GW prices.

[Grenadier]

If there's ever an "Occupy Games Workshop" movement I shall take my right wing butt and join them.

[Bean]

You really are an idiot with no grasp on how these things work, aren't you?

Why do you keep using your "starving man in the desert" example when it clearly doesn't fit?

Further, the absurdity of the above 'example' -- and I use that term very loosely, as I've heard more cogent arguments about why one of my wife's 4th graders should get an XBox for Christmas -- really proves that you have no idea how to even make an analogy work.

Quit huffing primer, go to your local community college, and take a basic economics course. Yikes.

This.

Except the part about his wife. I don't know anything about his wife. =P

[gendoikari87]

You really are an idiot with no grasp on how these things work, aren't you?

Why do you keep using your "starving man in the desert" example when it clearly doesn't fit?

Further, the absurdity of the above 'example' -- and I use that term very loosely, as I've heard more cogent arguments about why one of my wife's 4th graders should get an XBox for Christmas -- really proves that you have no idea how to even make an analogy work.

Quit huffing primer, go to your local community college, and take a basic economics course. Yikes.

Took more than one thank you, almost got a minor in business at that, aced them all. and the above monopoly analogy is completely valid, unless you would like to point out how it's not. FYI, ad hominem attacks don't actually make a good argument.

Also, you've proven you have no idea what the starving man in the desert analogy represents. Go learn something about supply/demand.

[thereverend]

GW have the best miniatures designers, the best painters and the best miniatures in the world and someone has to pay for those privialages...

and we're all adults, if we don't agree then we don't ahve to support them. personally I'd like things to be a little cheaper but if I couldn't afford something I wouldn't buy it.

[Cuddy]

It's a horrible analogy. A better analogy would be selling water to a man in the desert for $100 a glass, or better yet selling it to a village for $100 bucks a glass, if you can't afford it, tough crap. which is precisely why the "but it's just a hobby you don't have to buy it" argument is bull****, yeah it's just a hobby, but the laws governing both essentials and non essentials are the same. Whether you need it to live or not, does not matter. They do it because they can. If it was the proper demand curve they'd be selling these little plastic mini's for $1000 pop, but it isn't. Not that their current prices aren't outrageous, just at the proper place on the supply/demand curve to generate maximum profit. Irregardless of anything resembling fairness. but that's capitalism, and GW is hardly alone and far from the worst offender.

Actually, a big part of the criticism of Games Workshop is that they may be misinterperating the actual demand elasticity of their products. This isn't coming from upset fans alone either, there's a lot of qualified analysis on their figures.

This is a good example:

[url]http://dukesinferno.blogspot.com/2011/07/financial-analysis-of-gw.html[/url]

I took economics too, and from experience my guess is that they're unrealistic about how much of a monopoly they have. Companies will refuse to acknowledge less copyright friendly and harder to challenge alternatives even though they exist; it scares shareholders and a lot of times they don't have the data on it anyway. Think of internet downloading for movies and music and how those industries reacted. GW probably thinks of Warmahordes, and maybe DnD as competition, but thinks that its product is differentiated and that it has a fairly high price elasticity (both true). They probably don't acknowledge the second hand market, knock offs, creating "counts-as" and things like Vassal as real competition, or at least not accurately.

GW is right that people are willing to pay a fairly high premium over its costs, that's not being disputed. It has a lot of control over its market. Its just that a lot of people think it doesn't have as much as it thinks it does, and it seems that the numbers are backing that up.

[Necron2.0]

Second post of the thread:

GW charges what they do because the can.

... and 16 pages later:

They do it because they can.

Full circle yet again...

===

Of course, these threads always bring out the Kool-Aid drinkers and your standard gaggle of Trolls - each only possessing the capacity for ad hominem attacks, or for arguing semantics over non sequiturs, or to engage in douchebaggery in general.

Getting back to the OP's topic - no. As these 16 (and sure to keep growing) pages have shown,nothing has been laid to rest.

Tah tah, pip pip and cheerio.

[Joshuawesome]

remember a few months ago, right after the price increments, ban on online store delivery to the lower hemisphere and the announcement of fine cast, when everyone swore they were going to boycott gw products?

Is anybody still observing the boycott?

If you aren't thenyou have proven gw (and the op) right. gw products are "premium products" and "luxury goods". people will buy them no matter the price. it makes perfect economic sense to continue to raise prices and increase profits.

[gendoikari87]

remember a few months ago, right after the price increments, ban on online store delivery to the lower hemisphere and the announcement of fine cast, when everyone swore they were going to boycott gw products?

Is anybody still observing the boycott?

If you aren't thenyou have proven gw (and the op) right. gw products are "premium products" and "luxury goods". people will buy them no matter the price. it makes perfect economic sense to continue to raise prices and increase profits.

Does not make it right, however.

[Wildeybeast]

Of course, these threads always bring out the Kool-Aid drinkers and your standard gaggle of Trolls - each only possessing the capacity for ad hominem attacks, or for arguing semantics over non sequiturs, or to engage in douchebaggery in general.

And indeed those who make offensive and immature posts, can't construct a valid argument because they don't understand how to use analogy properly, can't defend their arguments beyond 'lots of other people do it so it must be ok' and those who when faced with reasoned critiques of their views resort to posting silly pictures, but hey ho, that's the internet for you.

[Morgan Darkstar]

Does not make it right, however.

Nor does it make it wrong.