[Archive] A brief analysis of GW price inflation

Archive [Archive] Wargame News and Discussion
1

AGPO:

This is mostly taken from a reply I made to a thread over on The Daemonic Legion. I’ve been meaning to do some proper analysis on GW’s prices for some time, and this is just a rough example of what I’m planning to do if anyone is interested. I’m looking at a more in depth analysis, comparing GW’s price inflation to other hobbies over the eight editions.

The best real terms analysis I could find for 1989 was from 2011. In terms of commodities there are three basic measures that could be used to assess this. The first is real price. This is done using the RPI method of taking a sample basket of staple goods and calculating the difference in their cost between two given times. Other methods include labour value (how many hours someone would have to work to afford the same product) and income value (the value of that product in terms of average income). Using these three methods a 1989 pound works out at £2.04, £2.49 and £2.60 respectively.

using the values posted in the original thread this is how the models work out to the nearest penny in 2011 terms (RP/LV/IV:

Juggernaut/Slaanesh Rider on Beast £8.14/£9.94/£10.37
Daemonettes of Slaanesh 5 for £6.10/£7.49/£7.77
Bloodletters/Horrors 4 for £6.10/£7.49/£7.77
Fiends/Fiends 2 for £6.10/£7.49/£7.77
Greater Daemon £8.14/£9.94/£10.37

Now IMHO the income value offers the best representation of the relative oportunity cost in these two eras (i.e. the sacrifices you have to make to fund your hobby.) Let’s have a comparison of what certain units would cost you between 1989 and 2011:

A unit of ten daemonettes: £15.54 in 1989 compared to £15.00 in 2011
Virtually no difference here. Although in the last couple of years GW has increased the cost to £18 I don’t have the full figures for 2013 yet.

A unit of twenty bloodletters: £38.85 in 1989 compared to £30 in 2011
This is actually a big saving compared to the originals, although the average unit size at the time was smaller, it still demonstrates the saving on core units these days.

Greater Daemon: £10.37 in 1989 compared to £35 in 2011
Undeniably a huge increase in cost compared to yesteryear.

3 Bloodcrushers: £31.11 in 1989 compared to £33.50 in 2011
Not much of a difference either way really, but a marginal saving on the classic models.

4 Fiends of Slaanesh: £15.54 in 1989 compared to £62 today
I couldn’t find the 2011 prices so I’ve used today’s. Even allowing for the increase in inflation and fincecast prices this is a second clear winner for the classics, with a whole unit costing less than a single fiend today.

Overall then there’s not much difference between modern plastics and the old metals, but metal/finecast today is considerably more costly. I’ve not made any comment on the respective quality of the different kits or argued metal versus plastic/finecast as to my mind this is a matter of personal preference, and each group represents the standard of their own time. Had I used RPI then the classics would be the clear winners, with even the Bloodletters coming in at only 50p more and the rest considerably cheaper. However I think RPI fails to demonstrate opportunity cost effectively, which for most people is the true measure of the cost of their hobby.

Link to original thread - z7.invisionfree.com/wyrmling_x/index.php?showtopic=10557&st=0&#entry22112227

2

cornixt:

I’m not sure these are fair comparisons. The 1989 Bloodthirster was tiny in comparison to the current one, so it isn’t as similar as the Daemonettes are to each other.

3

Marduk:

I’m guessing AGPO is an economist.

Nice analysis.

4

Thommy H:

I'm not sure these are fair comparisons. The 1989 Bloodthirster was tiny in comparison to the current one, so it isn't as similar as the Daemonettes are to each other.

cornixt
I don't have strong opinions about GW prices one way or the other - people are free to buy or not buy a product if its price is in excess of what they believe its value to be and everyone has their own threshold for that based on their circumstances and beliefs - but I think this is an important point.

With the modern plastic kits, you very rarely just get a unit. Every kit since about 1998 has come with excess parts and, since roughly the Grey Knights release, most high-price ones will make one of two distinct units. You get a lot of spare bits, but I don't know anyone who doesn't find a use for these eventually.

That's just one example of a general improvement in the product irrespective of price rises. Bigger models and better sculpts is another. Whatever you think of GW, it's quite hard to deny that the models they release now are objectively better than those released in the past.

Whether that makes them worth more money is, as I say, up to the individual, but it's tough to compare figures from even a decade ago with the current generation of models.
5

AGPO:

I'm not sure these are fair comparisons. The 1989 Bloodthirster was tiny in comparison to the current one, so it isn't as similar as the Daemonettes are to each other.

cornixt
As I said I have deliberately avoided comparison of the quality of the kits. Some people, including many on this site prefer the retro feel of the old stuff, or prefer metal to plastic/finecast. Others prefer the spares and options you get with the new kits. It's certainly undeniable that the technology has improved over the decades. Ultimately though this is about the cost of the hobby, both in modelling and gaming terms. Yes there is more metal in a 2011 Bloodthirster, but there are also economies of scale, improvements in the casting process which improve quality, reduce waste and can change the cost of production either way.
6

Kera foehunter:

in term for the a man can understand G W briefs

back in the day you got more for less money…

7

Grimstonefire:

One on one comparisons are one thing, but an army is more than a couple of units.

I would be interested to see the cost of an army of say 100 basic (core) warrior models and 3 hero/ lord models.