2024 Pricing Update

[Captain Idaho]

1 hour ago, Halandaar said:

 

When I was in retail selling outdoorsy gear, those brands were selling stuff at a 100-150% markup vs the wholesale price (which already has a profit margin baked in), and that was nearly 20 years ago now. 

 

A successful business will make the most profit it can with the product it sells before the price of those products is an active cause of a detrimental drop in uptake. The idea that any privately owned business would cap its profit at some absolutely arbitrary percentage simply because you and I would prefer it is totally laughable. 

 

 

You're confusing stock mark up in a store with after expenses and costs profit.

 

GW business practices regarding treatment of customers is shocking in some key areas and being unhappy with that isn't laughable. 

[Halandaar]

3 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

You're confusing stock mark up in a store with after expenses and costs profit.

 

No, I am not.

 

Example brand North Face sell my store a jacket at a wholesale price of £50. They aren't going to sell it to me at cost or make a loss on it, so we know that the total costs incurred by North Face in production, overheads, cost of sales and all that has to be less than £50 per unit.

 

So when they sell the same jacket direct on their own storefront for £120, because we know it cost them less than £50, we also know they are making a minimum of 140% profit on that item when they sell it.

 

Obviously the ratio of goods sold direct vs via third party stockists will affect the overall percentage profit obtained per product line, but the general point is that companies will always seek to maximise profit and the idea that only GW do this because they're more evil than the others is silly.

[Halandaar]

20 minutes ago, Dark Shepherd said:

But high costs are a barrier to entry/engagement

 

Agreed; the price increase that frustrates me the most is the near doubling from £50 for a Start Collecting box to £95 for a Combat Patrol when they are fundamentally the same product. 

 

Combat Patrol (and now Spearhead in AoS) being standalone gamemodes that you only need a single box to play is imo one of the smartest things the rules teams for 40K and AoS have done in recent years, but the pricing on those boxes are stopping it from being a really great gateway into the main games.

 

[Redcomet]

1 hour ago, Bradeh said:

I used to get the start collecting boxes from Darksphere (25% off) for £37.50, now the similar entry Combat Patrol after this is going to be close to (Now 20% off due to GW changes.) £80. That is the real world change, especially for new players.

 

I've moved away from getting my entertainment from these big public companies, fiduciary responsibility is all they care about. 

How many years ago was that and how much of that is general inflation?

[FoursCompany]

While this doesn’t sound too bad over all (2-5% increase, pushing a basic box of troops from $50 to $52, or a large model from $100-$102/105), it’s also just a consistent increase of prices over the course of time which makes it harder. When I got into the hobby a SC AdMech box was $90 (I think) and I could get 1-3 of those for a solid core to build around. Skitarii were around $35-45 (again…I think?) 

 

now SC don’t exist, the CP for AdMech is not a core to actually build around (why all the FA? Seriously…why?), and skitarii are $55 bucks. This gripe is  unique to AdMech in some ways as they’ve always been an expensive line to collect for some reason (looking at you Dunestrider). 
 

It’s just a slow climb upwards which just makes this hobby less accessible and less of something I can indulge in regularly. I’ve started to see GW models as something unique I can purchase just for a fun painting project as a display model rather than purchase en-mass for use in games, or at the very least just focus on building an army very slowly with single kit purchases spaced out periodically and just not using them for gaming until I eventually get enough. Their models are *gorgeous,* but it’s becoming harder for me to indulge on this hobby in bulk purchases which set me up for a new army or branching into a new game. 

 

Edited May 7 by FoursCompany

[Captain Idaho]

17 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

 

No, I am not.

 

Example brand North Face sell my store a jacket at a wholesale price of £50. They aren't going to sell it to me at cost or make a loss on it, so we know that the total costs incurred by North Face in production, overheads, cost of sales and all that has to be less than £50 per unit.

 

So when they sell the same jacket direct on their own storefront for £120, because we know it cost them less than £50, we also know they are making a minimum of 140% profit on that item when they sell it.

 

Obviously the ratio of goods sold direct vs via third party stockists will affect the overall percentage profit obtained per product line, but the general point is that companies will always seek to maximise profit and the idea that only GW do this because they're more evil than the others is silly.

 

North Face and their parent company are experiencing drop in profits, with a 16% drop in revenue of the brand. If they made double profits on items sold, this wouldn't be the case. If they rise prices to make up for it, they'd at least have a reason.

 

GW are making massive profits AFTER costs and expenses. Then passing costs onto customers is immoral and as you mentioned, the barrier of entry and purchasing by existing customers would be harmed somewhat.

 

[Kastor Krieg]

To be honest, despite having a fairly large new Primaris Templar project, I've barely played a game of 10ed. Never managed to properly get into AoS. 11ed would have to be a revolutionary change for the better in all tedious aspects of modern 40k for me to even bother.

I've just managed to get into Battletech Alpha Strike, the simplified version of the classic game. It's fast, it's cheap as heck in comparison. A lot of the annoying things from 40k are absent in it. Fun to paint models, as well. I've played about ten pick-up games locally in the last two weeks.

 

There's no wonder I'm selling off everything but the Templars from my 40k collection now. I'll finish painting them and wait for a more sensible edition of 40k, or keep them on the shelf painted as a pride project. But where I've been buying something from GW weekly. I've not done so for the last few months. And I will not be buying GW models in the future, except as a painter's treat maybe.

 

You guys say a lot of people claim to be quitting GW games but never do. Seems like I just have and this continuous price hiking indeed is just more validation of it being a great move.

[Marshal Rohr]

Really can’t use immoral when discussing toys. It’s immoral to pass costs on for medicine and stuff, not a space marine. 

[Halandaar]

8 minutes ago, Redcomet said:

How many years ago was that and how much of that is general inflation?

 

Start Collecting boxes were a flat £50 up until February 2019, after which they changed to either £55 or £60. UK inflation since then puts that £50 at roughly £62, so the price of a Combat Patrol box at £95 means the entry-level box for each faction has increased by something like 275% more than the rate of inflation.

 

This is slightly muddied by the fact that Combat Patrols are bigger in terms of model/kit count, but it's still a pretty disgusting increase for what is supposed to be the gateway purchase into a new army, and that's presuming they don't go up even more in June.

 

 

[Subtleknife]

1 hour ago, Halandaar said:

 

As interesting and valid as that is, when you have such a diverse spectrum of opinion on almost every topic within that community, there are few decisions about anything that would be universally popular (granted, freezing or reducing prices would be one of them). There's no objective way to measure "profit and loss to the community" except how much that community is willing to spend on the product.

 

Im not sure I agree. There are quite a few ways to objectively measure profit and loss in the community. For instance, companies can consult their consumer base through questionnaires and other practices to establish trends/data on various aspects of the consumer experience.

 

On the employee side you can measure increases in wages and pensions etc.

 

Outside of what has already been listed on the customer side you can easily measure things such as sustainability practices (depending on what they are) or as you have already mentioned pricing etc. 

 

Edited May 7 by Subtleknife

[Halandaar]

6 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

North Face and their parent company are experiencing drop in profits, with a 16% drop in revenue of the brand. If they made double profits on items sold, this wouldn't be the case. If they rise prices to make up for it, they'd at least have a reason.

 

All I can tell you is that the example margins I gave are accurate from when I used to work with them directly some 15+ years ago (when they were doing well, no doubt). The specifics of their current situation are not the point, which is that companies will always maximise their profits while they can, and will only drop prices when it benefits them to do so. 

[Doobles57]

6 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

 

Start Collecting boxes were a flat £50 up until February 2019, after which they changed to either £55 or £60. UK inflation since then puts that £50 at roughly £62, so the price of a Combat Patrol box at £95 means the entry-level box for each faction has increased by something like 275% more than the rate of inflation.

 

This is slightly muddied by the fact that Combat Patrols are bigger in terms of model/kit count, but it's still a pretty disgusting increase for what is supposed to be the gateway purchase into a new army, and that's presuming they don't go up even more in June.

 

 

This does increasingly feel like an issue for entry points to the hobby. When an army's "starter box" is pushing three figures it's a tough sell. The old Start Collectings were ideal cost points, not just for entry but also as easy expansion points for existing collectors. I'm sure GW would point to the core starter sets with stuff from the edition launch boxes in as entry points, but they only cover 2 factions at any given time.

[Halandaar]

5 minutes ago, Subtleknife said:

There are quite a few ways to objectively measure profit and loss in the community. For instance, companies can consult their consumer base through questionnaires and other practices to establish trends/data on various aspects of the consumer experience.

 

Prone to self-selection bias though. People who are particularly happy or unhappy tend to seek ways to make those feelings heard, the majority in the middle do not actively seek ways to say "meh".

 

[Karhedron]

No one loves price rises but I cannot say I am particularly surprised. Items are regularly showing as out of stock on the webstore which means demand is outstripping supply. There are two solutions to this, increase production or raise prices. We know GW are pretty much maxed out on production to the point that they are looking to build more capacity. Makes sense from their PoV to increase prices too since they can be fairly confident it will not reduce sales to the point that they are left with unsold stock.

[phandaal]

12 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

North Face and their parent company are experiencing drop in profits, with a 16% drop in revenue of the brand. If they made double profits on items sold, this wouldn't be the case. If they rise prices to make up for it, they'd at least have a reason.

 

GW are making massive profits AFTER costs and expenses. Then passing costs onto customers is immoral and as you mentioned, the barrier of entry and purchasing by existing customers would be harmed somewhat.

 

 

Problem for GW is they made bonkers money during lockdowns, and now their leadership has to keep the gravy train rolling or they will get in trouble with shareholders.

 

Judging from their profits, people are indeed continuing to dig into their pockets despite a lot of grumbling. On the other hand, people can and do choose to spend their money where they feel like it will give them more enjoyment, and each incremental tick in price here is that much less value until finally people start hitting their breaking point.

 

17 minutes ago, Kastor Krieg said:

You guys say a lot of people claim to be quitting GW games but never do. Seems like I just have and this continuous price hiking indeed is just more validation of it being a great move.

 

Case in point. GW is still the big dog, but other games are blowing up in my area too. I live in a large city with a wide cross-section of people so I think the situation here is representative of what you would find outside of places where it is "GW or nothing." A lot of people are using their existing GW models for model-agnostic games, and supplementing those collections with models from other companies.

 

So it is not like people are disappearing into the mythical hobby trumpet wormhole, never to be seen again. They are continuing to spend money and play games, they are just doing it elsewhere.

[sarabando]

18 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

Really can’t use immoral when discussing toys. It’s immoral to pass costs on for medicine and stuff, not a space marine. 

not quite, ive seen many hobbiest who exhibit clear signs of addiction in this hobby. Predatory sales techniques coupled with Fomo due to scalpers and a customer base that has a higher than normal percentage of "socially reclusive" types means that i think immoral is absolutely fitting. 

 

Lots of people in this hobby simply can't say no, plenty of sales posts come up after big releases with intros like "over bought rent is now due quick sale" etc 

 

 

to the "its only a small increase" crowd at what point is it too much? because il be honest £40 for the new khorne beserkers was too much for me, i certainly wouldnt pay £50 for a box of marines, how about £100 for a tank? 

 

[Halandaar]

Just now, Karhedron said:

 Items are regularly showing as out of stock on the webstore which means demand is outstripping supply. 

 

Definitely think this is a key component. People can rail against how "moral" it isn't for a company to pass costs on to the consumers instead of eating them to maintain prices at the cost of a bit of profit, but there is no reason for them to do so when they cannot even keep up with demand.

 

I think what people forget sometimes is that we are all speculating, but GW has the actual numbers. We can all say that a 5% price hike is going to push people away from the hobby until we're blue in the face, but if the website metrics show that every big release day there are 100% more buyers than there are units to sell, GW aren't going to be phased by that. 

 

 

[calgar101]

Just my views, price rises have been the norm now for a few years and not just from GW. For me, aside from fitness this is my only hobby and I have enjoyed it for 24 years (man I feel old saying that!).

Will this make me quit? Nope. However it will give me that push to work through my mountain of grey shame! 

I've regularly bought 2nd hand units off various places and will look at doing this more now, fixing up 'broken' units and adding a big centre piece from GW to cap it off.

[Captain Idaho]

It's possible to pass on costs for medicines onto customers to be immoral whilst also being immoral for GW to take advantage of customers.

 

They're not exclusive.

[Karhedron]

21 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

Start Collecting boxes were a flat £50 up until February 2019, after which they changed to either £55 or £60. UK inflation since then puts that £50 at roughly £62, so the price of a Combat Patrol box at £95 means the entry-level box for each faction has increased by something like 275% more than the rate of inflation.

 

This is slightly muddied by the fact that Combat Patrols are bigger in terms of model/kit count, but it's still a pretty disgusting increase for what is supposed to be the gateway purchase into a new army, and that's presuming they don't go up even more in June.

 

Comparing the "Start Collecting" sets to "Combat Patrols" is not really like for like. The SC Space Wolves was 15 infantry plus and HQ. The CP for Space Wolves is 15 Infantry plus HQ plus an Invictor. So yes the RRP has gone from £60 to £95 in the course of a year (I think) but the Invictor costs £42.50 RRP so the overall saving is broadly similar.

 

A better comparison in terms of entry points might be the starter sets. The regular 40K starter set is £65 RRP and includes 2 small forces plus odds and ends like the battle mat and dice. I agree they don't quite fill the same niche but arguably that could represent and entry point for two people if they wanted to split.

[Marshal Rohr]

5 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

It's possible to pass on costs for medicines onto customers to be immoral whilst also being immoral for GW to take advantage of customers.

 

They're not exclusive.

They are. There’s no moral calculus in a toy company raising the price of toys. I’m not happy about it, no one is, but I’m not losing sight of the fact it’s just toys. 

[Chapter Master Valrak]

As it was pointed out, we knew the rises were coming, it will happen again, same time next year.

 

My problem was with the post, maybe I read it wrong in my head but it comes across as a little dishonest, they state stuff is going across the board (which it is), but then trying to make themselves out like the average working man when they’ve been having record profits for the last 5+ years.

 

I dunno, just rubbed me the wrong way.

 

[phandaal]

1 minute ago, Chapter Master Valrak said:

As it was pointed out, we knew the rises were coming, it will happen again, same time next year.

 

My problem was with the post, maybe I read it wrong in my head but it comes across as a little dishonest, they state stuff is going across the board (which it is), but then trying to make themselves out like the average working man when they’ve been having record profits for the last 5+ years.

 

I dunno, just rubbed me the wrong way.

 

 

Yeah, seems like a copy-paste of last year. It wasn't any more believable the last time they said it.

 

On the other hand, it is not like they can come out and say "we made too much money and now we can't stop."

[Subtleknife]

2 hours ago, Halandaar said:

 

Prone to self-selection bias though. People who are particularly happy or unhappy tend to seek ways to make those feelings heard, the majority in the middle do not actively seek ways to say "meh".

 

 

Now you are moving the goal posts. Your point was there wasn't any objectivity. I've provided numerous examples to the contrary in ways this can be achieved.

 

Now you are discussing selection bias. There are methods to remove or reduce this that are used commonly for market research.

 

I feel, and I hope you agree that this discussion is no longer conducive to the thread. I will therefor not be responding further on this topic.

Edited May 7 by Subtleknife

[Bradeh]

14 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

Comparing the "Start Collecting" sets to "Combat Patrols" is not really like for like. The SC Space Wolves was 15 infantry plus and HQ. The CP for Space Wolves is 15 Infantry plus HQ plus an Invictor. So yes the RRP has gone from £60 to £95 in the course of a year (I think) but the Invictor costs £42.50 RRP so the overall saving is broadly similar.

 

A better comparison in terms of entry points might be the starter sets. The regular 40K starter set is £65 RRP and includes 2 small forces plus odds and ends like the battle mat and dice. I agree they don't quite fill the same niche but arguably that could represent and entry point for two people if they wanted to split.

 

Start collecting Space Marines had terminator HQ, ten marines and a venerable Dreadnought for £50, now it would cost significantly higher. 

 

It's a like for like because perception is reality. Start collecting was marketed as the starting point for a certain army and now Combat patrols are marketed as the starting point for a certain army, so if you're a new player getting into the game you won't know that difference.