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.

Ok, this is going to be a touchy one, and I really hope it doesn't turn into a flame war.

I've heard some people complain about GWs morals or ethics, but obviously it is mostly just complaints about pricing, not updating codexes, model lines, and IP enforcement. I'm honestly curious, has GW done anything morally or ethically questionable, or are people just misusing the terms.

I am wondering if there are any legitimate ethical or moral complaints about GW.

Now I want to make it clear, I'm hoping for a mature and non-whiny answer. Lets avoid issues like:

IP enforcement, because in many countries if a business does not aggressively enforce their IP they risk losing it

Capatalistic attacks like prices, updates, etc. It is ethical for a company to try make profit, start new lines, discontinue lines, change rules, have bad rules, hire and fire employees, and charge whatever the market will bear. Ethically a company is standing on good ground if they are clear about the product and don't try to trick their customers. Dropping the squats, having too many SM codexes, and changing rules, even if it is to get people to buy more of their stuff, is NOT an ethical issue, it is a customer relations one. Bad business decisions are not the same as bad ethics. This includes employee pay and treatment (for the most part). Paying minimum wage and closing stores at the drop of a hat is not bad ETHICS or MORALS, it is bad customer relations and business.

Ok, all that said, is there a foundation for complaints about the companies morals and ethics? Or is it just people complaining about business decisions they don't like? And if there are moral and ethical problems, what are they?

**UPDATE**
I'm wondering if my wording wasn't clear or people just aren't reading the whole post.

Is there a problem with GWs ethics as a company, not in the fluff...

Several people have pointed out the "Nazism" in the Imperium other then that, can't think of anything.

Well the 40k universe is set in very dangerous times. IMHO for humans and Eldar the ends DO justify the means.
I can truly understand why an Inquisitor would sacrifice a couple billion lives if it means saving an entire sector or a Farseer putting at risk an entire race if it means saving a few precious Eldar lives
Unfortunately in the dark gloomy universe of 40k everything might cause the extinction of your race and you have to do what you have to do.
The moral concerns and ethical repercussions of your actions come second to survival

What...the...?

Maybe I wasn't clear?

Games workshop the companies morals. People complaining about them...No I think the original post was clear...You didn't read the whole thing maybe?!

I think GW will keep doing what it wants dollar wise until they have real competition. And, realistically there won't be any. As most wargamers play 40k as their main game and other company's games as their secondaries (if you had to rank them) they are really in no risk of losing anything dollar wise.

Also, with so many people playing multiple armies and usually one of them being a marine variant they are guaranteed sales when they make a new marine codex.
These are the reasons they are in no risk of losing anything.

Ethically, I find it hard to argue in any which way. Because if any one of us were in a position to benefit from some of these massive paychecks some of these guys are making based on these decisions it'd be hard to say no. It just sucks being the people that have to either: a) look for an alternate game or b) grin and bear it.

I'd like to know the actual percentage of the wargaming market that GW has.

Morality is a HUMAN invention.

GW - the corporate entity - is NOT HUMAN, therefore it is not bound by such artificial human constructs like morality.

In the same way that a lion on the savannah is not bound by human morality.

So was he supposed to ask "Problem with GW Management's Morals?"

I've been into this hobby for a long time now, a good friend of mine worked for GW as a store manager for eleven years and then left... the main reason being his absolutely dire salary. He was on, roughly, £15,000 per year, which is peanuts when you take into account that length of service and the crap the store staff have to put up with on a daily basis.

They act like a nursery quite a lot of the time, and the staff get no form of bonus or consideration for the effort that consumes. Y'know, people dropping the kids off in the stores whilst they go shopping around town...

So morally, they should look after their staff more!

GW has done nothing wrong morally, ethically.
Apart from owning something of a manopoly they cannot be criticised.
Even that is in debate however. The market is not large or profitable enough for other business or government action to even consider going after GWs head for agressive IP enforcement for example.

Ok everybody, GW haven't done anything immoral, they are just greedy bastards. Move along.

Hey everyone, why is (company) getting such a bad rap?

Could you explain it without using any examples from (first largest category of bad behavior company engages in) or (second largest category of bad behavior company engages in)?

Even though there are near countless examples of the behavior I'm allegedly looking for in the two categories I've artificially excluded, I'd like one that fits a preconceived notion I already hold, and will reveal later on in the thread.

I hope this post doesn't turn into a flame war, like every single other post on this topic has, without exception, ever.

----------


Alternately, your question is like saying hey, that house that's on fire - what's the biggest problem with it, other then it's on fire?

Ouze wrote:Hey everyone, why is (company) getting such a bad rap?

Could you explain it without using any examples from (first largest category of bad behavior company engages in) or (second largest category of bad behavior company engages in)?

Even though there are near countless examples of the behavior I'm allegedly looking for in the two categories I've artificially excluded, I'd like one that fits a preconceived notion I already hold, and will reveal later on in the thread.

I hope this post doesn't turn into a flame war, like every single other post on this topic has, without exception, ever.

----------


Alternately, your question is like saying hey, that house that's on fire - what's the biggest problem with it, other then it's on fire?

OK, so GW is on fire...
Give us some of the examples, than. Please? I know exactly nothing about this topic, and would love to know what people feel is wrong ethically/morally about GW.

chromedog wrote:Morality is a HUMAN invention.

GW - the corporate entity - is NOT HUMAN, therefore it is not bound by such artificial human constructs like morality.

In the same way that a lion on the savannah is not bound by human morality.

Corporations – all corporations are entities comprised of individuals and thus subject to moral principles. Morality is an implicit component of rationality and as entities capable of rational behavior (e.g. NOT lions or other animals) all individuals are subject to moral principles.

GW, as an entity, has performed immorally in two instances that I can recall. The elimination of the Squats and Lost and the Damned armies as playable supported lines was immoral. If GW had provided a notification prior to these creation of these armies that they would one day be discontinued than they would have satisfied their due diligence in their customer relations. They did not, and thus their choice to remove these two armies as playable collections was immoral.

Ouze wrote:Hey everyone, why is (company) getting such a bad rap?

Could you explain it without using any examples from (first largest category of bad behavior company engages in) or (second largest category of bad behavior company engages in)?

Even though there are near countless examples of the behavior I'm allegedly looking for in the two categories I've artificially excluded, I'd like one that fits a preconceived notion I already hold, and will reveal later on in the thread.

Incorrect and immature. I didn't ask about why they are getting a bad rap, I could care less. I am curious about ethical violations. I didn't ask about bad behavior, I'm not talking about preconceived notion, if I made a mistake it was in talking about morality, which seems to have influenced the interpretation of the question. I made those exclusions because most people don't know what business ethics are. I've studied ethics, it is a big part of being a software engineer, and those things I excluded do NOT fall under that category of ethics. Like I said, bad business, unkind perhaps, but NOT bad ethics. A company can be greedy and fine ethically. They can make choices their customers don't like and be fine ethically.

I didn't 'artificially' exclude anything. I tried to guide the discussion because i knew there would be people (like you) who had not studied business ethics and didn't understand that those complaints do not fall within the realm of ethics. I was TRYING to filter out some ignorant responses.

But, hey, thanks for doing your best to turn an honest question into a flame war.

incarna wrote:

chromedog wrote:Morality is a HUMAN invention.

GW - the corporate entity - is NOT HUMAN, therefore it is not bound by such artificial human constructs like morality.

Um, no. Ethics are a social construct, as are companies, and companies ARE bound by ethics. Laws are made about it, entire professional organizations rise up to enforce it within their industry. Ethics is the foundation of modern business and industries go to GREAT lengths to enforce them. Your being willfully ignorant.

Sorry I'm getting snapish. In a lot of ways this is not a good place to try to have a discussion about business ethics. There is too much misunderstanding in the general populous about what ethics are. But at the same time if I want to know about GWs business ethics this is the only venue for discussion, which is why I tried to provide some guidance as to how business ethics work.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

incarna wrote:
GW, as an entity, has performed immorally in two instances that I can recall. The elimination of the Squats and Lost and the Damned armies as playable supported lines was immoral. If GW had provided a notification prior to these creation of these armies that they would one day be discontinued than they would have satisfied their due diligence in their customer relations. They did not, and thus their choice to remove these two armies as playable collections was immoral.

Ok, finally someone is providing something useful. Ceasing to support a product without prior notification could be considered an ethical grey area. If this was a true subscription based model it would be a real issue. As it is since their product acts kind of LIKE a subscription based model that decision is questionable. This is the kind of feedback I was hoping for. Anything else?

They coat the sprues in heroin or some other highly addictive contact drug. I'm sure of it.

My understanding is that, as a corporation, GW has an obligation to its shareholders to maximize profits as much as [legally] possible. To do otherwise would leave the board of directors / ceo / etc. open to legal action for mismanagement.

In that sense, any discussion of morals or ethics is somewhat moot--as long as their "greedy" behavior is in line with the law, they are required to continue.

incarna wrote:

chromedog wrote:
GW, as an entity, has performed immorally in two instances that I can recall. The elimination of the Squats and Lost and the Damned armies as playable supported lines was immoral. If GW had provided a notification prior to these creation of these armies that they would one day be discontinued than they would have satisfied their due diligence in their customer relations. They did not, and thus their choice to remove these two armies as playable collections was immoral.

I don't think this was necessarily a moral issue. As a business they developed a product, were unhappy with sales or development so discontinued it. That is just business.

To imply that it was immoral would assume that during development they decided to get people excited about Squats just so they could crush their dream.

Overall I don't think they do act immoral or unethical. There business practices are not always fair or sound, but they are a business and they are in it to make money.

My two cents....

Corry

riplikash wrote:

incarna wrote:
GW, as an entity, has performed immorally in two instances that I can recall. The elimination of the Squats and Lost and the Damned armies as playable supported lines was immoral. If GW had provided a notification prior to these creation of these armies that they would one day be discontinued than they would have satisfied their due diligence in their customer relations. They did not, and thus their choice to remove these two armies as playable collections was immoral.

Ok, finally someone is providing something useful. Ceasing to support a product without prior notification could be considered an ethical grey area. If this was a true subscription based model it would be a real issue. As it is since their product acts kind of LIKE a subscription based model that decision is questionable. This is the kind of feedback I was hoping for. Anything else?

Is it ethical for Microsoft to stop supporting Windows 2000?

Honestly, I don't find the loss of support for a given army to be any less ethical than dropping support for a previous edition of the game. (I do find it to be poor customer relations, and my LatD forces would agree with me, had they but tongues to speak.)

Now, in light of various current announcements from studio execs that every existing army will continue to receive support, if they were to suddenly drop Necrons, I think there's a better ethical question.

riplikash wrote: Incorrect and immature. I didn't ask about why they are getting a bad rap, I could care less.
(snip)
But, hey, thanks for doing your best to turn an honest question into a flame war.

Hey, I didn't start with the name-calling. You did. I think the problem with you being unable to get the answers your looking for is because you're apparently not sure what the question was, since with every post you keep moving the goalposts, under the guise of "guiding" the discussion.

When you start a post in search of what you call an "honest question" and only want "non-whiny" answers, you're not looking for an answer, you're looking for a fight.

riplikash wrote:I tried to guide the discussion because i knew there would be people (like you) who had not studied business ethics

You don't know a damn thing about me, including (but not limited to) what I've studied. The only thing you can fairly infer from my posts on Dakka regarding my education, perhaps, is that I'm unwilling to whore it out in an appeal to authority to win a point on the internets over which plastic toy soldiers I prefer to play with.

Janthkin wrote:
Is it ethical for Microsoft to stop supporting Windows 2000?

Honestly, I don't find the loss of support for a given army to be any less ethical than dropping support for a previous edition of the game. (I do find it to be poor customer relations, and my LatD forces would agree with me, had they but tongues to speak.)

Now, in light of various current announcements from studio execs that every existing army will continue to receive support, if they were to suddenly drop Necrons, I think there's a better ethical question.

I definitely agree. The point he was making that I agreed to be grey was the "without prior notification". For instance if Microsoft stopped supporting Windows 2000 without any notification that could be considered ethically questionable.

And I don't know if that is what actually happened, which is why I'm asking.

CatPeeler wrote:My understanding is that, as a corporation, GW has an obligation to its shareholders to maximize profits as much as [legally] possible. To do otherwise would leave the board of directors / ceo / etc. open to legal action for mismanagement.

In that sense, any discussion of morals or ethics is somewhat moot--as long as their "greedy" behavior is in line with the law, they are required to continue.

This is true to an extent, but companies are still expected to abide by business ethics. I agree, as I stated in the beginning, a businesses main responsibility is to make a profit. Business ethics however are very important, both for legal and business reasons. Most businesses and industries practice and enforce business ethics because it is so foundational to modern business.

Try getting to know some of the independent stockists and you'll hear some good stories. Some have been shafted time and again by GW's unscrupulous behaviour but continue to stock their stuff because ultimately it does make money and brings in customers, and that's the only reason for dealing with GW because everything else about them is a hassle.

Then they have other dirty tricks like using independents as a test site for their products and where they sell well they move in across the street and drive them out of business. Probably doesn't happen as much now because they have so many shops but it did during their massive expansion in the '90s. Blah blah, yes it's capitalism at work and it's perfectly legal, but it is hardly ethical.

It would also be interesting to know what exactly the training tells GW staff to say to customers. Because there's a suprising number of people recounting instances of staffers claiming that only GW do figures and paints etc especially to younger players. Yes you expect them to sell the product but you are't supposed to mislead customers.

A friend has also recently quit GW, again lack of a living wage being one of the reasons - as a manager at a store he was getting less than the full timers, due to the slowed way they calculate salaries.

My partner also used to work for GW: lack of a sensible wage (seriously, a full timer will have more responsibilty than an average *manager* at anotehr retail store environment yet gets £13k pa roughly) plus an inabilty to realistically set targets being two of the reasons - *raising sales targets in a recession* is not a way to motivate staff!

As was noted above: GW have a fiduciary duty to maximise shareholder gain. That is their *only* imperative, and as such all corporations are to an extent sociopathic. This is why pure capitalism is pure fail, in the longer term.

Moving to discussions.

GW morals are bad IMO. Yes its a business that is there just to make money, and that shows. They seem to have a huge disregard for what their consumers are after however. Just look at how outdated so many of the rules and armies are.

They have the market for mini war games right now but have you all looked around? Other companies are not only releasing better quality mini's but the game rules are far more balanced and up to date. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few more years their sales start to really drop.

I know my Eldar army will be the only army I finish (if I finish). Ill be moving onto something else.

Janthkin wrote:
Is it ethical for Microsoft to stop supporting Windows 2000?

Honestly, I don't find the loss of support for a given army to be any less ethical than dropping support for a previous edition of the game. (I do find it to be poor customer relations, and my LatD forces would agree with me, had they but tongues to speak.)

Now, in light of various current announcements from studio execs that every existing army will continue to receive support, if they were to suddenly drop Necrons, I think there's a better ethical question.

There are actually two big holes in this position. The first being the Microsoft Terms of Use agreement that you are required to read before you are able to use any Microsoft operating system. Although 99.99999999999% of people just click “Yeah I understand the stupid Terms” button – it actually explicitly states in more than one section that you don’t own the software, you own a license to use the software, the license can be terminated, and numerous other things that basically say “We’re Microsoft, we can do whatever we want with Windows and you’ll like it.”

That is most certainly due diligence in customer relations.

Second, upgrading from Windows 2000 to ME, NT, XP, Vista, and 7 are more akin to an analogy between codex generations – the current Tyranid codex and the last one for example.

riplikash wrote:Now I want to make it clear, I'm hoping for a mature and non-whiny answer. Lets avoid issues like:

IP enforcement, because in many countries if a business does not aggressively enforce their IP they risk losing it

Capatalistic attacks like prices, updates, etc. It is ethical for a company to try make profit, start new lines, discontinue lines, change rules, have bad rules, hire and fire employees, and charge whatever the market will bear. Ethically a company is standing on good ground if they are clear about the product and don't try to trick their customers. Dropping the squats, having too many SM codexes, and changing rules, even if it is to get people to buy more of their stuff, is NOT an ethical issue, it is a customer relations one. Bad business decisions are not the same as bad ethics. This includes employee pay and treatment (for the most part). Paying minimum wage and closing stores at the drop of a hat is not bad ETHICS or MORALS, it is bad customer relations and business.

Ok, all that said, is there a foundation for complaints about the companies morals and ethics? Or is it just people complaining about business decisions they don't like? And if there are moral and ethical problems, what are they?

I find your original post somewhat odd. Why are both the way in which GW acted around percieved IP infingements towards it's own fan/customer base in the recent bloodbowl debacle and the highly questionable pricing methodology in relation to the 'tin crisis' followed by commentary in their own financial report around bringing the cheaper to manufacture plastics up to the 'tin crisis' elevated prices of the metals both topics to be avoided in discussion about the corporate moral compass?

It's a bit like saying 'so, was Stalin a good ruler? Please don't bring up the cossacks tho!'.

The treatment of the fanbase during the Cease and Desist carpet bombing on bloodbowl sites can certainly be attained to arrogance, ignorance, laziness and a fundamental lack of care for people's investment in what GW touts as 'The Hobby'. That argument and the disgust by a great many here and elsewhere is readily available for anyone who wants to run a search. It could have easily been avoided with a small amount of effort on GW's part, insteand they weilded the sledgehammer at their own gamers.

The price hiking, clearly admitted to in their own financial reports to their shareholders, with the cited lack resistance of their customer base to 'price elasticity', coupled with the tin crisis/plastics to metal price comparison does further an image of a very cynical company, willing to exploit price elevations and not treat their customers fairly. It appears, on the face of things, that GW have come to decide that they can simply continue to elevate prices, reduce their own market and benefit from selling fewer products to fewer customers for far more money. Reducing your customer base this way is very dangerous long term but a money saver short term.

It does all lead to a portrait of a morally lite corporation with little respect for those it sells to.

In that I refer to the GW Corporation, not GW the hobby (design team etc), the arguments back and forth about codex creep, imbalance and 'squatting' armies are also worth discussing but far less what I consider when I ponder the morality of the company.

Why are we still on the Blood Bowl thing? Wasn't it posted some time ago that GW approached those sites weeks in advance with a heads-up and a warning before the C&Ds?

Morals and ethics are grey areas. There have been some shady reports though:

GW's practice of opening stores in close proximity to successful local gaming stores appears to be an attempt to siphon off business from the local independents.

I have heard in days past that GW stores in close proximity to independent hobby stores would get preferential treatment in receiving stock and new releases. Would this tend to bring in people that would otherwise not come in to a branded GW store? I think so.

Then there is the whole "no Internet shopping basket" thing here in the US. That smacks of hamstringing the dealers. Now I know the apologists will bring out the whole "GW is trying to support the FLGS" argument but if they really wanted to do that wouldn't they just refuse to do business with web only outfits? Isn't this really just an attempt to strongarm the online buyer to GW, bypassing the distribution chain entirely and maximizing their profit?

The Green Git wrote:
Then there is the whole "no Internet shopping basket" thing here in the US. That smacks of hamstringing the dealers. Now I know the apologists will bring out the whole "GW is trying to support the FLGS" argument but if they really wanted to do that wouldn't they just refuse to do business with web only outfits? Isn't this really just an attempt to strongarm the online buyer to GW, bypassing the distribution chain entirely and maximizing their profit?

I completely agree that any policy that restricts retail venues is unethical. A policy that prohibits internet sales in the US is akin to a policy that prohibits the selling of GW products in Detroit, Michigan.

If I were a retailer, I’d set up an internet outlet under one business name and a LGS under another. I’d then use my LGS to sell my inventory at cost to my internet outlet and use my internet outlet to boost sales.

incarna wrote:If I were a retailer, I’d set up an internet outlet under one business name and a LGS under another. I’d then use my LGS to sell my inventory at cost to my internet outlet and use my internet outlet to boost sales.

The way GW has structured their Intellectual Property Jihad, you could not post GW pictures of their product on your web site to sell... period. Dealers like The War Store are at a decided disadvantage because they can't put up pics, where UK Internet dealers like Maelstrom are under no such restrictions.

In my opinion imposing arbitrary restrictions based on geography to a medium like the Internet (that basically ignores borders and geography) in matters of commerce is a form of trade protectionism. GW is a UK company and if only UK companies can effectively sell then the profits will go to the UK.