About those 3D printers...

[Mr Mystery]

Depends what you mean by mark-up. If you consider the cost of the unit itself in raw materials then you will see a huge mark up.
If you take into account the whole business behind it, the governance, the legal requirements, the staffing levels the shops, the wages, the benefits, the publishing, the web teams, the catering, the gas/electricity/water of all the shops and hq, the ground rent of all the shops, the local taxes, the corporate tax, the r & d, it is less clear.

What no-one outside of the studio knows is how many scultps/pitches are turned down each day, how many man hours are spent building characters and models that are never used.

Bingo. Mark-up does not necessarily equate to profit margin.

If you want more info, why not look at GW's investor relations page, and their annual report, featuring (by law) independently verified facts and figures...

[knas ser]

Depends what you mean by mark-up. If you consider the cost of the unit itself in raw materials then you will see a huge mark up.
If you take into account the whole business behind it, the governance, the legal requirements, the staffing levels the shops, the wages, the benefits, the publishing, the web teams, the catering, the gas/electricity/water of all the shops and hq, the ground rent of all the shops, the local taxes, the corporate tax, the r & d, it is less clear.

By mark-up I mean the price after all costs are eliminated. The net profit per model. I.e. if after everything, it has cost GW 50p to make a single mini and they charge £2 for it, that's £1.50 mark up.

My point is that Mr. Mystery's statement about mass production having cost savings is only part of the story. GW stick their own mark-up on the minis. My "do share" remark is pointing out that presumably no-one here knows what that mark-up actually is.

Also, 3D printing can lead to a great burst of community sharing. Imagine making a really cool building, new bolter or whatever, and being able to say: "click here if you want one". Or being able to design parts in CAD software. Make your new heavy bolter variant or sonic lance in a 3D program. And hit print!

[Lord Anubis]

I don't know much about 3D printing, but presumably it could follow the same path as photocopying, black and white and colour printing. All of these were expensive at first and can now be done in the home, BUT it didn't have to reach the cheap enough for the home stage for us to make widespread use of it. We'd go to the library and funnel our coins into the photocopier or we'd go to the print shop and say "42 pages of this, please". When the cost can be spread between many people, expensive things can still be accessible.

I've seen the photocopying comparison before and I'm not sure it holds water. Photocopying was very fast from the beginning, and it also had two huge markets--businesses and students. The daily need/use for the technology was instantly apparent and every office, school, and library on the planet had a photocopier as soon as possible. It was that immediate market and near-constant use that allowed the technology to spread and develop so fast.

I just don't see that with 3D printers. They're very cool, no question, and there are a few industries (or people) that would use them a lot. But how many businesses/activities are there that would need to make a physical object more than once a day, every day? And a maximum number of objects at that, because the slow "printing" speed means you can only make so many items.

Prices would probably need to drop drastically for this to be something a business would buy "just in case we need it," and prices won't drop that much until the technology becomes much more common (catch-22).

[knas ser]

I've seen the photocopying comparison before and I'm not sure it holds water. Photocopying was very fast from the beginning, and it also had two huge markets--businesses and students. The daily need/use for the technology was instantly apparent and every office, school, and library on the planet had a photocopier as soon as possible. It was that immediate market and near-constant use that allowed the technology to spread and develop so fast.

I just don't see that with 3D printers. They're very cool, no question, and there are a few industries (or people) that would use them a lot. But how many businesses/activities are there that would need to make a physical object more than once a day, every day? And a maximum number of objects at that, because the slow "printing" speed means you can only make so many items.

Prices would probably need to drop drastically for this to be something a business would buy "just in case we need it," and prices won't drop that much until the technology becomes much more common (catch-22).

Well I've decided rather than argue, I'll come back here in three years time and say "I told you so". History is littered with hugely successful things that people said: "we don't need this". Automobiles, iPads. and famously "A world market for maybe five computers" according to the then chairman of IBM.

Of course afterwards, people will explain why their success was obvious or point to people who at the time believed in them. But vast swathes of people argued they weren't "needed".

Once a capability is created, use often quickly follows. After that, society and people adapt around that use. Then the capability is "needed".

See you in 2016.

Knas.

[Seleucus]

Have a look on Shapeways to see what 3D printing can do already. I've brought up a page with 40k connections:

[url]http://www.shapeways.com/search?q=40k&s=0#more-products[/url]

Have alook through the pages and you will see some good ideas/models, many of which you can buy. Prices differ depending upon how many people order the item, how difficult it is to print, what quality of material you want it in etc. Dynarth and Custom Minis have a lot of SM specific items including weapons and moulded shoulder pads with some useful designs on them, not over-priced.

[Morgrim]

Shapeways is a company that is offering 3D printing, and I think their model is a good example of where things are and how they're going. I think I have to agree that in the short term printing services won't be quite as widespread as photocopying because there is less printing each person would do, it takes vastly longer to set up a print run and each run is measured in minutes/hours rather than seconds. This suggests that a 3D printer in every library is less likely. But! I can see online businesses catering to it popping up in capital cities and mailing out the printed product with a reasonably fast turn around rather than people going in to a business in person and it starting to spread that way.

If that started taking off the number of professional 3D printing businesses would expand and they'd have sufficient volumes moving through to encourage serious investment in the technology. A consumer good doesn't necessarily need to be bought by consumers if they can hire it when needed.

As for models, plastic injection is going to stay king of large scale production runs for a long time yet, because 3D printing may eventually match it for per-unit cost but will never come close on speed. But 3D printing may take over for small runs on things that are resin or metal and have molds with a short lifespan, and definitely is going to end up being superior to what most sculptors can manage with at-home casting when they're selling only a few dozen models.

[Kyban]

Tesco has said they're looking at putting printers in large supermarkets..

[Lord Anubis]

Well I've decided rather than argue, I'll come back here in three years time and say "I told you so". History is littered with hugely successful things that people said: "we don't need this". Automobiles, iPads. and famously "A world market for maybe five computers" according to the then chairman of IBM.

Of course afterwards, people will explain why their success was obvious or point to people who at the time believed in them. But vast swathes of people argued they weren't "needed".

Once a capability is created, use often quickly follows. After that, society and people adapt around that use. Then the capability is "needed".

See you in 2016.

Knas.

History is also littered with technologies and products that would've been fantastic, but never caught on in the marketplace. Hopefully in 2016 you'll still be able to watch your Betamax tapes and Laserdiscs and HD-DVDs. Maybe by then you'll even have a mobile player in your Tucker Torpedo. And you can email me that "I told you so" through Compuserve on your Amiga computer. Or just write me a mocking letter with AmiPro or WordPerfect...

I think 3d printers are really cool technology, but right now they're a novelty more than anything else. And I don't see how they could move out of that phase and into an industry. Not enough businesses have a real need for them and they can't create a need for itself (like the iPad did) because they're not fast enough to replace anything.

Again, just my opinion based off current technology and... well, human nature.

[daboarder]

Depends what you mean by mark-up. If you consider the cost of the unit itself in raw materials then you will see a huge mark up.
If you take into account the whole business behind it, the governance, the legal requirements, the staffing levels the shops, the wages, the benefits, the publishing, the web teams, the catering, the gas/electricity/water of all the shops and hq, the ground rent of all the shops, the local taxes, the corporate tax, the r & d, it is less clear.

This. If you want to know GW profit read their annual statement, they do alright but they are buy no means gouging the customer. (except for aus, we're frakked)

[Wolfshade]

Psh it is a tax on nice wear, and good sports teams (though I am not sure about the latter)

I suppose you divide the profit (+dividend) / unit sales to get some idea of mark up.