Games Workshop Pricing Feedback Thread

[Inquisitor Kallus]

The Games Workshop sales pitch starts with a demo game. It starts by getting people in with the idea that there's a game to be played. Heck, it's right in the name of the company selling the product.

The fact that two thirds of the people from there never play the game again is sadly quite telling about the issues with the game and how you can't get a full experience of the game until you have a huge collection.

It's a failure of game design in that GW is selling people a product which includes a game and the majority of their customers don't use that portion of the product. It's a failure in game design in that the barrier to fully participate in the playing of the game is just too great for the majority of their customers.

It's GW's belief (and Inquisitor Kallus' I'm guessing) that two thirds of their customers don't play their games because they're fundamentally not interested in using their miniatures in a game at all. But if that's the case, why is the demo sales process all about putting the idea of a game into their heads?

I think it's far, far more likely that the majority of GW's customers don't play their games because there is something wrong with the rules. Specifically I think the barrier to entry is so great that GW loses the person as a customer long before their collection gets large enough to play the game at it's full size.

You specifically used the words 'It's a sign of abject failure when it comes to game design.' If all that appeals to these people is collecting, it does not matter one iota if the rules are good or bad.

It is a fact that rules were first introduced so people could play battles with the numbers of figures they had in their collections. The game helps sell miniatures in a lot of ways, and to others the rules don't matter only the figures (which is the majority).


'But if that's the case, why is the demo sales process all about putting the idea of a game into their heads?'

It is not all about a demo game, it is about offering the game, as well as the modelling side. You are making assumptions again. Some people lap up the game, some don't like the idea and instead want to model/paint and are given a short lesson in that instead, others want both and some won't want either.

The game itself is the biggest sales opportunity in most cases as it immerses you far more in the product/universes than purely the painting alone. It also encourages more sales in general to participate in that side of the hobby rather than just building a box or blister of miniatures and painting them up.

I have worked for the company, and therefore have an 'educated viewpoint'. I no longer work for them and have no alleigance to them, and I especially don't like their pricing scheme.

Again, the game is not the be all and end all, it opens up an avenue for profit but I know if the models were dire people wouldn't collect them most of the time. There are again exceptions to this such as tounament gamers etc who 'need' certain models/squads/units to win their games. The tournament scene is also comparitively small compared to the 'hobby' scene.

[frozenwastes]

You specifically used the words 'It's a sign of abject failure when it comes to game design.' If all that appeals to these people is collecting, it does not matter one iota if the rules are good or bad.

Do you actually believe that a full two thirds of people are not interested in the game as part of the hobby? That a healthy majority of GW's customers really have no interest in playing a game with their miniatures?

See Llew's post about how using the rules as a marketing tool to increase the number of figures sold develops to the point where people can't realistically be expected to collect a full size force before they exit the hobby.

I disagree with the notion that the majority of GW's customers don't want to use their miniatures for playing games at all.

I think it's a fair statement, on the other hand, to say that the majority of GW's customers do not want to use their miniatures for playing GW's games.

This isn't a success for GW. It's a failure that their rules don't provide value for the majority of their customers.

The game itself is the biggest sales opportunity in most cases as it immerses you far more in the product/universes than purely the painting alone. It also encourages more sales in general to participate in that side of the hobby rather than just building a box or blister of miniatures and painting them up.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

So what does this mean for the typical gamer?

Don't look to GW for added value in the form of rules. All you'll find is a means of devaluing the models you already bought so you buy more in order to chase the carrot they're dangling in front of you in the form of the idea of playing a game with the miniatures you buy.

GW's prices, per miniature, are not out of line with the other companies out there when you consider only their plastics. They are still high and you get plastic rather than metal for pretty much the same price. But they're not terrible unless you go for finecast or some of the overpriced speciality sets like empire goldswords.

I grab GW miniatures as single figures off of eBay to be used with other rules. Some free ones that are excellent include In the Emperor's Name ( http://thegamesshed.wordpress.com/20...emperors-name/ ), Chain Reaction 3.0 ( http://twohourwargames.com/chainreaction3.html ) and Fast And Dirty ( http://www.freewebs.com/weaselfierce/ ).

GW's prices are getting higher and higher and their rules are adding value for less and less of their customers. Reducing the number of figures you buy and going to a third party for rules can reinvigorate the gaming life of people getting burnt out on GW's approach to rules as an idea for marketing and how that intersects with rising miniature prices.

[rodmillard]

What frozenwastes has written is not about selling less models, except on an individual level.
Instead of trying to sell 100+ minis to one person that approach would be trying to instead sell, say, 30 minis each to five people.
I can see that working because of the relatively easy and cheap entry (at least compared to what it is now).
You'd get a larger player base, a lower threshold for branching out into a second/third/... army and ideally better word of mouth advertising because of a drastically increased perceived value.

Jus picking up on this - based on what happened in my local area with LotR this is exactly what would happen. A lot of people (and I mean a LOT of people) picked up forces for the SBG, and most of us expanded to collect multiple factions (at the evry least one good and one evil, to avoid blue on blue match ups).

But when they brought out War of the Ring noone was interested in expanding their forces to play the mass battle version. If we want a mass battle game we play Warhammer Fantasy or (increasingly) Kings of War - I am one of the few people I know who can field a legal WotR army, and that was only because I had already got sizeable skirmish forces for Easterlings, Haradrim, and Corsairs which I could legally combine into a single Fallen Realms army.

So I don't think skirmish level games for the Warhammer Fantasy and/or 40K settings would actually encourage people to progress to the large scale rule sets. Instead, based on my personal experience, they would attract a different type of gamer: people looking for small scale skirmish games, who maybe can't afford to commit to the numbers/time/money involved in collecting a several-thousand-point army.

And the thing is, there are a lot more people who can afford to play skirmish games than mass battle systems. I think EN's numbers are off - for every player who has the time, money, and patience to build a force of hundreds of models, there are probably a dozen people who would try it if you could pick up a battleforce and a character and that was all you ever needed.

[Spiney Norman]

It is a fact that rules were first introduced so people could play battles with the numbers of figures they had in their collections.

Then the rules are no longer fit for purpose.

I started Dark Eldar just over a year ago, after a year of collecting and painting I have a force just over 1000pts, and can I fine an opponent to play at that size? Can I heck! No-one I can find is interested in 40K below 2000pts now because the rules are designed to work best around that level or higher, and GW uses the rules to push the common game size up every edition.

In 6th/7th Ed Fantasy the common size was pretty much 2000pts because that was the minimum size where Lord characters kicked in, with 8th they've pushed that up to 2500-3000pts for the most common sized game with the need for larger units to remain competitive.

If I was entering the hobby at this point there is no way I could stay the course, with any army 2500pts is an investment of something like £500+ before you can even play a decent sized game where the rules work well.

Both Warhammer and 40K rule work extremely poorly below 1000pts, so how the hell is a gamer supposed to get into the hobby? How many people really are going to put down several hundred pounds into a game they don't know if they will like?

In using the rulesets to force existing players to amass ever larger armies they are making the game progressively less and less accessible to newcomers.

[eron12]

It is a fact that rules were first introduced so people could play battles with the numbers of figures they had in their collections. The game helps sell miniatures in a lot of ways, and to others the rules don't matter only the figures (which is the majority).

I too have trouble beliving that a super majority of GW customers started with no intention of ever playing a game with their models. Perhaps that's just because I've never met one of these colectors-only people in person. The thought that for every warhammer and 40k player I have met there are two who never do anything with their models beyond paint and show them to peope boogles the mind.

It is much more likely that nearly all (90%+) GW customers start intending to play a game, but end up not for various reasons.

[frozenwastes]

I guess if there's on thing to take away from what I've been saying is that the rules as they are don't do anything to help with the pricing problems. They actually make it worse by not only not offering value to the majority of GW's customers, but actively making the situation worse by making the full game experience less accessible to new customers.

Price complaints, when it comes to GW, are fundamentally about value. People complain when they don't see the value go up but the prices go up. GW's rules are doing nothing to offer customers value for their money and I think GW would find its customers to be far more willing to pay the hiked up prices if the game play value was hiked up as well.

[TheMav80]

I think the notion of a "proper" points size only exists if you are coming into the hobby one your own, so to speak.

I didn't start playing until about five years ago, and started with two other people. This way we all started at the same level. We played several games of 1v1v1 with "illegal" armies to learn the rules. All of us having the relatively same spending money we expanded at the same rate. I remember our goal being 1850, since that's what the local people used for tournaments, but I don't recall how long it took us to get there or how much money it took.

To contrast, it would be a lot more discouraging if you found the hobby on your own and felt the need to hurry up and get to 2000 points (or whatever), because the only people you knew were there already.

On the other hand I got into Warmachine just in this past year. I got to a 35 point tournament list in about 3 weeks (would have been shorter if it weren't for the shortages PP was having) and was ready for the Leagues in no time. I entered this on my own and only had the veterans to play with. I didn't even go with a starter box (which would have made it even easier).

EDIT: I will say that there have been several attempts at Slow Grow GW Leagues over the years. They always fizzle out. Even with several weeks between tiers, most of the people cannot buy the stuff they need to jump up to the next level. The prices are too high and often you need to totally rejigger your list between tiers. Or just suffer through your all Terminator (or what have you) list not working for the first four or so levels.

[Hellebore]

It's not just that, GW are writing their army books to play 'properly' only at that size. The amount of interdependent army rules, size limitations etc on armies especially in 40k mean it's just really hard to create a balanced force at 500 - 1000 points. You just can't get the kind of game play at smaller sizes that you used to anymore.

Hellebore

[The Plastic Surgeon]

It's actually 11 parts for the marine. Don't you guys ever use the BASE?

[SunTzu]

It's true, smaller games are pretty much unworkable in the modern Warhammer/40K rules. You can just about squeeze a meaningful 40K army into 500 points (or a restricted one into 400 points) but it's so trivially easy, even by accident, to create a force that your opponent can't beat unless he's taken very specific units to counter it. Warhammer is pretty much a waste of time below 1000 points and even then, one dice roll often decides the game.

At the other end of the scale (though less relevant to this thread) large games of Warhammer work OK, but large games of 40K suffer, though some armies more than others. By the time I'm playing 2000 points with my Tau, I've maxed out my FOC. In a 2500 point game, all I can really add is more Fire Warriors... which is basically like taking a 500 point handicap. At 3000 points, I could take two FOCs to get around that problem, but then I'm fighting with two small armies, which we've already agreed don't work properly separately so struggle to work properly together. The only real alternative is Apocalypse, which is great, I love Apocalypse, but it's far too much of a hassle to play as anything more than an occasional special event; and if my opponent brings a Titan, I'm boned. (Of course if you're playing big games you've presumably already found a way around the price problem, so this is somewhat tangential).

I think one thing that hasn't really come up yet is the increasing trend for units to be sold in smaller sizes. (Not to mention the new smaller boxes being basically the same price as the old larger boxes, introducing a 66% stealth price hike in some cases). As a beginner, you want one of them, one of those and one of that. Variety, hurray! But (in Warhammer in particular) that doesn't really work nowadays as the rules encourage large unit sizes. You can just about get away with an old-style boxed set of 16 Dark Elf Warriors made up as Crossbowmen, that's a complete unit; but the newer-style boxes of, say, 10 Empire State Troops are nothing but useless on their own. Really State Troops have to be taken in units of at least 20 nowadays, preferably 30; so you didn't ought to be buying one of them, one of those and one of that, but three of those. BORING. 40K slightly gets away with it because five models is often a viable unit depending on exactly what the unit is, but Warhammer suffers badly.

So, yeah. Really, to be able to play a meaningful game, you need minimum 1500 points of either Warhammer or 40K. Preferably 2000 points of the former. That's a big investment... and not just for new players. I've recently planned armies of Word Bearers, SoB, Chaos Dwarf (OK, they're FW), Lizardmen and Beastmen and in each case planned the minimum worthwhile force and just choked on the price. Ironically, the most expensive of those (Chaos Dwarfs) is the most likely to ever happen because I can buy one unit and use them alongside my WoC for now, then another, and so on until I have a complete army. The rest... maybe when I win the lottery. Maybe not even then.

[Ozorik]

So I don't think skirmish level games for the Warhammer Fantasy and/or 40K settings would actually encourage people to progress to the large scale rule sets. Instead, based on my personal experience, they would attract a different type of gamer: people looking for small scale skirmish games, who maybe can't afford to commit to the numbers/time/money involved in collecting a several-thousand-point army.

I think that they would actually. Certainly some people will only be interested in the skirmish game but these would likely be people who would either not buy into a 'core' game at all or who would quickly lose interest.

If someone has interest in the larger systems starting off with a smaller linked skirmish game isn't going to drive them away, certainly its not as likely as the £250 or so that it would cost to make a playable army.

Lowering the barrier of entry is something that GW must to do if it has any hope of reversing their sales decline and feeder games are an excellent way to do this. Another alternative is to fix the rules s that very small points game actually work and are fully playable, with the rumoured tiered 6th ed rules this may be an approach that GW is taking.

[Hellebore]

I recall the change from 2nd to 3rd largely being attributed to people wanting to play larger games. Basically GW adjusted its rules in line with the age of their core consumers, the older players had collected for up to 10 years or more and by that stage had a tonne of stuff.

Back in 2nd ed I didn't stop buying models because I had enough to play a game. I kept adding more, growing my army. But rather than feel like I had a big force to choose from GW changed it to me having a small force worth little.

If they had a smaller skirmish level game people playing that would still buy more stuff, there's just too much available for a 40k army not to. Then after a year or two they will discover they have more than they need to play skirmish and enough to play 'catastrophe' level games. After a few more years they'll find they have enough to play Apocalypse level games.

GW have basically set the bar too high to start. They've got enough variation once you reach the bar, but not steps to help you get there.

Hellebore

[paddyalexander]

Its the same today with skirmish games like Warmachine & Hoardes. Did my friends or I stop buying models when we had enough to field a single army? A few did but most went on expanding their collections or buying an army for a second or even third faction. I myself own everything there is to own for 3 factions in Warmachine and have large collections of 4 others (including 2 Hoardes factions). These were collected over a period of 6 years and includes multiples of Warjacks (I own 7 Defilers), Warbeasts, Solos & some Units.

I know many a person who bought into Warmachine or Hoardes as a secondary games system to 40k, intending only to have a small 15 point army but who can now field 35-50 point armies. Why? Because when playing games (any system) at a small size changing out a unit or character can make a big difference to the game and adds a lot of variety to the experience. So people expand their collections beyond what they need to play.

Just because gwPLC release a skirmish level 40k game does not mean that people will stop playing full sized 40k games as long as the rule sets for both are well writen/balanced and most importantly fun to play at both levels. The people who buy into the skirmish game but who have no interest in playing the full 40k game are more than likely to have not bought into the game system as it currently is at all.

The big advantage that these skirmish level games or games with scaleable rulesets have over gwPLC games at the moment is the starters. I can buy a faction/army starter for Warmachine/Hoardes, Dystopian Wars/Uncharted Seas/Firestorm Armada, Malifaux or Infinity and be able to play starter level games straight out of the both that are both fun, reasonable balanced against other starter sets and representive of the full game experience. So for ~€40 I'm getting to experience a new game system & I don't need to spend anymore to have a playable game.

Compare that to between €200 - €300 to have a playable army in WHFB or 40k.

[Spiney Norman]

I think the notion of a "proper" points size only exists if you are coming into the hobby one your own, so to speak.

I didn't start playing until about five years ago, and started with two other people. This way we all started at the same level. We played several games of 1v1v1 with "illegal" armies to learn the rules. All of us having the relatively same spending money we expanded at the same rate. I remember our goal being 1850, since that's what the local people used for tournaments, but I don't recall how long it took us to get there or how much money it took.

To contrast, it would be a lot more discouraging if you found the hobby on your own and felt the need to hurry up and get to 2000 points (or whatever), because the only people you knew were there already.

But thats an even bigger problem, if you start the game with a friend, each with a couple of units and a character and don't know that the rules of the game only function well at 2000pts and above you would probably just assume its a crap game and give up on it.

Though I guess your average GW employee will be only too happy to paint you a rose tinted view of how great the game will be if only you buy another 3-4 squads...

[silks]

Every model in Warmahordes can be good so people will make 10 different small armies - all of which you can do well with. Tournaments encourage multiple lists.
In 40k at the moment you get your internet list and use that until a new codex release means you need to get another one.
Small games are great, but you need to encourage people to buy the entire range by making them all good - and that's down to the rules

[rodmillard]

I think that they would actually. Certainly some people will only be interested in the skirmish game but these would likely be people who would either not buy into a 'core' game at all or who would quickly lose interest.

If someone has interest in the larger systems starting off with a smaller linked skirmish game isn't going to drive them away, certainly its not as likely as the £250 or so that it would cost to make a playable army.

Lowering the barrier of entry is something that GW must to do if it has any hope of reversing their sales decline and feeder games are an excellent way to do this. Another alternative is to fix the rules s that very small points game actually work and are fully playable, with the rumoured tiered 6th ed rules this may be an approach that GW is taking.

I was trying to make the point that skirmish level games don't NEED to be viewed as feeder games - they attract a different kind of gamer who may (or may not) eventually progress to playing 2500 point battles, but would certainly not start playing AT ALL if they were told that that is the "norm" in a local area.

Unfortunately, GW views the market in terms of "how many Space Marine Tactical Squads can we sell to each player," so the idea of writing a rule set where you only need one is anathema to them, even though 10 players buying one each is considerably better than one player buying 6...

[Commissar Vaughn]

and don't know that the rules of the game only function well at 2000pts and above you would probably just assume its a crap game and give up on it.

Is it though? Ive been playing for years and never felt any of the games are "better" at one points level than another, with the obvious exception that theres a sort of an inbuilt lowest possible limit (i.e you cant play a game lower than a few points aside cos that would involve not even having one goblin on the table )

Indeed I find 2000 points of Guard on the table to a complete slog: On a 6x4 table a 2k guard army with a large proportion of infantry fills the deployment zone and takes ages to spread out in to some sort of useful position, its slow and sluggish. At 1500 points things get a lot easier, on the same size table. If using a much bigger table things get a little easier tho...

So "2000 is best" as an unqualified statement is incorrect: Its more likely that the Optimum game size actually varies with the space and time and terrain available and the composition of said force.

[Ozorik]

I was trying to make the point that skirmish level games don't NEED to be viewed as feeder games - they attract a different kind of gamer who may (or may not) eventually progress to playing 2500 point battles, but would certainly not start playing AT ALL if they were told that that is the "norm" in a local area.

Unfortunately, GW views the market in terms of "how many Space Marine Tactical Squads can we sell to each player," so the idea of writing a rule set where you only need one is anathema to them, even though 10 players buying one each is considerably better than one player buying 6...

Indeed, and a game designed purely as a 'feeder' would almost certainly be poor as it is likely to be simplistic. Skirmish games would provide an excellent entry into GW branded wargaming for a reasonably low cost though.

[Omniassiah]

Is it though? Ive been playing for years and never felt any of the games are "better" at one points level than another, with the obvious exception that theres a sort of an inbuilt lowest possible limit (i.e you cant play a game lower than a few points aside cos that would involve not even having one goblin on the table )

Indeed I find 2000 points of Guard on the table to a complete slog: On a 6x4 table a 2k guard army with a large proportion of infantry fills the deployment zone and takes ages to spread out in to some sort of useful position, its slow and sluggish. At 1500 points things get a lot easier, on the same size table. If using a much bigger table things get a little easier tho...

So "2000 is best" as an unqualified statement is incorrect: Its more likely that the Optimum game size actually varies with the space and time and terrain available and the composition of said force.

there is a range that the game is inherently better 1500-2000 for 40k and 2k+ for Fantasy(It scales fairly well upwards with the exception of magic).

For 40k below 1500 and especially 1k and below armies begin to lose the ability to deal with a single unit of a basic threat type. Nothing to deal with a horde, High armor vehicle, etc. The game while physically playable can in many cases boil down to list fairly easily. Also armies with cheaper core troops can spend more on fancy toys then someone with more expensive troops. Above 2k but mostly starting to show at 2500 and up is table and FOC saturation. Your running out of FOC slots for some armies or just plane table space for others (4x6 is the expected table size, or at least the one GW showcases over and over again). That gives you a bracket of 1.5-2k points for a "proper" game and one that also seems to be where the codexes are most balanced at.

Fantasy some armies just need the points to toss around in the appropriate slots and they just don't have enough till 2k. Add into that the spells that can wipe a unit, when you may only have 3-4 per side and you end up with massive wild swing games that really are just an exercise of dice rolling.

This gives you the proper game size that everyone refers too. It doesn't help that GW's own official tourneys are run at those levels as well.

[TheMav80]

But thats an even bigger problem, if you start the game with a friend, each with a couple of units and a character and don't know that the rules of the game only function well at 2000pts and above you would probably just assume its a crap game and give up on it.

Though I guess your average GW employee will be only too happy to paint you a rose tinted view of how great the game will be if only you buy another 3-4 squads...

Obviously only speaking for us, but that didn't happen. If anything it helped GW sell more models as we each bought things to compete with what the other had put together the week before.

When my friend discovered the "Demon Bomb" (on his own) I changed my Tau force to fully mechanize everything and stay more mobile. I stumbled upon the "Fish of Fury" to help stop his Berzerkers from running all over me (and thought I was a freaking genius until I discovered the various Warhammer forums and learned this was a well established tactic and I had reinvented the wheel).

This was also our very first tabletop game. So while I had been playing RPGs of various sorts for years, I really didn't know anything about these games. I was also in my mid 20s.