Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Comparisons with chess, Infinity or golf are interesting but useless. To try and see what GW's customers are doing we need to compare GW's prices today with their prices in the past.

I did this using my Tau army -- bought between late 2004 and 2006 -- as a broadly representative "complete" army. My army cost a bit over £500 at the prices when I bought it. The same army now would cost a bit over £850.

That is a 70% increase in cost, compared to 30% of general price inflation over the same time, which is about a 30% increase in real terms. (170/130.) In other words a GW army now costs 30% more than it did eight years ago.

If you look at GW's sales figures over the same period, they roughly have bumped up and down between about £125 M and £135 M (adjusted for inflation.) In other words there was no dramatic up or down trend. The best figure would be 135/125 = 8% increase. That is ignoring the 8% decrease in sales in the last year.

It is not hard to see that if you increase your prices 30% and increase sales 8%, your customers are buying 17% less stuff than they used to.

Why they might do that is another matter, but it surely must have something to do with the perception of cost to benefit of buying GW.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To try and see what GW's customers are doing we need to compare GW's prices today with their prices in the past.

I bought my sisters more than 15 years ago (early 3rd ed). I actually made money when I sold them. Truth is, even without the OOP factor on some references, the retail price of most sisters models have more than doubled since the late 90s.

The price increase is almost four times higher than the inflation.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Comparisons with chess, Infinity or golf are interesting but useless. To try and see what GW's customers are doing we need to compare GW's prices today with their prices in the past.

I did this using my Tau army -- bought between late 2004 and 2006 -- as a broadly representative "complete" army. My army cost a bit over £500 at the prices when I bought it. The same army now would cost a bit over £850.

That is a 70% increase in cost, compared to 30% of general price inflation over the same time, which is about a 30% increase in real terms. (170/130.) In other words a GW army now costs 30% more than it did eight years ago.

If you look at GW's sales figures over the same period, they roughly have bumped up and down between about £125 M and £135 M (adjusted for inflation.) In other words there was no dramatic up or down trend. The best figure would be 135/125 = 8% increase. That is ignoring the 8% decrease in sales in the last year.

It is not hard to see that if you increase your prices 30% and increase sales 8%, your customers are buying 17% less stuff than they used to.

Why they might do that is another matter, but it surely must have something to do with the perception of cost to benefit of buying GW.

Silly question, but how does that compare to the increase in tin prices?

I... am likely wrong... but it would not surprise me if GW has linked the prices for their miniatures to that of tin. Even though they no longer use that material, and most of their miniatures are now one form of plastic or another.

Though I could have sworn that part of the push to plastics was because of increasing metal prices....

The Auld Grump

I can't see any logic in linking the figure price to the tin price, not only as GW stopped using tin alloy several years ago but also because the metal price is only a small part of the cost of getting a figure to market.

Anyway it isn't linked. Here is the five year commodity price of tin metal. Basically flat for the past three years.

http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/tin/5-year/

Okay, just thought that I would ask... back in the '70s OPEC oil prices were linked to that of gold.... (Which has less to do with the price of oil than the price of tin does for a large number of miniatures manufacturers.)

Basically along the lines of 'Reaper prices have gone up 30% because of raising tin prices, so we will increase our prices, even though we don't use tin.'

But then Reaper have very low prices on their Bones miniatures line - a cheaper material that relies on mass production....

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Comparisons with chess, Infinity or golf are interesting but useless. To try and see what GW's customers are doing we need to compare GW's prices today with their prices in the past.

I did this using my Tau army -- bought between late 2004 and 2006 -- as a broadly representative "complete" army. My army cost a bit over £500 at the prices when I bought it. The same army now would cost a bit over £850.

That is a 70% increase in cost, compared to 30% of general price inflation over the same time, which is about a 30% increase in real terms. (170/130.) In other words a GW army now costs 30% more than it did eight years ago.

If you look at GW's sales figures over the same period, they roughly have bumped up and down between about £125 M and £135 M (adjusted for inflation.) In other words there was no dramatic up or down trend. The best figure would be 135/125 = 8% increase. That is ignoring the 8% decrease in sales in the last year.

It is not hard to see that if you increase your prices 30% and increase sales 8%, your customers are buying 17% less stuff than they used to.

Why they might do that is another matter, but it surely must have something to do with the perception of cost to benefit of buying GW.

Silly question, but how does that compare to the increase in tin prices?

I... am likely wrong... but it would not surprise me if GW has linked the prices for their miniatures to that of tin. Even though they no longer use that material, and most of their miniatures are now one form of plastic or another.

Though I could have sworn that part of the push to plastics was because of increasing metal prices....

The Auld Grump

http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/tin/all/

Tin prices remaind stable from 1990 to 2003, around 2-3 USD per pound.
The prices have been stable, around 10USD/lb for the last 3 years. Between these periods, the prices have widly fluctuated, with two huge peaks (mid 2008 and early 2011).

The increase is slightly less pronounced if you take other currencies. Still, tin price has more than doubled since 2006.

 Naberiel wrote:
Chess and Paintball:

-are both wargames
-in both you compete against other player
-both are playable indoor and outdoor

Completely comparable. They both cost money to buy. They both have a start up cost to get into. They both take time to play. You get enjoyment out of them. You usually need a partner to play with. Both can be played for fun or in competitions.

Chess can be cheaper to buy. You buy in cost is low as well. Buy once, play for ever. Paintball can be expensive. Buy in is high especially if you buy brand new. You need to keep buying paint balls, and then you have to pay a fee to be able to play in the arena. So it would be said Chess is the better cost effective way to play.

Both take time to play. You need to make sure you have enough time to commit to a game.

You can say Chess is better because travel times can be lessened because you can almost play it anywhere, while you can only paintball in certain places. You can't play it in public and not get in trouble for it.

People who play chess get enjoyment out of it. People who paintball get enjoyment out of it. Why play chess if you don't like it? Why paintball if you don't like it? It provides enjoyment for different reasons.

So yes you can almost compare anything with anything.

would you compare they prices? I dont think so coz they are just too diferent, arent they?

Yea 100€ in Infinity give me more than 100 in W40k, yeah book are insane and yeah GWs politics are stupid, but that change nothing. I just cant wram my squid brain around this comparison.

Again we are talking about Value now are we not? Some people think they are getting a better value with Infinity than they are in getting 40K. You are getting more bang for your buck. Why does that not change anything? This is what I am confused with your statement here. You are getting more. You are getting say 100 apples with Infinity while you are only getting 50 apples with 40K. You are getting more. Does that not change things? If you want a pear, Infinity will sell it for $25, GW will sell it for $75. What am I not seeing that you are seeing to say that is not comparable?

 Azazelx wrote:
I always facepalm when I see the arguments in this thread being brought up over and over. Same gak, different day. People who want to piss on GW always bring up that despite the figures often being more expensive, Warmahordes costs less to start up.

Guess what, guys? Despite the rules being better and the game having less of an overall startup cost, you're still getting ripped off on the model prices. Just like 40k. Compare like to like in terms of models - take the materials into account as well.

When people bring up Historicals and the far, far lower price, it's always the same argument - that "historical players" buy thousands of figures, so arguments of scale abound as to why the historical figures are way cheaper than either the 40k or Warmahordes figures. News flash - histotrical games like Bolt Action or Saga (and quite a few more) don't require all that many models, and those same models (including the vehicles) cost a gakload less than either of your 40k or Warmahordes (or Infinity, et al) models.

And for the record, I own a healthy (unhealthy?) amount of all of the above. I know what I speak of. And it's people defending GW's high prices and others trying to defend PP's own high prices with "but startup cost is reasons!"

Can't this just be summed up as; a lot of games miniatures are probably over-priced for what they are, some are more over-priced than others. But, GW fronts the way with this pricing charge?

I think the pricing issue also highlights another problem - say I was a parent, looking for something for my kids to play. If you look in a copy of White Dwarf you see the GW games as GW themselves would have you play. That's the 1500pt 40k army or 2000pt WFB army, as a minimum. If they then take a calculator to the price list and get a total, for I think most people other than relatively high-income earners (at least in the UK - this is what has changed a lot with GW gaming here, it used to accessible to a larger chunk of the population) are going to laugh sardonically and then click onto game.com.

 Pacific wrote:
If they then take a calculator to the price list and get a total, for I think most people other than relatively high-income earners (at least in the UK - this is what has changed a lot with GW gaming here, it used to accessible to a larger chunk of the population) are going to laugh sardonically and then click onto game.com.

Wouldn't they just be laughing at looking at the one click bundles? I know if I ever saw those prices 15 years ago, I never would have started 40K and I would't have looked back either.

Yeah, there's no nostalgia to drag you back in despite the prices if you never played to begin with.

Davor wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
If they then take a calculator to the price list and get a total, for I think most people other than relatively high-income earners (at least in the UK - this is what has changed a lot with GW gaming here, it used to accessible to a larger chunk of the population) are going to laugh sardonically and then click onto game.com.

Wouldn't they just be laughing at looking at the one click bundles? I know if I ever saw those prices 15 years ago, I never would have started 40K and I would't have looked back either.

For this reason I think GW's current policies; of lack of smaller scale introduction games, of making life difficult for independents, of the high prices, are actually dangerous for the future livelihood of the industry. The issue is that GW is still generally the most visible wargame (at least here in the UK) with the high street presence and computer games etc. It will act akin to a great-big uncaring white elephant that blocks the doorway to wargaming, and there is a chance that people will not be able to see past the elephant at some of the other games on offer and walk away for good.

Here (in the US) there are now quite a few gamers who start up playing miniatures games with games that are not GW (mostly Warmachine, although I've heard of Malifaux even).

Once this was unheard of.

GW is contributing to this largely by raising their buy in prices, while every other company is trying to create low buy ins for their games.

I used to get a codex for $20.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
Here (in the US) there are now quite a few gamers who start up playing miniatures games with games that are not GW (mostly Warmachine, although I've heard of Malifaux even).

Once this was unheard of.

GW is contributing to this largely by raising their buy in prices, while every other company is trying to create low buy ins for their games.

I used to get a codex for $20.

You're seeing this more and more in the uk as well. I know a lot of people get into wargaming via things like flames of war.

I would say that they have passed the peak of their sales, and I can see them dwindling but not ceasing trading. From what I know and have observed they have the following advantages in their market, that will continue to stand to them:
+The best design and art team team
+The highest quality / most detailed miniatures
+The most extensive selection? I'm not familiar with all other ranges, so not 100% sure on that)
+The best written and most atmospheric background, with a reasonable amount of originality (when it comes to 40k in any case).

They are beset by the following disadvantages which are damaging them:
-Prices that can be called greedy at best, immoral at worst (considering half their target market is kids)
-Coroporate BS syndrome. The drive to implement policies, which might on paper seem good or generate money, but in the long terrm do more harm than good. Their stance on intellectual properties is a fine example, as is their standardisation / streamlining of elements of a game that ultimately thrives on its individuality.
-An attitude towards their customers that can be described as inconsiderate at best, callous at worst.

To give an example which sums up the company to me: I was in the Dublin store last year. There were a bunch of teens in there painting their own figures. One of the staff...and I have to stress I have no issue with most of the staff, they're normally nice...but one of the staff says to one of the kids "Em, I see you haven't brought your paints in" "Huh?" said the kid. "Em yeah, you're using ths store's paints for the second time, you have to bring your own. You're technically stealing from us if you're using out paints." I couldn't believe it. Here was a kid that would probably spend every spare euro he had for the next 4 years on the hobby, and that dork was giving him a hard time over a few drops of paint... It alienated me as a customer, and I've bought second hand and discounted minis and restored them, sooner than support a store that has such a greedy policy.

I think rival companies will take a chunk out of their profits. They'll get some back through intellecutal property royalites from companies producing space marine knock-offs. The biggest blow to them will come in 5-10 years, when 3d printing becomes widely affordable and will be abused horribly to churn out armies. They'll fight that, but it will axe their sales. I think in 10-15 years, they'll end up a quarter the size of what they are now, but hopefully they will survive, and hopefully they will get back to their roots, as a bunch of cool guys who provide the best tabletop battle games at an affordable rate

 thegreatchimp wrote:
+The best design and art team team
+The highest quality / most detailed miniatures

These are very subjective things, and IMO not really an advantage for GW. They can't compete with the high-end "collector" models (even their FW brand makes "main" GW look like a joke), and their successes are offset by spectacular failures like the Taurox or that SW chariot thing. GW's only advantage is making decent gaming pieces at a reasonable price, and they're doing everything they can to throw away that advantage through constant price increases.

-Prices that can be called greedy at best, immoral at worst (considering half their target market is kids)

There is nothing immoral about GW's prices. Their emphasis on milking the cash cow of their most dedicated customers instead of genuine innovation and superior products is bad for the company in the long run, but that's not a moral flaw. This is a luxury item, not an essential product or service, no matter how high GW's prices get you always have the option to stop buying. Therefore the entire concept of moral or immoral prices does not apply.

The biggest blow to them will come in 5-10 years, when 3d printing becomes widely affordable and will be abused horribly to churn out armies.

This is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Even if you assume that printers capable of matching GW's quality will ever exist (they currently don't) and drop in price to the point that an average person can afford them it's still not a very practical manufacturing process. 3d printing is great for producing prototypes at minimal cost and/or enabling the use of digital sculpting tools to create a master model, but injection molding is always going to be cheaper for mass production.

 Peregrine wrote:

These are very subjective things, and IMO not really an advantage for GW. They can't compete with the high-end "collector" models (even their FW brand makes "main" GW look like a joke), and their successes are offset by spectacular failures like the Taurox or that SW chariot thing. GW's only advantage is making decent gaming pieces at a reasonable price, and they're doing everything they can to throw away that advantage through constant price increases.

There is nothing immoral about GW's prices. Their emphasis on milking the cash cow of their most dedicated customers instead of genuine innovation and superior products is bad for the company in the long run, but that's not a moral flaw. This is a luxury item, not an essential product or service, no matter how high GW's prices get you always have the option to stop buying. Therefore the entire concept of moral or immoral prices does not apply.

This is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Even if you assume that printers capable of matching GW's quality will ever exist (they currently don't) and drop in price to the point that an average person can afford them it's still not a very practical manufacturing process. 3d printing is great for producing prototypes at minimal cost and/or enabling the use of digital sculpting tools to create a master model, but injection molding is always going to be cheaper for mass production.

Regarding modelling, I tend to agree with you. There are some rotten eggs in there. and just plain bad design choices (e.g. the need to give every faction a knight size walker, just becasue Tau got the riptide). Don't even get me started about the Dreadknight, or Centurions! Perhaps a more acurate statement is "GW are certainly capable of producing superior minis,even if only 2/3 of what they make hits this mark."

Regarding prices, I firmly believe that yes, it is morally wrong for a company to charge exorbitant prices when so much of their target audience are teens who have very little income. That's the opinion of most of my gaming group, but it is an opinion, so I'm not going to press it upon you. In any case I agree it's a bad decision for them in the long run.

Regarding 3d printing, no offence, but i don't think you're up to speed on this technology. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/heroforge/customizable-3d-printed-tabletop-miniatures Its only a matter of time before that level of accuracy is improved upon and becomes widepread, and the hardware becomes affordable. After that the only expense is the material used and electrical costs. On a slightly related note, a functioning human kidney was recently printed, which is fantastic news.

I'd say that no, GW don't have an advantage in the quality of their sculpts anymore. Most of Infinity's recent models put GWs recent characters to shame when it comes to technical details and the Knight is laughable compared to a fully posable Dreamforge leviathan.

3D printing technology is going to be a challenge soon, plenty if companies already use it to print their masters and cast off that, the technology is there it just needs a few years to get cheaper.

A bigger disadvantage for GW is their stores though, they sink far too much money into keeping them open and with one employee each that's simply not bringing in enough new customers to be worth it.

3D printing may still take a few years to be affordable for the home consumer (with enough resolution for miniatures), but it already has a huge impact on the miniature business, the quickness in which small companies churn out stuff is largely due to the advances in 3D printing and because of, that more design is done on the computer instead of sculpting.

 thegreatchimp wrote:
Regarding prices, I firmly believe that yes, it is morally wrong for a company to charge exorbitant prices when so much of their target audience are teens who have very little income.

Who cares if they have very little income? It's their choice to buy a single expensive GW model or multiple cheaper things. It's not like GW models are an essential part of being a teen (or a person of any other age), so being unable or unwilling to pay GW's prices isn't a major hardship. It might be a stupid business decision to price themselves out of their core market, but that's not even close to making it immoral.

Regarding 3d printing, no offence, but i don't think you're up to speed on this technology. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/heroforge/customizable-3d-printed-tabletop-miniatures Its only a matter of time before that level of accuracy is improved upon and becomes widepread, and the hardware becomes affordable.

No, you're just being incredibly optimistic about the technology. Those models are garbage if you enjoy the modeling and painting side of the hobby, they suffer from the same grainy texture that most/all 3d printed models have and that makes them useless for painting. They're nice game pieces if you just want some unpainted figures to push around the table, but that's all. And you should notice two things about this:

1) They aren't offering anything new in 3d printing. All they're doing is offering customizable model files, the actual printing is going to be done by Shapeways (a service you can order from right now). This is a useful tool that probably has a market, but it's not doing anything to change the problems of 3d printing.

2) They're charging $30 per model. Remember how lots of people think GW's models are incredibly overpriced when a single 28mm character costs $15?

After that the only expense is the material used and electrical costs.

And the most important expense: time. Do you want to wait a month to print your own tactical squad, or would you rather just pay $50 to have it right now? When you answer this question remember that most of GW's customers are either younger kids who are unlikely to have high-end 3d printers in the foreseeable future, or adults with full-time careers/families/etc and more money than time.

 Peregrine wrote:

After that the only expense is the material used and electrical costs.

And the most important expense: time. Do you want to wait a month to print your own tactical squad, or would you rather just pay $50 to have it right now? When you answer this question remember that most of GW's customers are either younger kids who are unlikely to have high-end 3d printers in the foreseeable future, or adults with full-time careers/families/etc and more money than time.

I would rather buy something else from some other company, and use the 3d printer to make terrain elements for my own use. Not copies of GW stuff, but my own designs.

Either way, GW isn't getting a cent of my money - that $50 can buy a whole lot more from Mantic, or at Reaper than at GW - and the money will be going there, not to GW.

The Auld Grump - who has lusted after such a machine for twenty years, ever since reading an article in Analog Science Fiction.

 Peregrine wrote:

2) They're charging $30 per model. Remember how lots of people think GW's models are incredibly overpriced when a single 28mm character costs $15?

It's about value though - is a custom mini worth more than a generic single-pose mini?

And the most important expense: time. Do you want to wait a month to print your own tactical squad, or would you rather just pay $50 to have it right now? When you answer this question remember that most of GW's customers are either younger kids who are unlikely to have high-end 3d printers in the foreseeable future, or adults with full-time careers/families/etc and more money than time.

Do these machines need to be attended? Like, are they at the point where I can set it off printing and then go out for the day? If it's just that printing time is high but the manual intervention is minimal and infrequent, then I could easily produce an army in a couple of weeks with minimal effort just by reloading it once a day and otherwise ignoring it, and it might take me less time than going to the store (a 2 hour round trip).

3D printing is like its analogue 2D printing.

They are most useful when you want something fast and quality isn't a concern, but when you need high quality it gets expensive fast.

What they are currently being used for is to print digital sculpts into 'greens' and prototypes which then get mass produced in a traditional method.

A lot of companies still opt to buy lithographic printed documents than go with a much cheaper digital printed version (even from a print shop no less) because the quality difference is noticeable with the human eye still, and the cost difference starts shrinking as your runs get larger.

Digital printing will be good for one-off, prototype designs which is exactly where you want high quality, and high quality means expensive so it is likely to be only ever available to companies or the very wealthy.

When there is a mass market use for 3D printing (like with 2D printing, when printing off directions or a CV or school project and general use like that), you will see prices drop and quality of those devices go up.

In the future, it is more probable that if you want a 'tactical squad' printed, it is likely to get the quality you want you need to take it to a 3D print shop with the renders and have them do it. The cost is probably not going to be small either, and the quality won't match injection moulding but may well be 'good enough'; however, it is more of a tool to print off your own designs or parts than making one for someone. When buying a print book, you don't get a PDF, take it to a printers and get it bound for you there as that is much more expensive than buying a book.

 Daba wrote:
In the future, it is more probable that if you want a 'tactical squad' printed, it is likely to get the quality you want you need to take it to a 3D print shop with the renders and have them do it.

And of course then you run into massive legal issues. Printing at home is going to fall into the same "illegal but unenforceable" category as pirating scans of rulebooks, but a business offering 3d printing services is going to be a lot easier to catch and have a lot more to lose. So I don't think we're going to see any significant loss in sales from this aspect of 3d printing.

^^ As said above...

Most of us own paper scanner/printers at home for home-office and schoolwork, yet we don't print out books because the cost and nuisance makes it better to buy them ready printed.

Most of us have no reason to own 3D printers at home. When you can buy kits of plastic models and figures for something like 35 to 50 pence per figure, it does not seem likely that it will be worthwhile using 3D printing except for special items like custom parts.

The difficulty with making custom parts is the creation of the CAD-CAM files, which requires software and design skills, so not many people are going to do it at home, they will rely on downloads or commissioning work from specialists.

Either way, once you have your custom part file, unless you need hundreds of copies, it will be easy to go and get them printed at your local print shop.

Kirby's preamble rant about 3D printing was just a red herring, a way of distracting attention from the real issues facing Games Workshop, for which he had no answers. In fact he did not even acknowledge that there were any questions to be asked.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Daba wrote:
In the future, it is more probable that if you want a 'tactical squad' printed, it is likely to get the quality you want you need to take it to a 3D print shop with the renders and have them do it.

And of course then you run into massive legal issues. Printing at home is going to fall into the same "illegal but unenforceable" category as pirating scans of rulebooks, but a business offering 3d printing services is going to be a lot easier to catch and have a lot more to lose. So I don't think we're going to see any significant loss in sales from this aspect of 3d printing.

Not sure what you mean by "Illegal but unenforceable" category, because as I understand it, anything for "personal" use an "not making money off it" is legal. At least in Canada we are allowed to make copies and keep the original as a back up. It's illegal to distribute said material either by Torrents, or selling it in stores or the back of your trunk.

 Peregrine wrote:


Who cares if they have very little income? It's their choice to buy a single expensive GW model or multiple cheaper things. It's not like GW models are an essential part of being a teen (or a person of any other age), so being unable or unwilling to pay GW's prices isn't a major hardship. It might be a stupid business decision to price themselves out of their core market, but that's not even close to making it immoral.

I care. So do most people I've discussed it with. You don't think it's immoral -fine, that's your opinion and I can respect that.

No, you're just being incredibly optimistic about the technology.

If I'm being incredibly optimistic, then you're being incredibly pessimistic about it! I didn't send you that link because I thought the company were doing anything particualrely novel, I sent it as an example of the level of detail that's currently capable of being achieved. Consider that 10 years ago the most complex shape that could be manufactured was a key, and compare that to what's beeing produced now. it seems reasonable to me to assume that it's likewise going to improve considerably in the next 10. Having never handled a 3d printed mini, I can't comment as to the material being substandard or not. If you have, I'll take your word on it. However It's a small matter to develop a more suitable one. And print time will likewise improve. Imo.

Anyway I'm a 3d modeller not an economist, but I know enough to say definatevely that when someone stands to make a lot of money out of a developing technology, obstacles are overcome. That's been the case with any manufacturing process in history anyway, so I don't see why 3d printing would be any different.

Time wil tell. If in 10 years I turn out to be wrong, I'll exalt your last post

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Most of us own paper scanner/printers at home for home-office and schoolwork, yet we don't print out books because the cost and nuisance makes it better to buy them ready printed.

A lot of that is down to form and binding. I can print out any document and take it to get spiral bound, but without a huge amount of money I'll never get something that looks like the book.

With mini's, you'll be able to produce something that is more or less visually and functionally identical, just in a different material, so whilst it'll still likely cost more, that's the only compromise you have to make to get it printed on demand. In another couple of generations of the technology, once it's painted you won't be able to tell the difference between a HIPS plastic cast model and a 3d printed model.

Your home printer, even a Laser one still is nowhere near the quality of worst-quality trash paperbacks. Even most office printers don't even get that quality.

2D printing has been around for how long? Why do you assume that good quality 3D printing will become affordable?

I see it being affordable for dedicated businesses, but for a home user I don't see it ever happening because I don't see a mass market function for such a high quality 3D printer.

Davor wrote:


Not sure what you mean by "Illegal but unenforceable" category, because as I understand it, anything for "personal" use an "not making money off it" is legal. At least in Canada we are allowed to make copies and keep the original as a back up. It's illegal to distribute said material either by Torrents, or selling it in stores or the back of your trunk.

You believe copyright myths and misunderstand personal use. By your definition, *everything* a product is intended for is personal use.

*Let's say I buy a model, but I don't know what paint scheme I want to use. I cast 10 copies of it so I can try out a bunch of techniques and schemes until I find out the one I want to use. I then paint the original and destroy the copies. That is an example of 'personal use'

*If I buy a model and I simply want 10 copies for my army and I cast 10 copies, that is not personal use.

Also 'backup copies' is dubious applied to miniatures because different media has different copyright laws. Just because you can make a copy of your cassette tape doesn't mean you can recast your miniatures... And honestly recasting a miniature to make a SINGLE backup is not ever gonna happen if it was legal and is just a stupid excuse.

And as to the 'PP is cheaper even though it has the same prices as GW', GW has explicitly said 2/3rds of their customers never play the game. This is 'gameplayers' underestimating how many people out there buy and paint models and never play the associated games. I guess it feeds into thier opinions of self worth and how important their dollars are to the companies. PP is *VERY* expensive for miniature collectors and is no cheaper than GW price per mini. Anyone who thinks PP is 'cheap' must not know anything about the thousands of miniature companies out there and makes comments based upon nothing but playing a game and only sees GW/PP as the only two choices.

Either way, I don't think 3D printing is GW's main problem right now. They got a whole lotta other problems to worry about before some questionable future technology becomes widespread.