for 200 "rich people" or "crazies who do not know the value of money". In the eyes of many, everyone in this forum is "crazy" for buying into GWs marketing "story". PS - That's not to say that, in general, I believe we have to guard ourselves against some of GW's (and many other companies!) strategies to "increase value". I think it would be great in GW had plenty more competitors, if players were to create strong "fantasy wargaming" associations to run tournaments (instead of stores or GW vendors having the reigns), and we forced more 3rd party miniatures on the table. All those things would, imho, most likely lower prices, result in better balanced wargames, and ultimately decrease the ability of companies of manipulating prices to the point of what we are seeing (the mega gargant being a prime example). But all that said, the megagargant is just the continuation of a business model that also sells titans for thousands of dollars. And people go around proclaiming how proud they are of their purchase!

While I agree that megagargants are overpriced for what they give you (see my previous post), I think this is a bit unfair. One could make similar comments about people buying certain luxury brands (say for shoes, or handbags) instead of simply premium / high quality. GW operates in a similar manner, they (over)hype with marketing a model, and they have powerful marketing tools through all the fluff / lore machinery they have assembled over the years; plus the rules on the table. At that point, it is no longer plastic, or the number of models, or the quality of the sculpt; it is the mega gargant! It is a son of B, the powerful unit with tons of special rules that makes more or less equally powerful as a whole unit of elite troops. See? Now you have people comparing it in price per point to other armies. It is this capacity of GW to modify its value above what it is in terms of the physical good that allows them to have such high prices (and margins). And this is the same that luxury brands do. So people do understand the value of money, it’s just that we have all bought, to different degrees, into the GW fantasy. Otherwise, let’s be frank, in terms of pure plastic there are infinitely better value propositions out there. Essentially, GW operates under a monopolistic competition model. It strives to create product that is different from that of the competition in both physical shape (the whole heroic scale), functionality in game (all the conventions forcing official models in tournies), and the fluff around the model (it is not a giant, it is a son of B; cannot be compared to previous behemoth models with similar plastic and detail). As consumers, we suffer from this in terms oh higher prices and being more at the mercy of the company (they discontinue ranges, what will you do? It is THE dominant company). At the same time, GW products typically had a lot more support than other companies, that co e and go, and are globally known (both play and resell value). There aren’t many player sponsored games achieving that (chess, and more, bit wargames?). Given the IP and trademark mined field it will be hard for anything like that to emerge. Funny enough, GW was originally a bit like that, they just blatantly copied the popular fantasy tropes and made them into an absurd universe. Now they turn around and want to copyright this aggressively, potentially killing any new company that may wish to do the same. anyway, rant over

I don't think you can compare a SoB army to a "regular" army in terms of price per point. One has to asses the overall "value" you get out of it and that combines the "hobby" side and the "gaming" part; each person places a different weight on those components (and even within). Do you get the same "value" out of a 195$ of a single behemoth, or the equivalent money in other ranges? For example, you could get the following (not exact, but orientative): 1 x10 unit of vulkite verserkers (60), 1x5 hearthguard (45), 2 heroes (70) and the chosen axes (25) 1x10 arkanaut company (50), 1 frigate (80), 1 hero (30), thundrik's profiteers (25) Any start collecting box is 90, so you could possibly take that plus some specific units and have a 1000 points army. Personally, I think that those megagargants are sold at a very hefty premium because they are targetting the same publics they went after with 40k knights. For my taste, you get too little "value" compared to a true small collection of units that you could get for the same price. But GW isn't targetting people like me, rather those who are willing to pay the "premium" for that powerful fancy centerpiece. As long as this type of consumers exist and GW keeps market dominance (so they keep being price setters and not price takers), we will see "overpriced" large models.

I think that's the true answer. Cities of Sigmar looks like a placeholder that they will progressively erase as more armies are developed. Essentially, they moved to AoS without a full range of new miniatures. They haven been predating on the existing range to keep a game that can be played with some variety. However, I do not think they plan on keeping them around, at all. Hence the lack of support in terms of new named characters or miniatures. I am not entirely sure what they will do with some of the first generation AoS that have very little support in terms on minis (fyreslayers). I am not sure GW knows either. If you care about playing the game (not just the "hobby" side), and you do not have the willingness to switch armies in a couple years, I would think very carefully anout starting a CoS army. We have seen the dawi losing miniatures, high elves, etc. Half the range in CoS is probably dead in their future plans, we just don't have a clear picture.

The current prices are, without an ounce of doubt, the result of GW's dominant market position. I am sorry, the rest of things that you are saying do not line up well with standard industrial organization theory and evidence. Personally, I welcome any competition GW might have because it will almost certainly benefit us, consumers. Besides that, the thread is a bit an "old man yells at the sun" kind of thing. If the megagargants are "overpriced", and they do not meet their target sales because of it, then they'll just adjust behavior for future releases and do bundles or other similar stuff with gargants in the future.

This is usually an issue and I feel similarly about it. I do think that, sometimes, 3rd party models do look out place. Certainly the proportions used by GW make it hard to combine... But I am willing to sacrifice that aspect so that GW feels the pressure of the competition. It will only be better for us if they do not think they have free reign.

That is the role of player organizations: to discuss and come up with an acceptable standard. Because the "acceptable standard" for GW is, obviously, to sell more models and disallow 3rd party options. And due to the lack of such "standards" most tourney organizers don't want to deal with messes and go with WYSIWYG and only official models. If everyone agreed that weapon loadouts can be represented with a combination of handing the opponent a paper list and tokens, then there would be no confusion. And so on, this is just a very obvious example.

Disallowing something like this because "someone might cheat" is, I think, weird. What if you bolt it on to the standard bearer? I mean we could find ways to make it more inconvenient to cheat, but at the end of the day markers with buffs / wounds all the time next to units and it is accepted. I think WYSIWYG and no 3rd part sculpts is something that GW has make a wonderful job to put into our subconscious (myself included!). Any deviations from it are often met with a lot of impediments, but I believe some of those are more the result of the subconscious battling against our best interest than anything reasonable.