Figure Prices Today vs 1980

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

I recently came across some old gaming magazines. In an April 1980 issue of
Different Worlds, there was a review of Heritage's 25mm line of "Dungeon
Dwellers". A couple of interesting points:

1. Most of the figures were 28-30mm tall -- much like today's "big" 25's.

2. The price was $3.95 for 4 figures or a buck each. Checking the inflation
calculator at http://westegg.com/inflation/ , we find that this is
equivalent to $2.38 per figure in 2002 (it only goes to 2002).

Now, Heritage was not a cadillac line in 1980 -- Ral Partha was the team to
beat then. Heritage figures were just reasonably priced and decent quality.
They had an extensive historical line (medievals mostly) and an extensive
fantasy line as well. I think they would compare to Old Glory or Reaper
today.

Since fantasy figures have always tended to be pricier (IMHO because more
poses are required and because fantasy RPG gamers will pay more, since they
don't need hundreds of them), I'll confine my analysis to them.

A pretty typical price for Reaper is 4 men at arms for $8.99, or about $2.66
per figure. Old Glory sells ~6 fantasy figures for $6 or a buck each -- an
absolute bargain these days, especially since their figures are pretty nice.

I'll note that Games Workshop minis are still the price leader -- $3-3.50
each for 10 packs of metal troops and $1 each for plastics.

Of course, today personality figures tend to cost at least double what rank
and file troops cost. This does not seem to have been the case in 1980 --
individual figures cost 25% more it seems to me.

Still, it appears to me that the perception that gaming prices are
outrageously high may not be accurate.

As for the cost of printed stuff:

In 1979, the 256 page AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide retailed for $15.95. This
is equivalent to $42.71 in 2002 dollars, which is more than you'll pay for
many 256 page RPG hardbacks today (and today's hardbacks often have far
more color, better artwork, etc). For instance, the 336 page GURPS hardback
is $40. The 300 page D&D 3rd ed. Dungeon Master's Guide is $30 today -- $21
if you buy from Amazon.com.

I'll check my magazines for wargaming rules prices, but I expect a similar
outcome.

Thoughts?

--Ty
39 answers Last reply
More about figure prices today 1980
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    A followup. I found a review of Ral Partha 25mm historicals in the Sep-Oct
    1978 issue of Campaign magazine. They cost "40 cents each". $1.29 each in
    2002 dollars. Ral Partha 25s are "true" 25s, so they are noticeably smaller
    than the "large" 25s sold by Old Glory or Foundry. Old Glory's figures cost
    about $1.10 each, and are bigger than Ral Partha's figures. I also think
    that Old Glory figures are more detailed than my Ral Partha historicals,
    though we should remember that RP had the most detailed figures *at that
    time*.

    In the May-June 1976 issue of Panzerfaust, there's a review of Classic
    Warfare, ancients rules from TSR (8,5x11, 66 pages). Cost is $10, or $32.16
    in 2002 dollars. Compare to Warhammer Ancients -- $29. Or Armati II -- $28.

    Same issue -- 5 polyhedral dice for $4.00 or 80 cents each. $2.57 each in
    2002 dollars. I pay about 60 cents each at my local game store.

    So it looks to me like our hobby isn't really any more expensive now...

    --Ty
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    On Fri, 21 May 2004 06:50:51 -0500, "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote:

    >A followup. I found a review of Ral Partha 25mm historicals in the Sep-Oct
    >1978 issue of Campaign magazine. They cost "40 cents each". $1.29 each in
    >2002 dollars. Ral Partha 25s are "true" 25s, so they are noticeably smaller
    >than the "large" 25s sold by Old Glory or Foundry. Old Glory's figures cost
    >about $1.10 each, and are bigger than Ral Partha's figures. I also think
    >that Old Glory figures are more detailed than my Ral Partha historicals,
    >though we should remember that RP had the most detailed figures *at that
    >time*.
    >
    >In the May-June 1976 issue of Panzerfaust, there's a review of Classic
    >Warfare, ancients rules from TSR (8,5x11, 66 pages). Cost is $10, or $32.16
    >in 2002 dollars. Compare to Warhammer Ancients -- $29. Or Armati II -- $28.
    >
    >Same issue -- 5 polyhedral dice for $4.00 or 80 cents each. $2.57 each in
    >2002 dollars. I pay about 60 cents each at my local game store.
    >
    >So it looks to me like our hobby isn't really any more expensive now...
    >
    >--Ty
    >
    Will you tell my wife?

    Chris.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Donnie" <donnie@dinonino.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:kmbsa09c1m4cfvvtesn2teq01ek68or3v2@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 21 May 2004 06:50:51 -0500, "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote:
    >
    > >A followup. I found a review of Ral Partha 25mm historicals in the
    Sep-Oct
    > >1978 issue of Campaign magazine. They cost "40 cents each". $1.29 each in
    > >2002 dollars. Ral Partha 25s are "true" 25s, so they are noticeably
    smaller
    > >than the "large" 25s sold by Old Glory or Foundry. Old Glory's figures
    cost
    > >about $1.10 each, and are bigger than Ral Partha's figures. I also think
    > >that Old Glory figures are more detailed than my Ral Partha historicals,
    > >though we should remember that RP had the most detailed figures *at that
    > >time*.
    > >
    > >In the May-June 1976 issue of Panzerfaust, there's a review of Classic
    > >Warfare, ancients rules from TSR (8,5x11, 66 pages). Cost is $10, or
    $32.16
    > >in 2002 dollars. Compare to Warhammer Ancients -- $29. Or Armati II --
    $28.
    > >
    > >Same issue -- 5 polyhedral dice for $4.00 or 80 cents each. $2.57 each in
    > >2002 dollars. I pay about 60 cents each at my local game store.
    > >
    > >So it looks to me like our hobby isn't really any more expensive now...
    > >
    > >--Ty
    > >
    > Will you tell my wife?

    LOL.. Thanks I needed the laugh
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Donnie" <donnie@dinonino.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:kmbsa09c1m4cfvvtesn2teq01ek68or3v2@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 21 May 2004 06:50:51 -0500, "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote:

    > >So it looks to me like our hobby isn't really any more expensive now...

    > Will you tell my wife?

    Sure -- but she won't believe me...

    --Ty
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    In message <10arn8o92hldd4a@corp.supernews.com>, Ty
    <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> writes
    >I recently came across some old gaming magazines. In an April 1980 issue of
    >Different Worlds, there was a review of Heritage's 25mm line of "Dungeon
    >Dwellers". A couple of interesting points:
    >
    >1. Most of the figures were 28-30mm tall -- much like today's "big" 25's.
    >
    >2. The price was $3.95 for 4 figures or a buck each. Checking the inflation
    >calculator at http://westegg.com/inflation/ , we find that this is
    >equivalent to $2.38 per figure in 2002 (it only goes to 2002).
    >
    >Now, Heritage was not a cadillac line in 1980 -- Ral Partha was the team to
    >beat then. Heritage figures were just reasonably priced and decent quality.
    >They had an extensive historical line (medievals mostly) and an extensive
    >fantasy line as well. I think they would compare to Old Glory or Reaper
    >today.
    >
    >Since fantasy figures have always tended to be pricier (IMHO because more
    >poses are required and because fantasy RPG gamers will pay more, since they
    >don't need hundreds of them), I'll confine my analysis to them.
    >
    >A pretty typical price for Reaper is 4 men at arms for $8.99, or about $2.66
    >per figure. Old Glory sells ~6 fantasy figures for $6 or a buck each -- an
    >absolute bargain these days, especially since their figures are pretty nice.
    >
    >I'll note that Games Workshop minis are still the price leader -- $3-3.50
    >each for 10 packs of metal troops and $1 each for plastics.
    >
    >Of course, today personality figures tend to cost at least double what rank
    >and file troops cost. This does not seem to have been the case in 1980 --
    >individual figures cost 25% more it seems to me.
    >
    >Still, it appears to me that the perception that gaming prices are
    >outrageously high may not be accurate.
    >
    >As for the cost of printed stuff:
    >
    >In 1979, the 256 page AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide retailed for $15.95. This
    >is equivalent to $42.71 in 2002 dollars, which is more than you'll pay for
    >many 256 page RPG hardbacks today (and today's hardbacks often have far
    >more color, better artwork, etc). For instance, the 336 page GURPS hardback
    >is $40. The 300 page D&D 3rd ed. Dungeon Master's Guide is $30 today -- $21
    >if you buy from Amazon.com.
    >
    >I'll check my magazines for wargaming rules prices, but I expect a similar
    >outcome.
    >
    >Thoughts?
    >
    Interesting. Generally these days there seems to be negative inflation
    in respect of an awful lot of "stuff" - computers and other hi-tech
    items are an obvious case, but it's also true of many much more mundane
    items. It's a combination of the rise of manufacturing off-shore,
    especially in Asia, better and more efficient manufacturing techniques,
    and better and more efficient markets - your mention of Amazon is
    significant, they and their like have taken a big chunk out of the cost
    of reading matter and other entertainment. Publishing is an area where
    costs have really come down, and supply gone up, with new technology. I
    think the same has happened to some extent in the casting of miniatures,
    with new manufacturing techniques. The nice thing is that not only are
    all these items cheaper in real terms, they are also much better quality
    - both the minis and the printed matter. Since I have a much larger
    disposable income than I did back then, the cost of wargames stuff is
    almost irrelevant to me now - the big constraint is time. I bought a NKE
    DBM Army at Colours in September 2002, and I finished painting them all
    last month. And that's a triumph - I very rarely finish painting any
    army completely. As for finding time to actually wargame, that's even
    harder. But it looks good on the shelves.
    --
    John Secker
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    In message <kmbsa09c1m4cfvvtesn2teq01ek68or3v2@4ax.com>, Donnie
    <donnie@dinonino.fsnet.co.uk> writes
    >On Fri, 21 May 2004 06:50:51 -0500, "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote:
    >
    >>A followup. I found a review of Ral Partha 25mm historicals in the Sep-Oct
    >>1978 issue of Campaign magazine. They cost "40 cents each". $1.29 each in
    >>2002 dollars. Ral Partha 25s are "true" 25s, so they are noticeably smaller
    >>than the "large" 25s sold by Old Glory or Foundry. Old Glory's figures cost
    >>about $1.10 each, and are bigger than Ral Partha's figures. I also think
    >>that Old Glory figures are more detailed than my Ral Partha historicals,
    >>though we should remember that RP had the most detailed figures *at that
    >>time*.
    >>
    >>In the May-June 1976 issue of Panzerfaust, there's a review of Classic
    >>Warfare, ancients rules from TSR (8,5x11, 66 pages). Cost is $10, or $32.16
    >>in 2002 dollars. Compare to Warhammer Ancients -- $29. Or Armati II -- $28.
    >>
    >>Same issue -- 5 polyhedral dice for $4.00 or 80 cents each. $2.57 each in
    >>2002 dollars. I pay about 60 cents each at my local game store.
    >>
    >>So it looks to me like our hobby isn't really any more expensive now...
    >>
    >>--Ty
    >>
    >Will you tell my wife?
    >
    My wife and daughter are into horses, and the amount they spend in one
    month would buy me more lead than I could paint in the rest of my
    expected lifespan (and I am barely exaggerating here). So I'm in a
    strong tactical position as far as the money goes, but what with helping
    out with the horses on top of everything else, I don't actually have a
    lot of time to do any panting or gaming anyway.
    --
    John Secker
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    This whole 2004 dollars versus 1980 dollars can be misleading. Far
    more important is the relative amount of discretionary dollars given
    the total income in each of these periods. To wit, Cable TV bills are
    common now and often represent $50-100 of expenditures-they didn't
    exist in 1980. Neither did internet fees, computer supplies, or ATM
    fees. They all are viewed by many people as essentials, and come out
    of income.

    Also, there are items that have had price increases in excess of the
    POL-among them real estate, many leisure activities such as sporting
    events, tickets to entertainment events, fees to enter public museums,
    zooz, etc., College tuition etc.

    So the issue becomes one of whether the hobby of miniature
    wargaming-the primary expense of which is figures-now consumes a
    greater share of income of a typical wargamer. How does it compare to
    other hobbies? I suspect that Model railroading and photography have
    gone DOWN in relative share of money spent-while wargaming has gone
    up.

    BJ
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    John Secker <john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news: So I'm in a
    > strong tactical position as far as the money goes, but what with helping
    > out with the horses on top of everything else, I don't actually have a
    > lot of time to do any panting or gaming anyway.

    BJ: My experience is that a little panting is required if you don't
    want your wife to really sour on wargame hobby.

    BJ
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:73e9b810.0405221055.5b91b5f@posting.google.com...

    > Also, there are items that have had price increases in excess of the
    > POL-among them real estate, many leisure activities such as sporting
    > events, tickets to entertainment events, fees to enter public museums,
    > zooz, etc., College tuition etc.
    >

    And the reverse is true. In 1980, gasoline in my part of the world was about
    $1 a gallon --$2.38 in 2002 dollars. I just filled up my 4WD SUV for $1.80
    per gallon -- and prices are outrageously high. Electronics are far cheaper
    now. My parents paid $400 for a 19" color TV in 1970 -- $1887 in 2002
    dollars. Video rentals are cheaper today than in 1985. And so on. I don't
    see any significant evidence that people are generally worse off today than
    they were in 1980. Indeed, the evidence that I have reviewed indicates that
    the reverse is true.

    Wages, in constant dollars are higher now than in 1980. Last time I looked
    at this, I believe the average worker in 1980 made about $240 per week in
    2003 dollars. His 2003 counterpart made about $515 per week in 2003 dollars.
    In other words, the average US worker today can buy about twice as much as
    his 1980 counterpart.

    > So the issue becomes one of whether the hobby of miniature
    > wargaming-the primary expense of which is figures-now consumes a
    > greater share of income of a typical wargamer.

    No, I don't think that's the issue at all. You're attempting to confuse
    popularity with cost.

    I think that the issue is as I framed it -- whether wargaming is more
    expensive now than it was in 1980 (or whenever). The evidence so far seems
    to strongly indicate that the answer is no. Of course, I welcome any contra
    evidence you might care to reveal.

    And wargaming -- like any other diversion -- has always had to compete with
    other potential uses for one's money and time.

    > I suspect that Model railroading and photography have
    > gone DOWN in relative share of money spent-while wargaming has gone
    > up.

    Not in my case, nor in the case of all of my personal wargaming buddies. I
    spend a far smaller proportion of my income on wargaming than I used to. As
    with John Secker, *time*, rather than money, is the necessity that is in
    shortest supply in my pursuit of the hobby.

    And FWIW, by the standards of almost any other adult (mostly) male hobby, I
    think wargaming is a bargain.

    A nice shotgun can run you $800 -- the cost of 2 100 figure 25mm
    professionally painted armies. A new set of titanium head golf clubs, balls,
    along with a year's golf membership at a decent country club, $8000. A nice
    bass boat, several times that price. A dear lease, several rifles, ammo,
    camo gear, 4WD hunting vehicle, reloading equipment, etc., at least this
    much. My 4 Dallas Cowboys season tickets run ~$4000 per year, not including
    the $400 or so spent on beer and bar-b-que at the games. And mistresses,
    well, the expenses with that hobby are potentially limitless. Or so I'm
    told... :-)

    So wargaming is pretty cheap in my opinion.

    --Ty
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:73e9b810.0405221327.37cee0c2@posting.google.com...
    > John Secker <john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news: So I'm in a
    > > strong tactical position as far as the money goes, but what with helping
    > > out with the horses on top of everything else, I don't actually have a
    > > lot of time to do any panting or gaming anyway.
    >
    > BJ: My experience is that a little panting is required if you don't
    > want your wife to really sour on wargame hobby.
    >
    > BJ

    You have to paint your wife so she lets you wargame?
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message news:<10avckl4t999p96@corp.supernews.com>...
    > "Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:73e9b810.0405221055.5b91b5f@posting.google.com...
    >
    > > Also, there are items that have had price increases in excess of the
    > > POL-among them real estate, many leisure activities such as sporting
    > > events, tickets to entertainment events, fees to enter public museums,
    > > zooz, etc., College tuition etc.
    > >
    >
    > And the reverse is true. In 1980, gasoline in my part of the world was about
    > $1 a gallon --$2.38 in 2002 dollars. I just filled up my 4WD SUV for $1.80
    > per gallon -- and prices are outrageously high. Electronics are far cheaper
    > now. My parents paid $400 for a 19" color TV in 1970 -- $1887 in 2002
    > dollars. Video rentals are cheaper today than in 1985. And so on. I don't
    > see any significant evidence that people are generally worse off today than
    > they were in 1980. Indeed, the evidence that I have reviewed indicates that
    > the reverse is true.

    BJ: Actually, Ty, almost all economists make the point that people are
    worse off today than 25 years ago. The US middle class has declining
    numbers. The disparity between executive and worker pay is widening
    and is percentage-wise close to pre-WWI class-dominated England!
    College is less available to the working class. Autos are a much
    higher percentage of family income. Insurance costs are much higher
    and health care in the US is a scandal. In case you haven't noticed
    the US now ranks 14th in quality of life. In 1980, it was number one.
    If you can afford $4,000 for football tickets-perhaps you haven't
    noticed.
    >
    > Wages, in constant dollars are higher now than in 1980. Last time I looked
    > at this, I believe the average worker in 1980 made about $240 per week in
    > 2003 dollars. His 2003 counterpart made about $515 per week in 2003 dollars.
    > In other words, the average US worker today can buy about twice as much as
    > his 1980 counterpart.

    BJ: Again, you overlook such things as health insurance costs etc.
    Trust me most people aren't twice as wealthy as they were 25 years
    ago! It, again, illustrates just how bogus a straight comparison of
    POL dollars can be.
    >
    > > So the issue becomes one of whether the hobby of miniature
    > > wargaming-the primary expense of which is figures-now consumes a
    > > greater share of income of a typical wargamer.
    >
    > No, I don't think that's the issue at all. You're attempting to confuse
    > popularity with cost.

    BJ: No, I'm saying that people have fewer discretionary dollars, and
    wargaming's cost have not gone down proportionately. It has nothing to
    do with popularity.
    >
    > I think that the issue is as I framed it -- whether wargaming is more
    > expensive now than it was in 1980 (or whenever). The evidence so far seems
    > to strongly indicate that the answer is no. Of course, I welcome any contra
    > evidence you might care to reveal.

    BJ: One interesting tidbit I noticed is that the price iof tin, which
    is ostensibly fueling the recent increases in figure prices was
    actually HIGHER in relative dollars in 1980! Tin hit a price of
    $14.00+ a pound in 1992 Dollars!
    >
    > And wargaming -- like any other diversion -- has always had to compete with
    > other potential uses for one's money and time.
    >
    > > I suspect that Model railroading and photography have
    > > gone DOWN in relative share of money spent-while wargaming has gone
    > > up.
    >
    > Not in my case, nor in the case of all of my personal wargaming buddies. I
    > spend a far smaller proportion of my income on wargaming than I used to. As
    > with John Secker, *time*, rather than money, is the necessity that is in
    > shortest supply in my pursuit of the hobby.

    BJ: Both model trains and photography have seen some relative cost
    gains thanks to digital technology-something which the fairly luddite
    hobby of miniature wargaming has not yet benefited from.

    >
    > And FWIW, by the standards of almost any other adult (mostly) male hobby, I
    > think wargaming is a bargain.
    >
    > A nice shotgun can run you $800 -- the cost of 2 100 figure 25mm
    > professionally painted armies. A new set of titanium head golf clubs, balls,
    > along with a year's golf membership at a decent country club, $8000. A nice
    > bass boat, several times that price. A dear lease, several rifles, ammo,
    > camo gear, 4WD hunting vehicle, reloading equipment, etc., at least this
    > much. My 4 Dallas Cowboys season tickets run ~$4000 per year, not including
    > the $400 or so spent on beer and bar-b-que at the games. And mistresses,
    > well, the expenses with that hobby are potentially limitless. Or so I'm
    > told... :-)
    >
    BJ: A gun lasts literally forever, and has good retained value. Not
    so wargame armies; Care to try to sell an old 1980s Scruby, Heritage,
    or Ral Partha army for more than a fraction of their cost?

    One can hunt without owning a 4WD vehicle, or much else than a gun.
    Golf does not require titanium clubs and a ritzy country club-though
    since most golfers are Republicans, it might appear that they are a
    necessity. $4,000 a year on football seats-why, TY! You're sounding
    downright elitist! No wonder you want to keep the befuddled majority
    in thrall to Limbaugh!!!

    > So wargaming is pretty cheap in my opinion.

    BJ: To someone with your income-no doubt, as for others...

    Marie Antoinette never understood why the Parisians couldn't eat cake
    when short of bread-either!

    A 200 figure wargame army-fully painted-museum quality
    -$1000-Mastercard

    TY, convinced that everyone will find that inexpensive-Priceless!

    BJ
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message news:<10avckl4t999p96@corp.supernews.com>...
    > "Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:73e9b810.0405221055.5b91b5f@posting.google.com...
    >>
    > And the reverse is true. In 1980, gasoline in my part of the world was about
    > $1 a gallon --$2.38 in 2002 dollars. I just filled up my 4WD SUV for $1.80
    > per gallon -- and prices are outrageously high.

    BJ: $1.80! In Colorado regular is over $2.00-On the West Coast it's
    $2.25-$2.50! No change, other than up in sight! Better unload that
    SUV (predictable) and get a Prius, or at least a drivable automobile
    that doesn't require an attending fuel truck. At least mothball your
    battleship until all that cheap Iraqi oil comes flooding in as you
    predicted.

    Electronics are far cheaper
    > now. My parents paid $400 for a 19" color TV in 1970 -- $1887 in 2002
    > dollars.

    BJ: Checked the price of HDTV sets (the truer equivalent to 1980
    color)? $2-3,000 minimum. Analog sets are artificially cheap,
    because they will be disappearing in a couple of years, and are
    obsolescent.


    Video rentals are cheaper today than in 1985.

    BJ: Again, an obsolescent technology being replaced by cable, internet
    downloads, and other forms of digital delivery. Sell that Blockbuster
    stock-fast!


    BJ
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    On 22 May 2004 14:27:31 -0700, highwiremedia@earthlink.net (Bob Jones)
    wrote:

    >John Secker <john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news: So I'm in a
    >> strong tactical position as far as the money goes, but what with helping
    >> out with the horses on top of everything else, I don't actually have a
    >> lot of time to do any panting or gaming anyway.
    >
    >BJ: My experience is that a little panting is required if you don't
    >want your wife to really sour on wargame hobby.
    >
    >BJ

    Gee I hope you meant "painting" I'm 55!

    I don't mind painting the kitchen so I can wargame. (It's not like
    she'll ever see it <g> )

    Donnie
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    On Sat, 22 May 2004 15:10:36 -0500, "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote:

    >"Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    >news:73e9b810.0405221055.5b91b5f@posting.google.com...
    >
    >> Also, there are items that have had price increases in excess of the
    >> POL-among them real estate, many leisure activities such as sporting
    >> events, tickets to entertainment events, fees to enter public museums,
    >> zooz, etc., College tuition etc.
    >>
    >
    >And the reverse is true. In 1980, gasoline in my part of the world was about
    >$1 a gallon --$2.38 in 2002 dollars. I just filled up my 4WD SUV for $1.80
    >per gallon -- and prices are outrageously high. Electronics are far cheaper
    >now. My parents paid $400 for a 19" color TV in 1970 -- $1887 in 2002
    >dollars. Video rentals are cheaper today than in 1985. And so on. I don't
    >see any significant evidence that people are generally worse off today than
    >they were in 1980. Indeed, the evidence that I have reviewed indicates that
    >the reverse is true.
    >
    >Wages, in constant dollars are higher now than in 1980. Last time I looked
    >at this, I believe the average worker in 1980 made about $240 per week in
    >2003 dollars. His 2003 counterpart made about $515 per week in 2003 dollars.
    >In other words, the average US worker today can buy about twice as much as
    >his 1980 counterpart.
    >
    >> So the issue becomes one of whether the hobby of miniature
    >> wargaming-the primary expense of which is figures-now consumes a
    >> greater share of income of a typical wargamer.
    >
    >No, I don't think that's the issue at all. You're attempting to confuse
    >popularity with cost.
    >
    >I think that the issue is as I framed it -- whether wargaming is more
    >expensive now than it was in 1980 (or whenever). The evidence so far seems
    >to strongly indicate that the answer is no. Of course, I welcome any contra
    >evidence you might care to reveal.
    >
    >And wargaming -- like any other diversion -- has always had to compete with
    >other potential uses for one's money and time.
    >
    >> I suspect that Model railroading and photography have
    >> gone DOWN in relative share of money spent-while wargaming has gone
    >> up.
    >
    >Not in my case, nor in the case of all of my personal wargaming buddies. I
    >spend a far smaller proportion of my income on wargaming than I used to. As
    >with John Secker, *time*, rather than money, is the necessity that is in
    >shortest supply in my pursuit of the hobby.
    >
    >And FWIW, by the standards of almost any other adult (mostly) male hobby, I
    >think wargaming is a bargain.
    >
    >A nice shotgun can run you $800 -- the cost of 2 100 figure 25mm
    >professionally painted armies. A new set of titanium head golf clubs, balls,
    >along with a year's golf membership at a decent country club, $8000. A nice
    >bass boat, several times that price. A dear lease, several rifles, ammo,
    >camo gear, 4WD hunting vehicle, reloading equipment, etc., at least this
    >much. My 4 Dallas Cowboys season tickets run ~$4000 per year, not including
    >the $400 or so spent on beer and bar-b-que at the games. And mistresses,
    >well, the expenses with that hobby are potentially limitless. Or so I'm
    >told... :-)
    >
    >So wargaming is pretty cheap in my opinion.
    >
    >--Ty
    >
    Well just starting off with the comment that petrol is heading for
    £4.00 (that's about $7.00 a gallon here in the UK !!!!!)

    And whilst I don't have Ty's four wheel drive AFV substitute I do
    drive a 944 Porsche.

    A DVD here costs about £15.00 when first released which incidentally
    makes it a bargain to wait for the DVD instead of going to the Cinema.
    (Crowds, talking, petrol etc all for about £5.00 each for a one off
    showing.)

    I think the real cost of wargaming is in the painting. Now Ty mainly
    plays with AFVs which can be used with very basic painting, but try
    doing that with Napoleonics and you have one very unattractive hobby,
    and given the incredible realism of computer games like Combat Mission
    or board games like Fire In The East, if you don't have well painted
    figures (and that pre-supposes money or talent) then your hobby is
    nowhere near a cheap as it was.

    Does anyone have any figures on the cost of professionally painted
    figures back in the 70s or 70s ?

    Donnie.
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    I will be moving to Ft. Myers, FL shortly. ANy gamers or stores in the
    immediate area?
    "Donnie" <donnie@dinonino.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:kmbsa09c1m4cfvvtesn2teq01ek68or3v2@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 21 May 2004 06:50:51 -0500, "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote:
    >
    > >A followup. I found a review of Ral Partha 25mm historicals in the
    Sep-Oct
    > >1978 issue of Campaign magazine. They cost "40 cents each". $1.29 each in
    > >2002 dollars. Ral Partha 25s are "true" 25s, so they are noticeably
    smaller
    > >than the "large" 25s sold by Old Glory or Foundry. Old Glory's figures
    cost
    > >about $1.10 each, and are bigger than Ral Partha's figures. I also think
    > >that Old Glory figures are more detailed than my Ral Partha historicals,
    > >though we should remember that RP had the most detailed figures *at that
    > >time*.
    > >
    > >In the May-June 1976 issue of Panzerfaust, there's a review of Classic
    > >Warfare, ancients rules from TSR (8,5x11, 66 pages). Cost is $10, or
    $32.16
    > >in 2002 dollars. Compare to Warhammer Ancients -- $29. Or Armati II --
    $28.
    > >
    > >Same issue -- 5 polyhedral dice for $4.00 or 80 cents each. $2.57 each in
    > >2002 dollars. I pay about 60 cents each at my local game store.
    > >
    > >So it looks to me like our hobby isn't really any more expensive now...
    > >
    > >--Ty
    > >
    > Will you tell my wife?

    LOL.. Thanks I needed the laugh
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > BJ: Both model trains and photography have seen some relative cost
    > gains thanks to digital technology-something which the fairly luddite
    > hobby of miniature wargaming has not yet benefited from.

    You might consider that one who rejects Piquet is not necessarily a luddite.
    He may simply prefer games where skill determines the outcome more than
    luck.

    --Ty
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:73e9b810.0405231530.384c31a9@posting.google.com...
    > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
    news:<10avckl4t999p96@corp.supernews.com>...
    > > "Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > > news:73e9b810.0405221055.5b91b5f@posting.google.com...
    > >>
    > > And the reverse is true. In 1980, gasoline in my part of the world was
    about
    > > $1 a gallon --$2.38 in 2002 dollars. I just filled up my 4WD SUV for
    $1.80
    > > per gallon -- and prices are outrageously high.
    >
    > BJ: $1.80! In Colorado regular is over $2.00-On the West Coast it's
    > $2.25-$2.50! No change, other than up in sight! Better unload that
    > SUV (predictable) and get a Prius, or at least a drivable automobile
    > that doesn't require an attending fuel truck.

    I'll continue to drive my beloved Ford Expedition until I replace it with a
    Hummer, if it's all the same to you. And my point is unchanged -- gas is
    cheaper today than in 1980.

    > > Electronics are far cheaper
    > > now. My parents paid $400 for a 19" color TV in 1970 -- $1887 in 2002
    > > dollars.
    >
    > BJ: Checked the price of HDTV sets (the truer equivalent to 1980
    > color)? $2-3,000 minimum.

    A 32" HDTV is about $700-800 at the local mass market retailers. And a 19"
    color TV is about $200. My point remains valid.

    Sorry Bob, your hysterical overreaction fails to convince.

    --Ty
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    In message <f6i1b0luijr08avv2ib7pg6unurs7cbos2@4ax.com>, Donnie
    <donnie@dinonino.fsnet.co.uk> writes
    >On 22 May 2004 14:27:31 -0700, highwiremedia@earthlink.net (Bob Jones)
    >wrote:
    >
    >>John Secker <john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news: So I'm in a
    >>> strong tactical position as far as the money goes, but what with helping
    >>> out with the horses on top of everything else, I don't actually have a
    >>> lot of time to do any panting or gaming anyway.
    >>
    >>BJ: My experience is that a little panting is required if you don't
    >>want your wife to really sour on wargame hobby.
    >>
    >>BJ
    >
    >Gee I hope you meant "painting" I'm 55!
    >
    Well I'm 48 and I'm still up to a little panting.
    --
    John Secker
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Out from under a rock popped Ty and said

    > I dispute your typically condescending characterization of wargamers
    > as luddites. Of course, I am amused that a pretentious twerp like you
    > feels he has the right to condescend to *anyone*. But that's a
    > different discussion.

    I would struggle to find a luddite amongst all of the gamers I know,
    whether war gamers or RPGers.

    --
    rob singers
    pull finger to reply
    Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Robert Singers" <rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns94F36E3062BEFrsingers@IP-Hidden...
    > Out from under a rock popped Ty and said
    >
    > > I dispute your typically condescending characterization of wargamers
    > > as luddites. Of course, I am amused that a pretentious twerp like you
    > > feels he has the right to condescend to *anyone*. But that's a
    > > different discussion.
    >
    > I would struggle to find a luddite amongst all of the gamers I know,
    > whether war gamers or RPGers.

    Me too. Even the least computer literate (for instance) wargamers that I
    know are still more tech savvy than the average citizen. I think it's just
    another one of Bob's tiresome mantras designed to make him feel superior.

    --Ty
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    In message <73e9b810.0405231333.14767736@posting.google.com>, Bob Jones
    <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> writes
    >BJ: Actually, Ty, almost all economists make the point that people are
    >worse off today than 25 years ago. The US middle class has declining
    >numbers.
    Really? Over what timescale? In the UK the reverse is true - the middle
    class has grown substantially, and the working class has shrunk
    accordingly. I'm talking about the last 25-40 years, roughly.
    --
    John Secker
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "John Secker" <john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:WZH1luFNkSsAFw50@secker.demon.co.uk...
    > In message <73e9b810.0405231333.14767736@posting.google.com>, Bob Jones
    > <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> writes
    > >BJ: Actually, Ty, almost all economists make the point that people are
    > >worse off today than 25 years ago. The US middle class has declining
    > >numbers.
    > Really? Over what timescale? In the UK the reverse is true - the middle
    > class has grown substantially, and the working class has shrunk
    > accordingly. I'm talking about the last 25-40 years, roughly.

    Well, as a single example, economist Thomas Freidman -- hardly a Bush
    administration shill -- argues the same thing that you do in "The Lexus and
    the Olive Tree".

    I think Bob just missed his Prozac dose today.

    --Ty
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    John Secker <john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<WZH1luFNkSsAFw50@secker.demon.co.uk>...
    > In message <73e9b810.0405231333.14767736@posting.google.com>, Bob Jones
    > <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> writes
    > >BJ: Actually, Ty, almost all economists make the point that people are
    > >worse off today than 25 years ago. The US middle class has declining
    > >numbers.
    > Really? Over what timescale? In the UK the reverse is true - the middle
    > class has grown substantially, and the working class has shrunk
    > accordingly. I'm talking about the last 25-40 years, roughly.

    For starters see:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/20/magazine/20INEQUALITY.html?ex=1085457600&en=5a58d346e89da68c&ei=5070&pagewanted=print&position=top

    A rather prescient article from 1983:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ecbig/declkutt.htm

    The issue, as Rush Limbaugh encourages his listeners to believe, is
    the American illusion that all 100% of us will somehow fit in that top
    5% income percentile, by either hard work, American Idol, or the
    lottery. The wealthy are also very fond of claiming middle class
    status even when making a salary in excess of $100,000. Sometimes it
    seems as if only Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch have never claimed to
    be middle class in the US. Everyone else is firmly convinced they are
    middle class (in income at least) even Ty. The very rich are well
    served by this as they blend into that group of self-described middle
    class people who actually are in the top 5% of all income.

    BJ
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message news:<10b2e3jru29m7fa@corp.supernews.com>...
    > "Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:73e9b810.0405231530.384c31a9@posting.google.com...
    > > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
    >
    > I'll continue to drive my beloved Ford Expedition until I replace it with a
    > Hummer, if it's all the same to you.

    BJ: Hummer sales are down 16% and falling! Now's a good time to drive
    a deal. You do know that the Hummer is just a Chevie Blazer chassis
    with a quasi-military body? One of the lowest reliability ratings in
    Consumer Reports? Terrible J.D. Power ratings? Keep the Ford-in the
    realm of ludicrous vehicles it's actually superior to the Hummer.


    >
    > > > Electronics are far cheaper
    > > > now. My parents paid $400 for a 19" color TV in 1970 -- $1887 in 2002
    > > > dollars.
    > >
    > > BJ: Checked the price of HDTV sets (the truer equivalent to 1980
    > > color)? $2-3,000 minimum.
    >
    > A 32" HDTV is about $700-800 at the local mass market retailers. And a 19"
    > color TV is about $200. My point remains valid.

    BJ: What are you talking about? Flat screen HDTV with tuner and gear
    is North of $2000 in 28"-let alone 32". Rear-projection versions in
    tht size are still well over $1800. You are talking about High
    Definition TV? If the prices were that competitive the rate of
    conversion (and broadcaster's spirits) would be much higher!

    You might find some refurbished lower quality sets under a $1000, but
    new, quality sets larger than 24"are still gonna set you back two
    grand. That price will come down with the growth of users-but it's
    still in the realm of early adopters and the faux middle class.

    BJ
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:73e9b810.0405240513.157f072f@posting.google.com...
    > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
    news:<10b2e3jru29m7fa@corp.supernews.com>...
    > > "Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > > news:73e9b810.0405231530.384c31a9@posting.google.com...
    > > > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
    > >
    > > I'll continue to drive my beloved Ford Expedition until I replace it
    with a
    > > Hummer, if it's all the same to you.
    >
    > BJ: Hummer sales are down 16% and falling! Now's a good time to drive
    > a deal. You do know that the Hummer is just a Chevie Blazer chassis
    > with a quasi-military body? One of the lowest reliability ratings in
    > Consumer Reports? Terrible J.D. Power ratings? Keep the Ford-in the
    > realm of ludicrous vehicles it's actually superior to the Hummer.

    You may be sure that I will give your advice all the consideration it
    deserves.

    > > > > Electronics are far cheaper
    > > > > now. My parents paid $400 for a 19" color TV in 1970 -- $1887 in
    2002
    > > > > dollars.
    > > >
    > > > BJ: Checked the price of HDTV sets (the truer equivalent to 1980
    > > > color)? $2-3,000 minimum.
    > >
    > > A 32" HDTV is about $700-800 at the local mass market retailers. And a
    19"
    > > color TV is about $200. My point remains valid.
    >
    > BJ: What are you talking about? Flat screen HDTV with tuner and gear

    Ah, now we're talking flat screen, are we? My prices were for tube sets
    (which still produce better pictures IMHO) and can be verified at the local
    Best Buy, Wal-Mart, etc.

    But keep adding to the specifications and I'm sure you'll be able to produce
    a comparable price.

    Of course, what kind of moron equates an analog 19" color TV with a 42+"
    plasma screen HDTV?

    --Ty
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Talking petrol(gas for USAians) NZ has unleaded at $1.25 a litre. Figure
    about 4 litres to the gallon comes to $ 5 a gallon. Assume the Kiwi dollar
    is about 60c US and you have petrol at $3.60 a gallon. Gee, you guys have it
    tough, only $2.50 US a gallon.
    Bob
    "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
    news:10b2e3jru29m7fa@corp.supernews.com...
    > "Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:73e9b810.0405231530.384c31a9@posting.google.com...
    > > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
    > news:<10avckl4t999p96@corp.supernews.com>...
    > > > "Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > > > news:73e9b810.0405221055.5b91b5f@posting.google.com...
    > > >>
    > > > And the reverse is true. In 1980, gasoline in my part of the world was
    > about
    > > > $1 a gallon --$2.38 in 2002 dollars. I just filled up my 4WD SUV for
    > $1.80
    > > > per gallon -- and prices are outrageously high.
    > >
    > > BJ: $1.80! In Colorado regular is over $2.00-On the West Coast it's
    > > $2.25-$2.50! No change, other than up in sight! Better unload that
    > > SUV (predictable) and get a Prius, or at least a drivable automobile
    > > that doesn't require an attending fuel truck.
    >
    > I'll continue to drive my beloved Ford Expedition until I replace it with
    a
    > Hummer, if it's all the same to you. And my point is unchanged -- gas is
    > cheaper today than in 1980.
    >
    > > > Electronics are far cheaper
    > > > now. My parents paid $400 for a 19" color TV in 1970 -- $1887 in 2002
    > > > dollars.
    > >
    > > BJ: Checked the price of HDTV sets (the truer equivalent to 1980
    > > color)? $2-3,000 minimum.
    >
    > A 32" HDTV is about $700-800 at the local mass market retailers. And a 19"
    > color TV is about $200. My point remains valid.
    >
    > Sorry Bob, your hysterical overreaction fails to convince.
    >
    > --Ty
    >
    >
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Bob Hart" <rhar8184@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
    news:QCisc.7142$L.4415@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
    > Talking petrol(gas for USAians) NZ has unleaded at $1.25 a litre. Figure
    > about 4 litres to the gallon comes to $ 5 a gallon. Assume the Kiwi dollar
    > is about 60c US and you have petrol at $3.60 a gallon. Gee, you guys have
    it
    > tough, only $2.50 US a gallon.

    I believe that the reason is that the US imposes far lower taxes on
    gasoline. We do not subsidize mass transit to the degree that Europe (and I
    guess NZ) does. Part of this is cultural, but most (IMHO) is economics. Mass
    transit systems are very expensive and require high population densities to
    be even vaguely economical. The US is *huge* by European standards. The
    distance from LA to New York is 2462 miles; From Houston to Green Bay is
    1095 miles. By contrast, the distance from London to Moscow is only 1559
    miles. This, and the fact that US cities are far less dense than their
    European counterparts, makes heavily subsidized mass transit far less
    attractive.

    --Ty
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message news:<10b3trb9d4h6fd3@corp.supernews.com>...
    >

    > > > > > Electronics are far cheaper
    > > > > > now. My parents paid $400 for a 19" color TV in 1970 -- $1887 in
    > 2002
    > > > > > dollars.> > > >
    > > > > BJ: Checked the price of HDTV sets (the truer equivalent to 1980
    > > > > color)? $2-3,000 minimum.
    > > >
    > > > A 32" HDTV is about $700-800 at the local mass market retailers. And a
    > 19"
    > > > color TV is about $200. My point remains valid.
    > >
    > > BJ: What are you talking about? Flat screen HDTV with tuner and gear
    >
    > Ah, now we're talking flat screen, are we? My prices were for tube sets
    > (which still produce better pictures IMHO) and can be verified at the local
    > Best Buy, Wal-Mart, etc.
    >
    > But keep adding to the specifications and I'm sure you'll be able to produce
    > a comparable price.
    >
    > Of course, what kind of moron equates an analog 19" color TV with a 42+"
    > plasma screen HDTV?
    >
    > --Ty

    BJ: Hmmm. I don't believe I mentioned 42" Plasma. "Tube Sets?" What
    are you talking about?

    The niche occupied by a 19" color set in 1980 in terms of being the
    latest tech, and demanding of the higher prices that new tech devices
    always demand, is closer to the 24-28" HDTV unit either flat screen or
    projection, than to a soon to be obsolescent "Old" technology like
    current analog sets. As to tube sets having a superior picture-well,
    I think that speaks more to your confusion as to just exactly what
    HDTV is than anything else.

    I despair that you'll ever be able to marshall a civil argument-but
    since your arguments are often weak or doctrinaire-I guess a descent
    into name calling is a crutch you cannot refuse.

    Ah, Ty, did you name your Expedition? 'The Rush Wagon'? 'The Bracero
    Collector'? Or is it lettered for the Baptist daycamp? I bet it has
    some really neat bumperstickers. Is it old enough to paint
    camoflage-maybe with your name stenciled under the "Cockpit" window?
    'Kill' markers for armadillos you've made road-kill? A Texas state
    flag on the hood inscribed "Don't mess with Texas!" Oh, yah, I can
    see you haulin' ass down US 20 an open long neck in your right hand,
    just hopin' you get to Dallas in time for the tractor pull.

    Naahhh! I bet it's all prettified with curtains-or venetian blinds-
    your titanium golf clubs in back, a simple Tyler country club sticker
    on the window-painted a dull-accountant blue or green. A little
    masonite enclosed sink built in back for those overnights down at the
    Gulf coast. A neat little rack system for figures and terrain when
    you drive to Mississippi to play wargames. Maybe a sheepskin cover for
    the Pilot's...errr...driver's seat. Behind the driver's sun visor is a
    little black book with mileage and gas purchases-all dated-maybe some
    inspirational quotes...

    BJ
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Quid Veritas <quidveritas@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<40B19D22.2020102@earthlink.net>...

    > I must confess, I am not smart enough to figure this phenomenon out. It
    > seems to defy any logical or economic principle known to myself.

    At this point I bring up the Adam Delafield Memorial Argument. (Adam
    was a wargamer, well known to the Ground Zero Games crowd. He passed
    away, regretfully and tragically, a few years ago from pneumonia. He
    was in his 20s.)

    Adam pointed out that GW isn't competing with historical miniaturess,
    or even other fantasy or sci-fi miniatures. They are competing with
    video and computer games.

    GW grabs hold of the younger members of the hobby with an attractive
    style (well, attractive to some; I don't care for the big shoulder
    plate thing), and heroic story lines. GW hit on the same thing that
    collectible games figured out, but sooner: people, particularly
    younger kids, like to collect things and organize them. GW's point
    based systems inspire a game within a game. You build up a force that
    you hope will beat your friend's, he does the same, then you play it
    out. Building up an equal point army is a game unto itself, and one
    that can be done between wargaming sessions. To keep things
    interesting, GW throws in new figures that change the balance of power
    (and make lots more money).

    Look at the average GW boxed set. It is about the same price as two
    video games. It comes with a bunch of figures that the child has to
    assemble and paint, an artistic component that parents see as a bonus
    over their kid playing a twitch game on the Playstation. There's a big
    rule book, which means the child is going to have to read! Okay, so
    some of it is over-the-top background fiction. If you're a parent of a
    child who doesn't like to read (and I am such a parent), seeing Johnny
    read _anything_ is a good thing. If you buy the game, you'll even see
    Johnny doing some math while he tries to add and subtract units to
    meet some magical point total. A product that willingly makes the kid
    add things up and read? At this point the parents are wondering if
    there's really a downside to it.

    You seem to get a lot for your money, if you're a naive non-wargaming
    parent. The box is big and heavy, and there are a lot of figures in
    it. It's going to take Johnny many hours to paint all those figures,
    and he'll have a game with lots of replay value. That sure beats him
    playing a videogame straight through for a week or two and then
    discarding it. Yes, it's violent, but it's abstract, strategic
    violence, not the overt violence found in _Max Payne_ or _Vice City_.
    It's a game, so he'll have to play with his friends instead of staring
    at a screen by himself. If there's a GW store in town, he'll hang out
    there (which certainly seems a lot safer than him hanging out in the
    mall itself, or on a street corner somewhere.) Oh, yeah, the
    grandparents want to buy Johnny stuff, too. Young teenagers are often
    hard to buy for. Look, lots of things to collect! There will be all
    sorts of things to buy him, from terrain to new figures, for the next
    couple of years. Maybe Johnny might be able to get dear old Dad
    playing a game or two as well.

    When a non-wargaming parent looks at a GW boxed set, especially in the
    context of a GW store which is usually pretty clean and tidy, with
    good looking terrain on the table, they see it as a positive thing
    compared to video gaming. It's in about the same price range. It has
    more redeeming social values. And, hey, it even looks cool!

    We, as historical wargamers, know that the tactics are unrealistic,
    and that you can get historical figures of equal quality for a
    fraction of the price. We also know how hard it is to get people
    interested in history due to the way it's taught in schools.
    Historical interest tends to come with maturity. It takes a talented
    teacher to show how history can be every bit as interesting as the
    latest Eldar versus Imperium war. Most can't easily do it.

    > That being said, the War Hammer crowd are the future historical gamers
    > of this I have no doubt. Give em time and they will corrupt themselves.

    I grew up on the Grant and Featherstone books that I got from the
    library. GW has pretty much supplanted this method of entry into the
    miniature wargaming hobby. I have no doubt that if I was a young
    teenager today I'd enter the hobby via GW. I agree with you totally.
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
    news:<10b3trb9d4h6fd3@corp.supernews.com>...

    > > Ah, now we're talking flat screen, are we? My prices were for tube sets
    > > (which still produce better pictures IMHO) and can be verified at the
    local
    > > Best Buy, Wal-Mart, etc.
    > >
    > > But keep adding to the specifications and I'm sure you'll be able to
    produce
    > > a comparable price.
    > >
    > > Of course, what kind of moron equates an analog 19" color TV with a 42+"
    > > plasma screen HDTV?
    > >
    > > --Ty
    >
    > BJ: Hmmm. I don't believe I mentioned 42" Plasma. "Tube Sets?" What
    > are you talking about?

    They use a CRT, rather than a plasma or TFT display. The prices you quoted
    would be about right for a flatscreen plasma in the 40" range.

    In any case, only someone who was either an idiot or extremely disengenuous
    would compare such a gadget to a 19" color TV.

    > ...As to tube sets having a superior picture-well,
    > I think that speaks more to your confusion as to just exactly what
    > HDTV is than anything else.

    Oh, so now you're going to lecture about HDTV? Well, you might start by
    learning the difference between "resolution" and image quality.

    And Bob, if you don't know what "tube sets" are, how can you so confidently
    imply that they do not have superior picture quality? I guess you must have
    thought I meant vacuum tubes (i.e., pre-solid state).

    In any case, I've owned both and I believe that CRTs produce sharper
    pictures than flatscreen displays. <shrug>

    > I despair that you'll ever be able to marshall a civil argument

    Oh now that *is* funny coming from you.

    > but
    > since your arguments are often weak or doctrinaire-I guess a descent
    > into name calling is a crutch you cannot refuse.

    I've rebutted your ridiculous assertions, wishful claims and
    misrepresentation with facts and logic. The insults are merely an added
    bonus. And Bob, I don't think that calling you a prissy old twerp is
    name-calling since its true.

    --Ty
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
    news:10b3ug37f4m4o3b@corp.supernews.com...
    > "Bob Hart" <rhar8184@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
    > news:QCisc.7142$L.4415@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
    > > Talking petrol(gas for USAians) NZ has unleaded at $1.25 a litre. Figure
    > > about 4 litres to the gallon comes to $ 5 a gallon. Assume the Kiwi
    dollar
    > > is about 60c US and you have petrol at $3.60 a gallon. Gee, you guys
    have
    > it
    > > tough, only $2.50 US a gallon.
    >
    > I believe that the reason is that the US imposes far lower taxes on
    > gasoline. We do not subsidize mass transit to the degree that Europe (and
    I
    > guess NZ) does.

    We have astonishingly high taxes on fuel in Britain, yet very little in the
    way of 'subsidized mass transit systems'. The government sold all those off
    twenty years ago.

    > Part of this is cultural, but most (IMHO) is economics.

    The main economic reason for it is that European governments have cottoned
    on to the fact that the demand for fuel is relatively price insensitive and
    they can crank the price/tax as high as they like and people will go on
    buying it. They may whine and complain, but they will still buy it. OPEC of
    course figured this out a long time ago, although they are generally careful
    not crank the price up so high it causes a general recession (and collapse
    in demand to to overall economic weakness) unless it suits them, 1973 being
    a case in point.

    It is an issue in the US because of the proportionate increase rather than
    the absolute level, we pay so much in tax already that the proportionate
    increase is far less. Still, if you think fuel prices are high now, just
    wait until the oil really starts to run out. The miracle of market forces at
    work.

    Cheers
    Martin
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Martin Rapier" <m.rapier@shef.ac.vk> wrote in message
    news:c8t3lb$ean$1@hermes.shef.ac.vk...
    > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message

    > We have astonishingly high taxes on fvel in Britain, yet very little in
    the
    > way of 'svbsidized mass transit systems'. The government sold all those
    off
    > twenty years ago.

    Then I'd demand a refvnd! <grin>

    In any case, the sheer size of the US makes it wildly impractical for vs to
    bvild a system comparable to Britain's.

    > The main economic reason for it is that Evropean governments have cottoned
    > on to the fact that the demand for fvel is relatively price insensitive
    and
    > they can crank the price/tax as high as they like and people will go on
    > bvying it. They may whine and complain, bvt they will still bvy it.

    An interesting observation, and it makes sense. In the US, gasoline taxes
    theoretically pay for highway costs.

    I recall being lectvred by a Scandinavian one time on how socially
    egalitarian pvblic mass transit systems were. He then condemned the US for
    not having svch systems and said it showed that we favored the rich. He
    stopped replying when I pointed ovt that very high gas prices make cars a
    lvxvry for the rich only...

    > OPEC of
    > covrse figvred this ovt a long time ago, althovgh they are generally
    carefvl
    > not crank the price vp so high it cavses a general recession (and collapse
    > in demand to to overall economic weakness) vnless it svits them, 1973
    being
    > a case in point.

    I also svspect that OPEC leaders (most of whom are despots) are mindfvl of
    the fact that they are militarily weak compared with the West. Withovt a
    Soviet Union to play off against the West, there's the little problem that
    the West jvst might decide to take the oil, rather than allow their
    economies to be destroyed.

    > It is an issve in the US becavse of the proportionate increase rather than
    > the absolvte level, we pay so mvch in tax already that the proportionate
    > increase is far less. Still, if yov think fvel prices are high now, jvst
    > wait vntil the oil really starts to rvn ovt. The miracle of market forces
    at
    > work.

    Yep. Althovgh, I believe that the most recent figvres I saw show that there
    are proven oil reserves to last 100 years, even assvming that cvrrent rates
    of growth in energy expenditvre continves. And the predicted rise in prices
    will spvr far more effort towards more fvel efficiency, alternative fvel
    sovrces and I predict, svccess in replacing fossil fvels. The miracle of
    market forces at work.

    And personally, I prefer it that way. I may want to spend my money on what I
    need now, not what someone thinks I may need 50 years from now. If my money
    is to be "invested", I want a say in the investment. Otherwise yov wind vp
    with boondoggles like that Norwegian energy plant that vses tides to
    electrify 30 homes. Cost -- $11 million to bvild, or abovt $336K per home!
    And the costs of operation are svch that the energy costs 3 times what hydro
    electric power costs... Great idea, that one. Of covrse, the costs were
    vnderwritten by one of those nasty oil companies -- great pvblicity, that.

    The real goal IMHO shovld be to get space lavnch prices down, which wovld
    make solar power commercially viable.

    --Ty
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    On Fri, 21 May 2004 05:46:39 -0500, "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote:

    >I recently came across some old gaming magazines. In an April 1980 issue of
    >Different Worlds, there was a review of Heritage's 25mm line of "Dungeon
    >Dwellers". A couple of interesting points:
    >
    >1. Most of the figures were 28-30mm tall -- much like today's "big" 25's.
    >
    >2. The price was $3.95 for 4 figures or a buck each. Checking the inflation
    >calculator at http://westegg.com/inflation/ , we find that this is
    >equivalent to $2.38 per figure in 2002 (it only goes to 2002).
    >
    >Now, Heritage was not a cadillac line in 1980 -- Ral Partha was the team to
    >beat then. Heritage figures were just reasonably priced and decent quality.
    >They had an extensive historical line (medievals mostly) and an extensive
    >fantasy line as well. I think they would compare to Old Glory or Reaper
    >today.
    >
    >Since fantasy figures have always tended to be pricier (IMHO because more
    >poses are required and because fantasy RPG gamers will pay more, since they
    >don't need hundreds of them), I'll confine my analysis to them.
    >
    >A pretty typical price for Reaper is 4 men at arms for $8.99, or about $2.66
    >per figure. Old Glory sells ~6 fantasy figures for $6 or a buck each -- an
    >absolute bargain these days, especially since their figures are pretty nice.
    >
    >I'll note that Games Workshop minis are still the price leader -- $3-3.50
    >each for 10 packs of metal troops and $1 each for plastics.
    >
    >Of course, today personality figures tend to cost at least double what rank
    >and file troops cost. This does not seem to have been the case in 1980 --
    >individual figures cost 25% more it seems to me.
    >
    >Still, it appears to me that the perception that gaming prices are
    >outrageously high may not be accurate.
    >
    >As for the cost of printed stuff:
    >
    >In 1979, the 256 page AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide retailed for $15.95. This
    >is equivalent to $42.71 in 2002 dollars, which is more than you'll pay for
    >many 256 page RPG hardbacks today (and today's hardbacks often have far
    >more color, better artwork, etc). For instance, the 336 page GURPS hardback
    >is $40. The 300 page D&D 3rd ed. Dungeon Master's Guide is $30 today -- $21
    >if you buy from Amazon.com.
    >
    >I'll check my magazines for wargaming rules prices, but I expect a similar
    >outcome.
    >
    >Thoughts?
    >
    >--Ty
    >


    Wasn't there a truce once on something??

    Donie
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message news:<10b4lusghe7i688@corp.supernews.com>...
    > "Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
    > news:<10b3trb9d4h6fd3@corp.supernews.com>...
    > I've rebutted your ridiculous assertions, wishful claims and
    > misrepresentation with facts and logic. The insults are merely an added
    > bonus.

    BJ: Ah, Ty...It is so sad to see such pettiness spring from your
    embarassment for your lamentably awful predictions on almost
    everything. I do hope you keep your wargame design skill focused on
    fantasy where the real world can't be offered as a check.

    I'll keep your pre-Iraq predictions as a primer on bad perceptions.
    They are at this time really a hilarious read.

    I might note that the Marine Colonel's note from the front that you
    tried to foist off on us all-has made snopes.com as an "Urban Legend".

    Travel, me boy, and acquire a little age and gravitas-perhaps you can
    avoid the fate of other light weight Texas lads. (They do have a real
    talent for Alamos!)

    BJ

    and now back to that 1809 French Uniform and the ebay inventory
    recitations...
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    In message <c8t3lb$ean$1@hermes.shef.ac.uk>, Martin Rapier
    <m.rapier@shef.ac.uk> writes
    >We have astonishingly high taxes on fuel in Britain, yet very little in the
    >way of 'subsidized mass transit systems'. The government sold all those off
    >twenty years ago.
    >
    They still subsidise them heavily.
    --
    John Secker
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    In message <8j54b0525slmk56a56r923mrri3823pi65@4ax.com>, Donnie
    <donnie@dinonino.fsnet.co.uk> writes
    >On Fri, 21 May 2004 05:46:39 -0500, "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote:
    >
    >>I recently came across some old gaming magazines. In an April 1980 issue of
    >>Different Worlds, there was a review of Heritage's 25mm line of "Dungeon
    >>Dwellers". A couple of interesting points:
    >>
    >>1. Most of the figures were 28-30mm tall -- much like today's "big" 25's.
    >>
    >>2. The price was $3.95 for 4 figures or a buck each. Checking the inflation
    >>calculator at http://westegg.com/inflation/ , we find that this is
    >>equivalent to $2.38 per figure in 2002 (it only goes to 2002).
    >>
    >>Now, Heritage was not a cadillac line in 1980 -- Ral Partha was the team to
    >>beat then. Heritage figures were just reasonably priced and decent quality.
    >>They had an extensive historical line (medievals mostly) and an extensive
    >>fantasy line as well. I think they would compare to Old Glory or Reaper
    >>today.
    >>
    >>Since fantasy figures have always tended to be pricier (IMHO because more
    >>poses are required and because fantasy RPG gamers will pay more, since they
    >>don't need hundreds of them), I'll confine my analysis to them.
    >>
    >>A pretty typical price for Reaper is 4 men at arms for $8.99, or about $2.66
    >>per figure. Old Glory sells ~6 fantasy figures for $6 or a buck each -- an
    >>absolute bargain these days, especially since their figures are pretty nice.
    >>
    >>I'll note that Games Workshop minis are still the price leader -- $3-3.50
    >>each for 10 packs of metal troops and $1 each for plastics.
    >>
    >>Of course, today personality figures tend to cost at least double what rank
    >>and file troops cost. This does not seem to have been the case in 1980 --
    >>individual figures cost 25% more it seems to me.
    >>
    >>Still, it appears to me that the perception that gaming prices are
    >>outrageously high may not be accurate.
    >>
    >>As for the cost of printed stuff:
    >>
    >>In 1979, the 256 page AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide retailed for $15.95. This
    >>is equivalent to $42.71 in 2002 dollars, which is more than you'll pay for
    >>many 256 page RPG hardbacks today (and today's hardbacks often have far
    >>more color, better artwork, etc). For instance, the 336 page GURPS hardback
    >>is $40. The 300 page D&D 3rd ed. Dungeon Master's Guide is $30 today -- $21
    >>if you buy from Amazon.com.
    >>
    >>I'll check my magazines for wargaming rules prices, but I expect a similar
    >>outcome.
    >>
    >>Thoughts?
    >>
    >>--Ty
    >>
    >
    >
    >Wasn't there a truce once on something??
    >
    >Donie
    >
    That was politics. They're arguing economics now.
    --
    John Secker
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message

    > BJ: Ah, Ty...

    I guess this affectation is less annoying than your breathless affectations
    of past posts ("Why, Ty...", etc.).

    > Travel, me boy, and acquire a little age and gravitas-

    "Gravitas" -- is that what you call your particular brand of ostentation?

    > ...perhaps you can
    > avoid the fate of other light weight Texas lads. (They do have a real
    > talent for Alamos!)

    Gee, will that make me into a self-important, prissy little twerp like you?
    Will I follow your lead and sneer about dubious accomplishments like
    speaking French, trying to tango and frequenting jazz bars?

    If so, I think I'll pass.

    --Ty
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    On Mon, 24 May 2004 23:11:07 +0100, John Secker
    <john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:

    >In message <8j54b0525slmk56a56r923mrri3823pi65@4ax.com>, Donnie
    ><donnie@dinonino.fsnet.co.uk> writes
    >>On Fri, 21 May 2004 05:46:39 -0500, "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>>I recently came across some old gaming magazines. In an April 1980 issue of
    >>>Different Worlds, there was a review of Heritage's 25mm line of "Dungeon
    >>>Dwellers". A couple of interesting points:
    >>>
    >>>1. Most of the figures were 28-30mm tall -- much like today's "big" 25's.
    >>>
    >>>2. The price was $3.95 for 4 figures or a buck each. Checking the inflation
    >>>calculator at http://westegg.com/inflation/ , we find that this is
    >>>equivalent to $2.38 per figure in 2002 (it only goes to 2002).
    >>>
    >>>Now, Heritage was not a cadillac line in 1980 -- Ral Partha was the team to
    >>>beat then. Heritage figures were just reasonably priced and decent quality.
    >>>They had an extensive historical line (medievals mostly) and an extensive
    >>>fantasy line as well. I think they would compare to Old Glory or Reaper
    >>>today.
    >>>
    >>>Since fantasy figures have always tended to be pricier (IMHO because more
    >>>poses are required and because fantasy RPG gamers will pay more, since they
    >>>don't need hundreds of them), I'll confine my analysis to them.
    >>>
    >>>A pretty typical price for Reaper is 4 men at arms for $8.99, or about $2.66
    >>>per figure. Old Glory sells ~6 fantasy figures for $6 or a buck each -- an
    >>>absolute bargain these days, especially since their figures are pretty nice.
    >>>
    >>>I'll note that Games Workshop minis are still the price leader -- $3-3.50
    >>>each for 10 packs of metal troops and $1 each for plastics.
    >>>
    >>>Of course, today personality figures tend to cost at least double what rank
    >>>and file troops cost. This does not seem to have been the case in 1980 --
    >>>individual figures cost 25% more it seems to me.
    >>>
    >>>Still, it appears to me that the perception that gaming prices are
    >>>outrageously high may not be accurate.
    >>>
    >>>As for the cost of printed stuff:
    >>>
    >>>In 1979, the 256 page AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide retailed for $15.95. This
    >>>is equivalent to $42.71 in 2002 dollars, which is more than you'll pay for
    >>>many 256 page RPG hardbacks today (and today's hardbacks often have far
    >>>more color, better artwork, etc). For instance, the 336 page GURPS hardback
    >>>is $40. The 300 page D&D 3rd ed. Dungeon Master's Guide is $30 today -- $21
    >>>if you buy from Amazon.com.
    >>>
    >>>I'll check my magazines for wargaming rules prices, but I expect a similar
    >>>outcome.
    >>>
    >>>Thoughts?
    >>>
    >>>--Ty
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >>Wasn't there a truce once on something??
    >>
    >>Donie
    >>
    >That was politics. They're arguing economics now.

    Oh, well screw everyone then :-)
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    In Sarasota there's a store named Empire Hobbies & Games. Address is
    5900
    De Sears Plaza, Unit D.

    In Ft. Myers there's a store that stocks Flames of War miniatures & I
    wouldn't be surprised if they also carried others.
    Omniversr Hobby's
    12811 Kenwood Ln, Unit 104
    Phone # 239-275-1115
    email: omniversehobbys@aol.com

    Hope this helps.

    Michael

    Andrea Novin <novina@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<4s8sc.18841$3W1.7509@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
    > I will be moving to Ft. Myers, FL shortly. ANy gamers or stores in the
    > immediate area?
Ask a new question

Read More

Video Games