Price increase news

[Dark Shepherd]

16 hours ago, Joe said:

Games Workshop don't make billions, just for clarity. The company is valued at over two billion, but in terms of revenue they've not even come close to making their first billion.

Even in Canadian Dollars its only half a billion profit :)

[Magos Takatus]

Well, my personal spending on GW will probably be tailing off soon. I have a large pile of shame to work through and the new big thing is getting harder and harder to justify, particularly with the continual FOMO, continual problems with scalpers and supply issues souring the experience.

[Robbienw]

Poor form if this is a tariff based increase.  That should go on US consumers, not everyone.

 

Could be just inflationary though for now if they were able to ship a lot of goods to the US before the tariff deadline like a lot of companies did, and tariff increases are a few months away 

Edited Sunday at 11:24 AM by Robbienw

[N1SB]

Our Brothers saying it is part of Tariffs is right.  GW had announced it in the annual report under Tariffs:

 

 

Our Brothers saying it is totally unfair is also right, but it's not GW making the rules.  Tariffs are pre-paid.

 

As soon as the Tariffed goods arrive in that country's shore, they have to pay there and then.  If you've lived in a port city, there's a guy with this clipboard with all the different codes standing at the docks, like a Death Guard Tallyman.  So all worldwide customers are subsidising the ones in the Tariffing country until they actually buy it.

 

And if customers in the Tariffing country think that box of Marines is too expensive now, and it's unsold...the rest of us around the world still pays for that Tariff.  GW announcing it now is they already decided roughly how much they're shipping to the Tariffing country.  So in addition to the increased prices, expect shortages, because neither GW nor any Distributor in the Tariffing country wants to ship in too much...because they got to pay the Tariffs upfront, and if it's unsold...well...

 

(Rules As Written accounting-wise Tariffs are part of Cost of Goods Sold, which is used to determine prices.  It's not GW, it's not even greedflation.)

 

You can understand how it all works, and still be angry.  I know I am.  In fact, knowing makes me even angrier.  I've got these MBA-installed Butcher's Nails right now.  Even as I'm trying to articulate it now, I'm furious, I'm like Angron knowing full-well what's happening to him and he still wants to see the galaxy burn, even more so.

 

But don't direct your anger at each other, your Brothers are not your enemy.  The enemy is the Tariffs.

 

We at B&C rightly leave politics alone, GW is also leaving politics alone.  But politics won't leave us alone.

Edited Sunday at 12:42 PM by N1SB

[Doghouse]

I'm glad I invested in a printer is all I can say.

 

Price increases never really bothered me too much in the past but of late I think it's surpassed what even I am willing to pay. It's my personal opinion, but I feel it's such a shame it went from a hobby to a product conveyor belt fomo machine.

[Xenith]

=][= I have pruned some posts that strayed too far into real world politics. These may be returned pending discussion and editing from the mod team, as some aspects are on topic. Please stick to objective fact where possible on divisive issues, and refrain from calling out specific parties and idealogies, or the usual rage-baiting things you see as newspaper headlines =][=

Edited Sunday at 01:09 PM by Xenith

[Joe]

I wouldn't be so glad about investing in a printer, particularly for those based in the UK. With environmental mandates really starting to kick in from 2026 onwards you'll start to see the cost of resin shoot up in particular. It's already been trending up as is.

[phandaal]

29 minutes ago, N1SB said:

Our Brothers saying it is part of Tariffs is right.  GW had announced it in the annual report under Tariffs:

 

The quoted section says that tariff costs will be mitigated by operational efficiencies

 

The increase in RRP you have highlighted is on "new products" and is related to capacity/development.

 

The price increase in the OP is across the board (except on paints/sprays, where they have to compete).

[darkhorse0607]

After mulling it over since yesterday and reading some other opinions here and reddit

 

I'm not crazy about them increasing prices, but I'm not surprised. I am sorry for the folks that aren't US based, but at the same time, lets not pretend that GW wasn't going to raise prices for the first time in 5 years, the timing is the only thing that's different, still though, I don't like my country being responsible for it

 

At the same time, I don't think the price increase is what's bothering me so much, it's the lack of perceived value in GW as a brand that's getting to me. That might not be the right term so let me explain

 

The other major area that I spend my time in is running and running shoe/running shoe tech. On that side we are also seeing price rises due to the tariffs. Many shoes are going up ~$10, some like racing shoes (for folks that aren't familiar, they tend to be far less durable but are higher grade materials and lighter) are going up $20-25. So for example, Asics just released the Metaspeed Sky Tokyo, which normally (for the OG, + and Paris models) retails for $250, now for $270

 

Do I like it? no

 

But at the end of the day, I do feel like I'm getting value from it. They aren't cutting corners with things and giving you less for that money. They aren't making it extremely difficult to buy it due to things like website difficulties, scalpers due to lack trying to stop them, locking stuff like developer interviews behind a $5 monthly paywall, etc. They're putting out a good customer experience and product, the price is just going up

 

on the other side

 

It's getting increasingly difficult to buy product from GW. Whether that be from scalpers with new releases, website issues in general, cost increasing before the price rises (i.e. the new Kill Team box being just as expensive as Leviathan, the HH box being $315, Kill Teams going up in price because of cardboard cards,etc), locking things that used to be on WHC behind WH+ (author interviews for example) and some squads shrinking in size (i.e. Sanguinary Guard) or losing content like extra bits. 

 

I love the product, but the overall experience with the company for me is just not there and it's getting hard to say "yeah sure take my extra money" when they aren't doing anything to fix it

[caladancid]

40 minutes ago, Joe said:

I wouldn't be so glad about investing in a printer, particularly for those based in the UK. With environmental mandates really starting to kick in from 2026 onwards you'll start to see the cost of resin shoot up in particular. It's already been trending up as is.

 

The anti-printing bias always finds new expressions. If you want historical context, go back and look at any industry that experienced a shift based on technology. You will find that the things you are saying are nearly verbatim to (inaccurate) reactionary comments for the past two decades. 

[DemonGSides]

Any singular increase in prices would be acceptable, it's the year after year consistent increasing in prices that just aren't seen in other hobbies of a similar price-point/demographic; Infinity didn't suddenly get 4% more expensive every year, Conquest of Kings didn't increase the cost of their boxes as well each year, Battletech isn't going up in price every 12 months.

It's just insane that they won't absorb any of these costs internally and externalize it on the customer.  It's definitely slowed my purchases, this one might slow them permanently as other hobbies have started to chew away at my 40k time, and I have a backlog that is, frankly, embarrassing (Curse you, scratch and dent sales!  Curse you!).

 

If they want to keep squeezing, they can, but I don't have to get squoze.  No one's got a gun to my head to buy GW plastic.

[Mogger351]

11 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

Any singular increase in prices would be acceptable, it's the year after year consistent increasing in prices that just aren't seen in other hobbies of a similar price-point/demographic; Infinity didn't suddenly get 4% more expensive every year, Conquest of Kings didn't increase the cost of their boxes as well each year, Battletech isn't going up in price every 12 months.

It's just insane that they won't absorb any of these costs internally and externalize it on the customer.  It's definitely slowed my purchases, this one might slow them permanently as other hobbies have started to chew away at my 40k time, and I have a backlog that is, frankly, embarrassing (Curse you, scratch and dent sales!  Curse you!).

 

If they want to keep squeezing, they can, but I don't have to get squoze.  No one's got a gun to my head to buy GW plastic.

They're publicly traded, hence have an obligation to maximise profits for the owners. To absorb the cost internally would mean contradicting those (admittedly lamentable) responsibilities, unless the knock in killing their market. Since stuff still sells out like hotcakes regardless, that is why they must either go up or find some other way to make the products cheaper to offset increased costs.

 

From my experience a c-suite will have an easier time signing off on "sell for more", than dealing with a long winded risky cost reduction program, because it's safer cash to map and predict out.

[Mogger351]

16 minutes ago, caladancid said:

 

The anti-printing bias always finds new expressions. If you want historical context, go back and look at any industry that experienced a shift based on technology. You will find that the things you are saying are nearly verbatim to (inaccurate) reactionary comments for the past two decades. 

To be honest a lot of the anti-printing bias largely comes from a vocal group of printer owners being insufferable twerps, combined with the fact it's rife with piracy issues and needs either a lot of space or a lack of mindset for health and safety.

 

A printer isn't a silver bullet for everyone and nor will it ever be. To add to that it's popularity is largely off the back of GWs releases and products, you kill those and you kill the printer market to a degree.

[Robbienw]

The thing that puts me off printers is I wouldn’t actually be able to print the miniatures I want to own.

[phandaal]

4 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

They're publicly traded, hence have an obligation to maximise profits for the owners. To absorb the cost internally would mean contradicting those (admittedly lamentable) responsibilities, unless the knock in killing their market. Since stuff still sells out like hotcakes regardless, that is why they must either go up or find some other way to make the products cheaper to offset increased costs.

 

From my experience a c-suite will have an easier time signing off on "sell for more", than dealing with a long winded risky cost reduction program, because it's safer cash to map and predict out.

 

Well, Games Workshop themselves said they were going to absorb tariff costs through operational efficiencies. N1SB's summary of the image he posted may indicate otherwise (not sure how he got it so inaccurate when he is usually good about that stuff) but you can see in that quote from GW exactly what they told their shareholders:

 

 

[Joe]

26 minutes ago, caladancid said:

 

The anti-printing bias always finds new expressions. If you want historical context, go back and look at any industry that experienced a shift based on technology. You will find that the things you are saying are nearly verbatim to (inaccurate) reactionary comments for the past two decades. 

 

This would fly, were it not for the fact I've heavily invested in my own printing set-up and continue to buy the STLs I wish to print on the regular. But sure - chalk up a differing opinion to anti-printing bias. 

 

Anyone that's suggesting printing is leading to an outright industry shift is oversimplifying what's been going on, and shouldn't be taken seriously. It's a far more nuanced subject than people are willing to accept.

[Mogger351]

2 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

Well, Games Workshop themselves said they were going to absorb tariff costs through operational efficiencies. N1SB's summary of the image he posted may indicate otherwise (not sure how he got it so inaccurate when he is usually good about that stuff) but you can see in that quote from GW exactly what they told their shareholders:

 

 

Tarrifs or inflation based it doesn't matter, tartifs hit and their operational costs go up. They absorb one and charge for the other regardless. Besides it's unusual for anyone to take what they say at face value, rather than assume they've not managed the wording to diffuse blame and snuck the cost in elsewhere.

[phandaal]

1 minute ago, Mogger351 said:

Tarrifs or inflation based it doesn't matter, tartifs hit and their operational costs go up. They absorb one and charge for the other regardless. Besides it's unusual for anyone to take what they say at face value, rather than assume they've not managed the wording to diffuse blame and snuck the cost in elsewhere.

 

It actually does matter, because Games Workshop is being clear on where they plan to fit in tariff costs (operational efficiencies), and they are also being clear where they intend to raise prices and why (new products because of the investment they have made to develop and deliver them).

 

Their words say a thing. If we want to take that and then say it means a different thing, sure, but why even quote GW at that point?

[caladancid]

40 minutes ago, Joe said:

 

This would fly, were it not for the fact I've heavily invested in my own printing set-up and continue to buy the STLs I wish to print on the regular. But sure - chalk up a differing opinion to anti-printing bias. 

 

Anyone that's suggesting printing is leading to an outright industry shift is oversimplifying what's been going on, and shouldn't be taken seriously. It's a far more nuanced subject than people are willing to accept.

 

"I wouldn't be so glad about investing in a printer" is not a pro-printing statement regardless of what you do or do not own.

 

Is printing still developing? Yes for sure. But imagine 10 years ago saying that Warmachine would be an entirely printed wargame. Seems like an industry shift.

[Mogger351]

47 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

It actually does matter, because Games Workshop is being clear on where they plan to fit in tariff costs (operational efficiencies), and they are also being clear where they intend to raise prices and why (new products because of the investment they have made to develop and deliver them).

 

Their words say a thing. If we want to take that and then say it means a different thing, sure, but why even quote GW at that point?

When they say things like "the new edition of our game has been streamlined to be more enjoyable, easier to access and you can continue using your army as before!" do you take their words at face value?

13 minutes ago, caladancid said:

 

"I wouldn't be so glad about investing in a printer" is not a pro-printing statement regardless of what you do or do not own.

 

Is printing still developing? Yes for sure. But imagine 10 years ago saying that Warmachine would be an entirely printed wargame. Seems like an industry shift.

It also failed massively, had supply and quality problems and caused the franchise to go under.

[caladancid]

2 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

When they say things like "the new edition of our game has been streamlined to be more enjoyable, easier to access and you can continue using your army as before!" do you take their words at face value?

It also failed massively, had supply and quality problems and caused the franchise to go under.

 

Hey, I would advise looking things up some before jumping in. I am only going off-topic a bit more so that people aren't misled by your misstatements. The current owner of the franchise, SFG, is exclusively printing the game and selling STLs for terrain, some small armies, etc. And apparently, the game/franchise is doing great.

 

All this is to say, printing is a viable option for a game and will continue to look better as prices go up from GW.

[phandaal]

8 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

When they say things like "the new edition of our game has been streamlined to be more enjoyable, easier to access and you can continue using your army as before!" do you take their words at face value?

 

We are not talking about GW's PR speak on Warcom. We are talking about what Games Workshop wrote in a document to the people who own their company, where they explicitly say how they plan to absorb tariff cost impacts (operational efficiency). Hell, they even hedge it a bit saying that it might take more than a year to implement their efficiencies. Weird thing to say if they planned on covering it with price rises, especially when they were up front later in the same paragraph on specifically where they did plan to raise prices.

 

You may not be aware of this, but there are legal consequences for being untruthful in an investor document. If you want to say the GW executive team is going to lie to their company owners in an official document then do not let me stop you, but that is a bit outside the scope of this thread yeah?

[N1SB]

51 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

Well, Games Workshop themselves said they were going to absorb tariff costs through operational efficiencies.

 

Brother Phandaal's right to say this, he's always made very good points, INCLUDING this one.  That same screenshot also said, "We have a detailed operational plan to make up the c.2% gross margin shortfall through efficiencies. This is not a simple task when we are already very efficient; it may take longer than one year."

 

It's also late here, I'm pondering HH 3.0 army lists, and I'm hungry, but I'll show you where I'm coming from.

 

It's a case of how much GW can save (for itself AND us) VERSUS how much Tariffs increase costs, here:

 

 

This would be the Gross Profit Margin calculation GW uses for its Core, i.e. its own, not licensed stuff, products.  I've said before they aim to maintain a high 70%, and note + is good and - is bad; those show efficiencies increased or decreased.  We want increased efficiencies.  Now look at how small those are.

 

Many GW Techpriests are shedding blood, sweat, gears, for each fraction of a percent, for us all.  Lots of +0.1%, -0.2%, etc.

 

But let's say a country in North America adds a Tariff; that'd be a -X% in "Cost of goods sold".  North America accounts for about 40% of GW's core business now.  Let's say that country is worth about half that continent, so it's about 20% of GW's core business (this is a safe, conservative, undercount, just for this intellectual exercise).  That country adds a 10% Tariff, that'd be a 20% x -10% = -2.0% loss in "Cost of goods sold".

 

You'd need like twenty +0.1% to offset that -2.0%.  GW seems very efficient, so it's really hard to find any more of those.

 

And every business is facing increased cost now, it seems.  GW has to offset the Tariffs inefficiencies AND those new ones.

 

In conclusion, I thought GW's statement about finding inefficiencies to cover the extra Tariffs cost WAS their intention, but clearly aspirational rather than real.  It was just too big a difference.  And it's also absolutely possible that GW -did- find new efficiencies, and even counting those, you still got this price increase (it'd be even higher without them).  Now that Brother Phandaal rightly mentioned it, that's probably what happened, and I did have a bias since I saw that gap.  And with that, I'm going to eat a snow pear now.

[Mogger351]

29 minutes ago, caladancid said:

 

Hey, I would advise looking things up some before jumping in. I am only going off-topic a bit more so that people aren't misled by your misstatements. The current owner of the franchise, SFG, is exclusively printing the game and selling STLs for terrain, some small armies, etc. And apparently, the game/franchise is doing great.

 

All this is to say, printing is a viable option for a game and will continue to look better as prices go up from GW.

I'm not misleading anyone, Privateer Press relaunched the game with 3d printing as their primary production method and it went horribly. The game tanked and sold it on to SFG who appear to be doing better, but they're also not solely using 3d prints and the group boxes/starter products are either HIPS or transitioning to - the same stuff GW use AFAIK.

 

This is also ignoring the economies of scale, there is no way SFG are having to handle the volumes of production and distribution GW are, which in turn would be ill suited to mass 3d printing.

Edited Sunday at 03:55 PM by Mogger351

[Mogger351]

21 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

We are not talking about GW's PR speak on Warcom. We are talking about what Games Workshop wrote in a document to the people who own their company, where they explicitly say how they plan to absorb tariff cost impacts (operational efficiency). Hell, they even hedge it a bit saying that it might take more than a year to implement their efficiencies. Weird thing to say if they planned on covering it with price rises, especially when they were up front later in the same paragraph on specifically where they did plan to raise prices.

 

You may not be aware of this, but there are legal consequences for being untruthful in an investor document. If you want to say the GW executive team is going to lie to their company owners in an official document then do not let me stop you, but that is a bit outside the scope of this thread yeah?

As N1SB highlights above, fulfilling a legal obligation and having legitimate changes are a thing. I've witnessed government funding for RND in tech sectors to introduce new ideas and opportunities  be legally and correctly allocated by the books for a near-finished product that was based off old tech, did nothing new and was shelved.

You are right GW are legally liable if they were to lie in that report, but writing it with intent and then having to adapt their real world plans to adhere as best they can is entirely valid. They can drive efficiencies all the like, but if some executive sees the gap and realises they minimise it via other routes, they absolutely will and they've not broken compliance. It'd be naïve to take it on face value they just decided to purely and singularly seek efficiencies to compensate for the massive additional cost.