If you mean Mad4Mini's avatar, Ouze, that's a Stone Rhino/Behemoth.

-1 nerd point!


Don't have much to add, other than sure, there's loads of mindless negativity toward GW; there's a fair chunk of knee-jerk defense of GW at even the slightest hint of criticism, too, as well as a some mindless negativity towards other companies. And frankly, as long as the mods remain impartial in their moderation, I see no real issue. There's no need for them to be impartial in their opinions, though; they're free to feel however they want to feel as hobbyists (little 'h', though I guess they're free to feel however they want to feel as capital 'H' Hobbyists, too, when applicable) and express it just like anyone else. Sometimes the signal-to-noise ratio gets a bit whacky, mostly in N&R and Dakka Discussion, but the game/company-specific forums seem to remain relatively free from this.

Overall, though, this thread is a bit of train wreck, eh?

 Amaya wrote:
I still don't see how that is unfair.

All this talk of "fairness" is a bit pointless IMO. Each individual and each company mutually decides what it "fair". However, just because you might not want to describe a pricing scheme as "unfair" in absolute terms, you may still want to describe it as anti-customer/community or unfair in your own self.

If it's out of your acceptable price range, don't buy it.

And I won't, GW is a long way away from being outside my price range. However it is approaching what I feel is fair (note "what I feel", not "what is"), and as such I've increased my importing, decreased my overall purchases and increased my bitching about it, I don't see the problem with any of those. Completely stopping purchases and stopping the game is much trickier because I'm invested heavily in it. Just because my car is costing me a few hundred a month more than I would like doesn't mean I'm going to go out in to the backyard and burn it, costing me several thousand more. GW are pushing my buttons, not just with price but also with their business practices, but I'm not going to ragequit and throw away my time and money investment that easily. When they finally push the "bugger it I quit" button, you won't hear from me anymore because I won't be here. Unfortunately it's not so much a button as it is an analog dial, slowly creeping up.

clively wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Tenuously tying this back to the topic, though, a lot of people have this weird idea that you should charge a fair price for your goods and services based on their worth and a reasonable expectation of profit rather than charging whatever you think will generate the maximum possible revenue. They think you shouldn't rip people off even if, due to market factors, you have the opportunity. Perhaps that's old fashioned. It is something that engenders very negative reactions, though, and even for those of us who initially accept the prices that reaction can be triggered by the price hikes.

The problem here is who defines what's "fair"? ...

However, when you bring in unnecessary items, like wargaming products, then the only way to be fair is to allow the market to establish the maximum price they are willing to pay. In Canada/Australia, that price is apparently higher than for Americans or Brits.

"Ripping people off" is not really related to price and is entirely related to how a given person feels about a purchase they have made. In a previous life I sold cars for a living. In a very few cases I sold some for huge losses just to get them off the lot. I still remember one lady who bought a car from me in which we lost over $15k on the deal and she thought she had been ripped off. The car was brand new with a MSRP of $35k; I sold it for $13k simply because it had been on our lot for far too long and was costing us more money every single day it sat there. There was nothing wrong with the car, it had 15 miles on it due to a couple of demo drives. It had not been wrecked and the paint didn't have so much as a minor chip in it. Regardless, a week after buying she came to me claiming she had been ripped off. Yes, this is an extreme case, but I tell it to highlight that the terms "fair" and "ripping people off" are completely dependent upon the person using those words.

Is it fair for GW to make a product that someone might not be able to afford? Yes. Is it fair that GW raises prices to the point that you are no longer able to continue in their definition of The Hobby? Absolutely. As a matter of fact, I for one am very glad GW has risen prices. It has caused numerous other companies to spring up to offer products of similar, or in some cases higher, quality at better price points. This is a great thing for the market and everyone will ultimately benefit. If the new competition is good enough, it will certainly result in a repricing at some point. To help that along I hope that most tournaments shift to allowing, if not actively encouraging, usage of non-gw miniatures. This would be a huge boon to wargamers in general. I like this game, and I generally like the models GW releases. However, if I can buy a squad of "armored space infantry" that is of equal or better quality for a lower price point then I will happily vote with my dollars. And, just to be clear, I'm not talking about buying something recast or a blatant rip off of GW tac squads. Rather, I'd look for a new take on the whole look.

Yes, as you have pointed out fairness is quite subjective. The problem is, I don't think most people buy into "it's okay for a company to charge whatever they want and that's fair because you don't need it so you should just never mention it and the market will fix it." People are going to see an unreasonable (subjective, yes) price and they are going to say the company is trying to rip them off and is by extension a bunch of jerks.

What's a reasonable price is certainly a tricky issue, as most of us aren't presented with a detailed cost breakdown in the store. However, when you can buy, let's say, some Galadhrim Knights for $55 AUD and some Knights of Rivendell are released for $85 AUD, it might be natural to wonder if you're being taken for a ride. That can make people a bit angsty and it's a direct result of the company's actions (assuming, of course, that they really are just trying to take advantage of a captive audience and that the prices aren't justified, but it's hard to see how that could be the case here).

Point being, the community being a bit angsty at times is not just because the community is horrible and unreasonable and a bunch of haters or whatever. It's a pretty logical result of some current GW policies, pricing among them.

 RatBot wrote:
If you mean Mad4Mini's avatar, Ouze, that's a Stone Rhino/Behemoth.

-1 nerd point!

completely off-topic:

I still have 1 of those in a box in my garage. I had to rebuild both of the arms because the thin top portion didn't survive very much handling due to the relative to the size/weight of the gun on the lower portion.

clively wrote:

 RatBot wrote:
If you mean Mad4Mini's avatar, Ouze, that's a Stone Rhino/Behemoth.

-1 nerd point!

completely off-topic:

I still have 1 of those in a box in my garage. I had to rebuild both of the arms because the thin top portion didn't survive very much handling due to the relative to the size/weight of the gun on the lower portion.

Nice. Well, the owning it part is nice, not the having to rebuild it part. I think I would legitimately eat a crate of live puppies for an Unseen, any of them, but especially the original Warhammer, Marauder, or Behemoth.

Expressing your dislike for the price increase and refusing to buy the products is the best option. If you continue to spend money on GW, they are, in a sense, winning. They are selling less product for a higher price. That is a win win for them.

 Amaya wrote:
I still don't see how that is unfair. It is a not an essential good. If it's out of your acceptable price range, don't buy it.

Edit: Not worth the potential warning... Good day, welcome to ignore.

 Amaya wrote:


Expressing your dislike for the price increase and refusing to buy the products is the best option. If you continue to spend money on GW, they are, in a sense, winning. They are selling less product for a higher price. That is a win win for them.

I agree that is potentially the best option. Bear in mind, though, that this thread is not about whether the price is too high, but about what responsibility the community or moderators bear for the tone of the discussions on the board. The price stuff is only relevant in that GW policy is the direct cause for much of the negativity and that blaming the community for it or saying that everything would be flowers and rainbows and puppydogs if the community would stop being so mean is not really reasonable.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
.
]
Yes, as you have pointed out fairness is quite subjective. The problem is, I don't think most people buy into "it's okay for a company to charge whatever they want and that's fair because you don't need it so you should just never mention it and the market will fix it." People are going to see an unreasonable (subjective, yes) price and they are going to say the company is trying to rip them off and is by extension a bunch of jerks.

.

This is an interesting opinion to me. I've never once thought that the folks at BMW were a bunch of jerks because I can't afford their cars.

@Alf-->. Why put him on ignore for that comment? If you can't afford it or find It outside your acceptable price range, isn't the logical solution not to buy it?

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

What's a reasonable price is certainly a tricky issue, as most of us aren't presented with a detailed cost breakdown in the store. However, when you can buy, let's say, some Galadhrim Knights for $55 AUD and some Knights of Rivendell are released for $85 AUD, it might be natural to wonder if you're being taken for a ride. That can make people a bit angsty and it's a direct result of the company's actions (assuming, of course, that they really are just trying to take advantage of a captive audience and that the prices aren't justified, but it's hard to see how that could be the case here).

Point being, the community being a bit angsty at times is not just because the community is horrible and unreasonable and a bunch of haters or whatever. It's a pretty logical result of some current GW policies, pricing among them.

I think it's best if you take a second and put what you just said into perspective. These are boxes of plastic; and not even super high quality plastic at that. The box itself cost more to produce than the parts inside; and that's taking into account designer time, molds, etc. If price is the question about whether you are being "taken for a ride": well, even if those knights were sold for $20AUD you would be. You can go look at some random fighter jet model being sold by Revell, like a flying fortress, for $32US. This is a larger model with more parts, same quality of plastic materials, lots of detail and a much lower production run than a 40k land raider. Yet it retails for less than half what a land raider does in the US. Getting back to the Knights, $85 is certainly a lot of money for what amounts to less than $5 worth of a box of plastic. If that's how you value it. I simply have a different way of valuing it.

People who have a hard time affording to buy something will of course think that it's unfair. This is normal and is independent of whether we are talking about toy soldiers or the latest mobile phone. It is also independent of how much that item is priced at.

I understand that people have time, money and energy invested in this hobby. I also understand that as a hobby 40k is still far cheaper than most. I'm also saddened by the price people have been willing to pay GW simply because, at least in the short term, it shrinks our community. However, the only real thing to do if you are unhappy is to simply not purchase GW products.

It is a given that people are going to complain about something. It is the moderator's choice to let them vent.

I don't think the price increases merit continued discussion. People want to attack GW for being a business, blame GW for hiking up prices in Australia, blame GW for murdering their mother and deflowering their sister, and so forth. It gets to the point where you just have a bunch of posters parroting each other and nothing of value is said.

 cincydooley wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
.
]
Yes, as you have pointed out fairness is quite subjective. The problem is, I don't think most people buy into "it's okay for a company to charge whatever they want and that's fair because you don't need it so you should just never mention it and the market will fix it." People are going to see an unreasonable (subjective, yes) price and they are going to say the company is trying to rip them off and is by extension a bunch of jerks.

.

This is an interesting opinion to me. I've never once thought that the folks at BMW were a bunch of jerks because I can't afford their cars.

@Alf-->. Why put him on ignore for that comment? If you can't afford it or find It outside your acceptable price range, isn't the logical solution not to buy it?

It is, but from the moment I stepped into this thread, I had made it clear that GW was not essential, and neither were any of the things that he had in the link... He'll likely come off ignore, but atm his posts have pushed all of my right buttons... and I'd rather ignore him and calm down than continue to get angry and get a warning... I mean I had you on ignore for awhile...

And for many people, being priced out of a game they enjoy is worse than not being able to afford it from the beginning.

Let me guess: Through the Breach? :-D

As to being priced out of the game: for the vet community, how are you being priced out? What happened to all the stuff you've been playing with for 5 editions?

I haven't bought a single thing for my Space Wolves in 6E and I have plenty of fun with the stuff I already had.

As much as I really want the wolves to get a flyer, I'm plenty fine with what I've got right now.

 Amaya wrote:


Expressing your dislike for the price increase and refusing to buy the products is the best option. If you continue to spend money on GW, they are, in a sense, winning. They are selling less product for a higher price. That is a win win for them.

Your continued insistence that those in Australia and New Zealand who think their prices are unfair and they should quit whining about it is childish. Over the last several pages of your comments on this matter I have a hard time not envisioning a child with his fingers in his ears yelling at the other children who find his version of tag, where he must always win, to be unfair.

Sure fairness is a subjective matter. But your insistence that the current GW, and most companies antiquated mark ups for that region, to be fair is completely outside the realm of subjective. I can't read this obviously troll bait thread anymore. I wish there was ignore button for threads and not just people. Mods,Yak, Legoburner? Is that possible?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amaya wrote:
It is a given that people are going to complain about something. It is the moderator's choice to let them vent.

I don't think the price increases merit continued discussion. People want to attack GW for being a business, blame GW for hiking up prices in Australia, blame GW for murdering their mother and deflowering their sister, and so forth. It gets to the point where you just have a bunch of posters parroting each other and nothing of value is said.

At least you can recognize your contribution to this thread.

 Alfndrate wrote:
And for many people, being priced out of a game they enjoy is worse than not being able to afford it from the beginning.

This, more than anything else said here, is the heart of the issue. Which is an unfortunate circumstance.

 Amaya wrote:
The expense doesn't apply only to GW products as many posters make it out to be.

Nobody has ever made it out to be only GW that is doing this. GW just get discussed more than, say, Apple, because this is a Wargaming forum.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Amaya wrote:


Expressing your dislike for the price increase and refusing to buy the products is the best option. If you continue to spend money on GW, they are, in a sense, winning. They are selling less product for a higher price. That is a win win for them.

Your continued insistence that those in Australia and New Zealand who think their prices are unfair and they should quit whining about it is childish. Over the last several pages of your comments on this matter I have a hard time not envisioning a child with his fingers in his ears yelling at the other children who find his version of tag, where he must always win, to be unfair.

Sure fairness is a subjective matter. But your insistence that the current GW, and most companies antiquated mark ups for that region, to be fair is completely outside the realm of subjective. I can't read this obviously troll bait thread anymore. I wish there was ignore button for threads and not just people. Mods,Yak, Legoburner? Is that possible?

Mate. You realize you're getting emotional and bent out of shape over what somebody typed on a forum, right? You just made a post that didn't contribute anything that hasn't already been said. You got so worked up over my posts that you had to log on, type out an insult, and then hit enter.

Can you understand why I can't take someone's opinion on economics seriously when they don't have the maturity to not get worked up and angry over a forum? How can I believe that you are logical enough to step back and assess the situation from a neutral position when you're mad over a forum?

Yes, part of the mark up of in Australia and New Zealand is due to antiquated exploitation. A good bit of it is also due to the Aussie dollar crashing into the abyss not too long ago, relatively high wages, import duties (etc), and a small market. I don't pretend to know all the details of it, but you're pretending this is a clear cut situation and these foreign companies are demonic greedy fiends.

Again... If you're already in the hobby, how are you getting priced out? What's wrong with all the stuff you used in the previous 5 editions?

Edit: not to mention its strange to call the Australian pricing situation antiquated when, realistically, it wasnt that long ago when the Aussie dollar was hella weak.

 insaniak wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
The expense doesn't apply only to GW products as many posters make it out to be.

Nobody has ever made it out to be only GW that is doing this. GW just get discussed more than, say, Apple, because this is a Wargaming forum.

Really? If nearly every imported good is being marked up how can you complain about GW doing the same? It's not a GW problem, it's an Australian trade issue.

 RatBot wrote:
If you mean Mad4Mini's avatar, Ouze, that's a Stone Rhino/Behemoth.

-1 nerd point!

:( Now I feel the fool, though that explains why it's so squat.

 cincydooley wrote:
Again... If you're already in the hobby, how are you getting priced out? What's wrong with all the stuff you used in the previous 5 editions?

Desire to expand existing armies, start new armies, power creep, and cost of new codices/army books.

 Amaya wrote:
Really? If nearly every imported good is being marked up how can you complain about GW doing the same? It's not a GW problem, it's an Australian trade issue.

I already addressed that. People are going to complain about the companies that actually matter to their purchasing. But I'm not going to complain about Apple's pricing on a wargaming forum.

And yes, it's an issue with Oz retail at large... but for a GW customer, it's also a GW issue, because ultimately it's down to individual companies to do the right thing by their customers. Or not... and suffer the consequences of driving away a chunk of their customer base to those companies that aren't gouging them just because they think they can.

I don't know anything about Australia's trade laws or taxes, so I don't know how much of a markup comes from those, but you can't blame all of the differential just on GW being greedy. Some of the differential is due to shipping, taxes, and potentially wages.

 Amaya wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Again... If you're already in the hobby, how are you getting priced out? What's wrong with all the stuff you used in the previous 5 editions?

Desire to expand existing armies, start new armies, power creep, and cost of new codices/army books.

But the core argument is that you can't build an army for X amount of dollars, right? Ill need to spend more money on my wolves when a new codex comes out. Everything else I choose to add it born from want or desire.

I can have plenty of fun without min-maxing and concerning myself with codex creep, ya know?

Yep, but people are going to want to try the new stuff and be mad that they can't buy as much of it as they want.

 Amaya wrote:
I don't know anything about Australia's trade laws or taxes, so I don't know how much of a markup comes from those, but you can't blame all of the differential just on GW being greedy. Some of the differential is due to shipping, taxes, and potentially wages.

Absolutely. Which is why I don't expect Australia's prices to be exactly the same as everyone else's. A reasonable difference to account for import tarifs and shipping is fine.

But because of economy of scale, if I can buy something and have it shipped halfway around the world and still wind up half the price of buying one over the counter at my local store, something has gome horribly wrong.

 Amaya wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
The expense doesn't apply only to GW products as many posters make it out to be.

Nobody has ever made it out to be only GW that is doing this. GW just get discussed more than, say, Apple, because this is a Wargaming forum.

Really? If nearly every imported good is being marked up how can you complain about GW doing the same? It's not a GW problem, it's an Australian trade issue.

This is where I have to chime on in. I have experience in the import/export trade dealing with the pacific rim mostly. Even though there are tariffs and customs and all sorts of paperwork you have do deal with if you want to do business within that country, I personally can not see all of the price increases into Australian New Zealand region be just blamed on the trade issue. Some of it yes. But not all of it.

The problem I see comes down to how the corporation deals with its customer base. That is the key point to a great deal of problems that GW has. That to me is the key point to the negativity going around here.

There are no public relations. There is no advertisements. No public face. Did they not remove their Facebook page?
There is only a perceived parasitic relationship between them and their retailers and customers.
The amount of cost of playing this game is getting to the point where other companies are taking away their customer base.

Do I like 40k? Yes. Do I like the gouging of the average gamer to play this game? Absolutely not. It erodes the foundation of new people getting into the game. I want the game to stay around for a while, but even I with deep pockets is starting to play other types of games.

The only thing I could find on tariffs suggested that it was around a 20% markup. You also will need to factor in the wage of workers at GWs/FLGSs in Australia. From what I understand they should be higher than their American counterparts. ASFAIK, the overall standard of living is higher (than any other country?). I'd guesstimate 30%-50% higher would be reasonable, but I don't have all the data.

The point is just that it isn't all GW's fault. There are other factors at play. I understand why people are frustrated over the increases, but you have to keep the discussion logical and at least attempt to identify and assess all the other variables before coming to a conclusion.

 Amaya wrote:
The only thing I could find on tariffs suggested that it was around a 20% markup. You also will need to factor in the wage of workers at GWs/FLGSs in Australia. From what I understand they should be higher than their American counterparts. ASFAIK, the overall standard of living is higher (than any other country?). I'd guesstimate 30%-50% higher would be reasonable, but I don't have all the data.

The point is just that it isn't all GW's fault. There are other factors at play. I understand why people are frustrated over the increases, but you have to keep the discussion logical and at least attempt to identify and assess all the other variables before coming to a conclusion.

I understand what you are saying. But again to me the problem lies on how GW communicates to its customer base. Better communication would lead to less firestorms that are happening more and more often on this site and many other big sites that are online. Games Workshop is not providing that kind of communication that other came companies are.

How can the average person come to a conclusion when you are not given all of the variables to complete that conclusion? the answer is that you complete that conclusion with what information that you have.

You made your point and I'll agree to some of what you have posted above. The 20% tariff mark up sounds right to me.

 Amaya wrote:




Yes, part of the mark up of in Australia and New Zealand is due to antiquated exploitation. A good bit of it is also due to the Aussie dollar crashing into the abyss not too long ago, relatively high wages, import duties (etc), and a small market. I don't pretend to know all the details of it, but you're pretending this is a clear cut situation and these foreign companies are demonic greedy fiends.

I don't understand when the dollar crashed, in fact the dollar is sitting around or above parity with the US dollar and has for years.

 Amaya wrote:

The point is just that it isn't all GW's fault. There are other factors at play. I understand why people are frustrated over the increases, but you have to keep the discussion logical and at least attempt to identify and assess all the other variables before coming to a conclusion.

Actually I think it is perfectly reasonable to blame GW.
They seem to have decided the latest releases (DA and WoC) should be priced equally between Au and the US, but so that so that the US pay our prices. I think for the first time ever the new Warriors of Chaos lord model is priced at $25 in both countries. That is pretty standard for us but in the US that's a huge mark up, the speeder and flyer from the DA release as well as the monsters from the WoC release are not priced much above what we pay but they had the Americans up in arms as it was a huge step up (I was going to get 3 of those flyers but dropped the idea since I couldn't get them cheap in the US). Clearly it is not shipping, tax or anything else here that is causing our prices, GW just priced it at that when the dollar was down and now that it has come up they have decided 'hey, people will still buy this, lets charge the US this much'.
Also if there was any doubt that Kirby is padding his retirement fund at the cost of long term profits, Australian sales have been dropping by like 10% a year for a while now, I expect the US to follow what this new pricing scheme comes into full effect.

Bullockist wrote:

 Amaya wrote:




Yes, part of the mark up of in Australia and New Zealand is due to antiquated exploitation. A good bit of it is also due to the Aussie dollar crashing into the abyss not too long ago, relatively high wages, import duties (etc), and a small market. I don't pretend to know all the details of it, but you're pretending this is a clear cut situation and these foreign companies are demonic greedy fiends.

I don't understand when the dollar crashed, in fact the dollar is sitting around or above parity with the US dollar and has for years.

A few years, sure. As recently as 10 years ago (which, economically speaking is recent) the AUD was at .54. So lets not pretend like the upswing of the AUD has been some ever present force. It's only JUST started to normalize with the USD in the past 4 years.

You also will need to factor in the wage of workers at GWs/FLGSs in Australia.

You really don't. Yes, higher wages eat further into your profits... but so does losing sales because your prices are unrealistic.

The point is just that it isn't all GW's fault. There are other factors at play.

Yes, there are. As I said, I'm perfectly happy to see those factors accounted for in the price.

Something that adds extra angst to the issue though is GW's way of dealing with the whole issue. For many companies, the fact that customers can get product cheaper by buying from outside their own region on the internet is an annoyance, but also an unavoidable side-effect of the digital age, and they balance it out against in-store service and the fact that ordering on the net means waiting longer for their product. So at the end of the day, I can, for example, walk into my local store and buy the Warmachine starter set, and have it now, or I can order it online for a little bit less (much less of a difference than with GW products) and get it a week from now.

GW, by contrast, tells me that I can only buy their product from the stores that they think I should buy from. They forbid US webstores from showing customers pictures of their products, and from using webcarts for processing sales. They forbid Euro stores from selling to anyone not in Europe. Of course, they still allow international sales through their own webstores... but purchasing a pot of paint from GW UK will cost me £60 in shipping.

It's a 'head in the sand' approach to the digital age. They're convinced that if they make it too hard to purchase their product at an equitable price, that we'll just pay whatever they're asking. Which is lunacy.


And yes, again, I'm aware that GW aren't the only ones doing this. See Apple and Adobe... but again, the discussion here is about GW.

 RatBot wrote:

clively wrote:

 RatBot wrote:
If you mean Mad4Mini's avatar, Ouze, that's a Stone Rhino/Behemoth.

-1 nerd point!

completely off-topic:

I still have 1 of those in a box in my garage. I had to rebuild both of the arms because the thin top portion didn't survive very much handling due to the relative to the size/weight of the gun on the lower portion.

Nice. Well, the owning it part is nice, not the having to rebuild it part. I think I would legitimately eat a crate of live puppies for an Unseen, any of them, but especially the original Warhammer, Marauder, or Behemoth.

Ebay my friend. Ebay.

Just checked, they're all up for like $10 each. I wish I had some pocket change atm.

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

The problem I see comes down to how the corporation deals with its customer base. That is the key point to a great deal of problems that GW has. That to me is the key point to the negativity going around here.

There are no public relations. There is no advertisements. No public face. Did they not remove their Facebook page?
There is only a perceived parasitic relationship between them and their retailers and customers.

This.

I was never priced out. But I won't support a company that I perceive as being hostile to its own customers.

True? False? Fair?

Doesn't matter. Perception is a powerful thing. And GW has historically shown as a corporation* to simply not care what their veteran customers think about them.

To GW:
Testing price elasticity is fine, but do it tactfully and discretely, while respecting your customer base. Don't lie to them about tin prices, or tell them that you are switching to a cheaper material and that you will pass the savings onto the customer just to raise your prices yet again. Don't ignore your veterans for new younger customers, while slowly cutting back on the services and perks you used to provide in your own stores. Use your veterans! They love your product and will be happy to be goodwill ambassadors if given the chance! And instead of dropping the Wargavel 40K on anyone that looks like they are infringing on your IP, realize that there are some softer ways of dealing with the problem, perhaps including working with them...you know...stuff that increases customer goodwill. Fix your monthly magazine, and for the love of all your customers, embrace the existence of the internet. We know you are a business. We want(ed) to give you our money. But you have given us many reasons not to.

Back to Dakka:
The onus is on them to change my perception. And apparently, based on the fact that this thread exists (along with numerous others), they have an issue with how they are perceived by many other gamers besides me.

*GW does have good customer service, so long as you can prove that you bought directly from them.

@insaniak -- in this regard is it maybe more appropriate to compare more to Apple than any other war gaming company for the simple reason that they have employees in Australia (this is presuming there are Apple stores in Oz). Let me ask a hypothetical: if GW said they'd normalized prices for Oz with the US but removed all GW stores from the company to compensate, how would that be received?

 Surtur wrote:

 RatBot wrote:

clively wrote:

 RatBot wrote:
If you mean Mad4Mini's avatar, Ouze, that's a Stone Rhino/Behemoth.

-1 nerd point!

completely off-topic:

I still have 1 of those in a box in my garage. I had to rebuild both of the arms because the thin top portion didn't survive very much handling due to the relative to the size/weight of the gun on the lower portion.

Nice. Well, the owning it part is nice, not the having to rebuild it part. I think I would legitimately eat a crate of live puppies for an Unseen, any of them, but especially the original Warhammer, Marauder, or Behemoth.

Ebay my friend. Ebay.

Just checked, they're all up for like $10 each. I wish I had some pocket change atm.

I've been warned that a lot of the ones on ebay are recasts... but it's still very tempting.

....though the ones still in the packaging are probably legit.

 RatBot wrote:
.

]

I've been warned that a lot of the ones on ebay are recasts... but it's still very tempting.

....though the ones still in the packaging are probably legit.

Is it an OOP model? If it is, why so many qualms about it being a recast?

 cincydooley wrote:
Let me ask a hypothetical: if GW said they'd normalized prices for Oz with the US but removed all GW stores from the company to compensate, how would that be received?

The loss of GW stores would hardly make a ripple (particularly for anyone outside of our capital cities, which is where they are all clustered), and any resultant void in market coverage would soon be filled back up by independants.

 cincydooley wrote:


A few years, sure. As recently as 10 years ago (which, economically speaking is recent) the AUD was at .54. So lets not pretend like the upswing of the AUD has been some ever present force. It's only JUST started to normalize with the USD in the past 4 years.

Apologies somehow i missed that crash. I had the (wrong) idea in my head that the dollar had sat at 73-79 cents (average over 20 years) before rising to parity.

However I do not understand how this affects pricing of a product now (logically that is, i understand how it is used to keep prices inflated).

A one man store at inflated prices being removed in favour of reduced prices? As long as there was some form of distribution, i think most Australians would be very happy. GW might even increase sales.

Then maybe getting rid of Aussie stores is the solution. The "embargo" is clearly a result of GW not wanting its in-Oz stores to be undercut by Online sellers (which they absolutely were).

As far as the pricing goes, and this is pure speculation, is that perhaps companies are wary or normalizing prices for a county that has traditionally sat (the median for the last 20 or so years is around .76) at about 25% lower than the USD. The Aussie dollar has only become even with the USD in last two years. Completely changing the pricing structures for a country that has no precedent for a 1:1 exchange rate with the USD has to be a big deal.

 cincydooley wrote:

 RatBot wrote:
.

]

I've been warned that a lot of the ones on ebay are recasts... but it's still very tempting.

....though the ones still in the packaging are probably legit.

Is it an OOP model? If it is, why so many qualms about it being a recast?

Well, the original versions are OOP; due to licensing issues, they were resculpted, so technically there are legitimate versions available. They're just radically different sculpts, and I'm generally opposed to piracy on moral grounds. I don't even pirate music or TV shows. Then again, they are OOP and I'd probably just buy the newer sculpts, too, regardless...


EDIT: I've long advocated eliminating GW stores outside of Europe (possibly outside of the UK); I'm confident that indies in the US can absorb the displaced customers. I don't really know anyone who utilizes a GW store. In my hometown, it's not even an option; the closest one in the country is over 300 miles away; technically there are a couple in Toronto that are physically closer but.... well, they're still a three hour drive away, and you'd be crossing into Canada, which is downright silly when there are three or four indie stores within 15 minutes of each other in town. Ideally, this would also come with a notable reduction in price, as part of the cost of GW minis is supposedly justified in paying for the stores (whether you use them or not). Others may have differing opinions on this, but I think it would be a net gain for GW. I know the stores are a key part, or the key part, of their recruitment strategy, but they could use traditional advertisement methods to compensate; either way, the lack of a presence of a GW store in my hometown has not been a detriment to the game. Before I moved 40K was still far and away the most popular tabletop war game. Fantasy was flagging badly, but it was never as popular to begin with.

I want to agree with that, and I normally would, but when we went to our local GW at 2pm on a working Thursday (on our lunch) there were like 5 dudes in there getting ready to play. So clearly someone is using them. I personally don't use them to game, but they must do decent....

 cincydooley wrote:
I want to agree with that, and I normally would, but when we went to our local GW at 2pm on a working Thursday (on our lunch) there were like 5 dudes in there getting ready to play. So clearly someone is using them. I personally don't use them to game, but they must do decent....

Perhaps. Since I moved, I've been to my localish GW twice, mostly out of curiosity, though I did buy some Black Library books while I was there; the first time it was on a weekday afternoon/evening, and there was no one there. I asked about LotR since I had never played it, and the manager (who is a really cool guy) actually called up one of the regulars to come down and give me a demo, which was nice. While we were there, maybe two or three other people came in. This must've been last... March, I think. The other time, though, it was fairly packed, but that was the day 6th edition was released, and it was still, in absolute terms, a small crowd; about 10 people (though it sure felt crammed since it's one of those one man operations). I really should've gone to the FLGS on the same day and compared.


I guess GW sees the value in the stores, but I'm still not convinced it's the proper strategy in the US. Then again, I'm not a businessman and even if I was it doesn't really matter what I think.

I've wracked my brain about how GW could use traditional marketing in the United States and without GW stores I don't know how it would work since their products aren't sold in normal US stores like Target or Walmart. Obviously print media makes the most sense, but without the GW stores, how do you direct them to make a purchase? From the website?

And on top of that, there are plenty of LGSs that I would NOT want a new gamer or a parent stepping into for their introduction. Sadly, too many offer examples of the worst our hobby has to offer; at least in a GW store it's a relatively safe experience.

Cinc, with all respect, it seems fairly clear that you don't completely understand the nature of my allegation against GW. Why then, before becoming convinced you understand the charge, are you offering an opinion as to the ethical nature of their conduct? It seems innappropriate to first proffer that one party is in the right, and follow that with a request that someone that understands what is going on explain things to you.



For example, you mention "The the article Buzz linked, the expert states that GW is bullying. I get that. I guess I just don't see it being unethical." In order to justify this you focus on the trademark issue, but you miss the point that my allegation was "abusing the provisions of the DMCA". In reading the article you missed the authors more unequivocal point on the nature of he DMCA filing; "First, there is no such thing as a takedown notification for trademark infringement. That’s copyright infringement you’re thinking of." The DMCA is not a general IP protection law, nor does its safe harbor provisions extend to trademark issues, it is related instead only to Copyright. As would be expected of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Though a small thread in the overall tapestry of malfeasance on the part of GW, it must be reiterated: under the DMCA, GW was not entitled to ask for the book to be taken down. That Amazon did not have to honor GW's request is both true and irrelevant, as GW's filing with Amazon was improper. Again, Amazon's error was in believing GW was acting in good faith.

As an aside, you concede that GW may be "Inconsiderate", "Mean" and "bullying", and that their attempt to ruin an independent author was a "bluff" but... "just don't see it being unethical"? Without addressing whether these actions are unethical in the lay fashion, I will proffer that, as an attorney, it's certainly true that one may do things that may be construed as "Inconsiderate", "Mean" and "bullying", but it is impermissible and a breach of the rules of professional conduct to make a representation that your client has rights they simply do not have.

As for Chalk and Nicholson, it's clear you are missing some of the context, which is fair as one must read with some lawyerly skill, but... well, you're cognizant that you don't fully grasp the issues at hand, but you assert; "I still dont know if, to me, it's a question of ethics in regards to GW's handling of the Chapterhouse suit. Personally, I hope GW smashes them into tiny pieces and bankrupts the company, if only because of Chapterhouse's arrogance in their exploitation of GWs IP. But then again, I'm hardly an IP expert."

I'm not quite sure you really understand how disturbing it is for someone that is an IP professional to see such a visceral dislike paired with the admission that you're not completely sure what is going on. With that in mind, let's really break down what is going on with Chalk and Nicholson, and see if your opinion of things changes;

1) In the 1980's Chalk and Nicholson were freelance artists doing work on commission for Games Workshop (specifically for White Dwarf). Both Chalk and Nicholson worked on commission, not as employees (which is legally significant).
-These details are explicitly stated by both artists: Nichols "when I originally did the work I never signed over rights to my work in the first place", Chalk "I have never had any written agreement with Games Workshop concerning ownership of copyrights in any of the works I created as a freelance artist."

2) Games Workshop, after filing their lawsuit against Chapterhouse, discovered that they were exerting rights under the copyright law on works they did not actually own (owing to the lack of assignment referenced above).

3) As point #2 above is a fatal defect in any suit, in the fall of 2012 GW sought to remedy these defects in the following fashion: they sent letters to former artists representing that they (GW) were engaged in "assembling the next part of our archive... involves the collection, scanning and filing of all our creative documents and schedules down the years." They further repeatedly assert "we have always made sure that Games Workshop closely directs and consequently owns those works."
-The letter to Gary Chalk is reproduced here.

4) The description of past events in the letters referenced in point #3 is flatly contradicted by both Russ Nichol's blog post, and Gary Chalk's sworn declaration.
-It is important to note that this final item is of an especially important nature: the Chalk Declaration is not a news article, a blog post or mere internet scuttlebutt. It is a signed declaration with penalties of perjury attached by a third party without known interest in the case.

5) Those are the extant facts, which lead to the following inferences;
- A) GW is asserting ownership of works that GW does not own. Please note that this does not require any disputing of facts stated by GW: by their own admission in the above referenced letter, they do not have the relevant documentation.

- B) The allegation of fabricating evidence springs from the way GW is attempting to remedy (A) above is by having their former artists sign documentation asserting that at the time of creation, the works were work for hire. Two independent accounts by two artists flatly contradict the assertions put forward by GW.

This brings up a point I previously had not pointed out, but GW doesn't need to engage in such shady tactics to remedy their IP problems. GW needs ownership of certain works, ownership that at this time remains with the original artists: GW could simply offer to buy the copyright assignments. Which they are not doing: instead they seem to be hopeful that the artists in question no longer recall the nature of their previous association and thus will sign away their rights to GW.

Which, in the category of the ethics of GW, means that GW is trying to obtain rights by misstatements, in a sense trying to steal from their own former artists. That is, because the art in question was done on commission without assignment of rights outside of a right of first publication, after these works appeared in White Dwarf once, they were the property of the artists. In order to sue, GW needs the assignment... which means they need to negotiate an entirely separate contract, and pay the artists. Which, one notes, they seem to be doing all they can to avoid.

That is all a bit longer then I originally intended, but I hope that it answers some questions.

 cincydooley wrote:
I've wracked my brain about how GW could use traditional marketing in the United States and without GW stores I don't know how it would work since their products aren't sold in normal US stores like Target or Walmart. Obviously print media makes the most sense, but without the GW stores, how do you direct them to make a purchase? From the website?

And on top of that, there are plenty of LGSs that I would NOT want a new gamer or a parent stepping into for their introduction. Sadly, too many offer examples of the worst our hobby has to offer; at least in a GW store it's a relatively safe experience.

That's a pretty valid point. I would say that FLGS should be the point of entry. I mean, there's a store finder on their website, so they could just say "Hey, you can buy your stuff here, but if you want to have it more quickly and meet new opponents, just plug your city in here and find your local game store!" But, I suppose a lot of them might not be so great for young kids, which seems to be GW's target audience. I still think they should be targeting older demographics with more disposable income, but again, that's not what they want. Basically I think they should revamp their entire strategy, I guess. I admit, though, that I have that opinion for selfish reasons (thought that doesn't inherently mean it wouldn't work). In my experience, most LGS are pretty friendly and inviting; when my friends introduced me to miniature wargaming in 7th grade, we played in the FLGS with no issues whatsoever. But I've only been to five independent stores and I've certainly heard horror stories about other ones, and I can see how that would make it a risky proposition for GW.

I also think the barrier to entry for 40K and Fantasy is too high, ebay nonwithstanding, but this is a separate issue.

I mean, I'm sure I come across as a hater in a lot of my posts vis a vis GW, but I actually really do like 40K and WHFB for the most part, and I just think GW is making serious mistakes. I don't think they're the best games or the best miniatures in the world, but I do enjoy them. Maybe I'm completely off base and it'll all work out well for them in the end.

 cincydooley wrote:
As far as the pricing goes, and this is pure speculation, is that perhaps companies are wary or normalizing prices for a county that has traditionally sat (the median for the last 20 or so years is around .76) at about 25% lower than the USD. The Aussie dollar has only become even with the USD in last two years. Completely changing the pricing structures for a country that has no precedent for a 1:1 exchange rate with the USD has to be a big deal.

But the prices are set at 2:1, and the Aussie dollar hasn't been that bad (more around 4:5) for years. They've had a very long time to realign the prices, yet never have. Plus it's not just conversion rates and tariffs - nothing is that black and white. Australia isn't out in the cold when it comes to pricing. Japan, New Zealand, Brazil - even Canada - has this problem. Australia is not unique in this struggle. Putting it down on outside factors is only part of the story, and GW plays a much bigger role in this than you seem to be willing to admit.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
*snip* big important BUZZSAW post */snip*

Wow, I hadn't heard of that. I'll throw that on my already substantial list of reasons I hate GW corporate.

 Amaya wrote:
Blindly defending GW would be white knighting. I haven't really seen anyone doing that. There are however, a multitude of vocal haters that appear to not understand simple economics who believe the price increase should only be in relation to inflation.

Very true.

I agree with this, and the vast majority of what Amaya and Dooley have said, and clearly unlike the vast majority of "haters" I'm a guy who has stopped buying GW, and STILL (check the gallery) don't own a single finecast model. Although, the Scibor one I got instead was more expensive... so.. maybe I would have done that differently.

Anyway. Yes GW suck in many ways. yes they rob our Auzzie and Kiwi cousins.. yes their margins are ridiculous, its only plastic. But that said....

The amount of bitching in unbelievable. It boils down to the fact that we've got a generation that feel they are entitled to everything. Don't work? "I'm entitled to a house" have kids? "I'm entitled to free food" Really really like Games Workshop? "I'm entitled to be able to buy feth loads of them even though I'm a full time student"

Its a joke. Do what I do, and buy feth all. Dooleys car analogy was a good one.. you don't see me getting pissed off with Bentley because I cant afford one, and after all.. I really really really want one.

In the last few years I've bought NOTHING direct and new from GW.. I go on ebay mostly If I need anything, and my last and only recent purchase was DV for 50 odd quid from gifts for geeks and I went halves with a mate. All in I reckon I've spent about $100 on GW in.. I dunno, maybe 3 years? What the vast majority of you lot are doing, is bitching simply because you like 40k and you wish you had more of it... and a few years back before some suits took over it was much cheaper. Well that's called real life lads, suck on it.

Its actually got to the point where its almost pathetic to watch. I can forgive a teenager, but if most of you are the wrong side of 25 you need to re-evaluate how life works or you are headed for a bucket load of misery from now until you flop into the grave!

My favourite burrito place in California was awesome back in 2005. It was Freebirds at UCSB.. It had a hell of a reputation because It was great. Anyway, a few years later.. there are about ten of them, and the price has doubled. The cost of success, is to the detriment of the guys that got there early... such is life, be it your hobby, your food, or your favourite musician.. I mean.. yeah you got to see him with only 200 guys and it was $6 a tiekct... but now he is on TV and he only plays stadiums and its $60?! WHHHAAAAAAA!!

Now I make my own fething Burritos. Welcome to the real world men.. man up and deal with it.

And yes the moderators are entitled to their opinion, and no, its not a big deal if they allow their virtual powers to go their heads, they are only human after all... but lets have it said in the open rather than legions of PMs. Some of them are great, and some of them are about as impartial as the grandmaster of the Klu Klux Klan.

And funny thing, I reckon he wouldn't be on the fence either.

 cincydooley wrote:
Let me guess: Through the Breach? :-D

As to being priced out of the game: for the vet community, how are you being priced out? What happened to all the stuff you've been playing with for 5 editions?

I haven't bought a single thing for my Space Wolves in 6E and I have plenty of fun with the stuff I already had.

As much as I really want the wolves to get a flyer, I'm plenty fine with what I've got right now.

Bingo, but I cooled down and took you and Buzz off of ignore. As to me being priced out of Games Workshop games, I have 3 armies, worth at least 2000 points on my smallest army (Ultras are easily there, Imp Guard is easily 3000, and Iron Warriors are easily 4000). When 6th edition came out, it was my goal to learn to play my Chaos army. I played once under the old codex and enjoyed it. The new codex comes out and my army didn't change much at all, but in order to hold my own, I would need to buy at least 1 Heldrake, if not 2. This is an army that had 2 and a half defilers (with the parts to make the third), 9 obliterators and a vindicator (and technically a basilisk since my army was built under the 3rd ed codex), but the pieces I had became worse, or remained mediocre. So I couldn't update my army to 6th edition without some influx of cash into it for the "new hotness", I've played a handful of games and never made it past turn 3 before I was tabled... because everyone else I played had updated and tweaked for 6th, and my army was still living back in 4th and 5th, because they had the cash to update. Could I still attempt to play a beer and pretzels version of 40k? Could I ask my opponent to not play vehicles or flyers, as my army tends to have issues with the latter, and I tend to not take the former? I could, but then I'd be denying him the type of game he wants to play. So instead, I look at GW prices and just shake my head a bit, knowing that I won't be buying GW pieces because their price is already high (75 dollars for a static pose, unpainted model... for 75 bucks I could get a Master Grade Gundam model that at least has some movement to it), which is the crux of my issue, let alone the lack of table time I would get for my money (I play 40k now maybe once every 2 to 3 months.)

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Which, in the category of the ethics of GW, means that GW is trying to obtain rights by misstatements, in a sense trying to steal from their own former artists. That is, because the art in question was done on commission without assignment of rights outside of a right of first publication, after these works appeared in White Dwarf once, they were the property of the artists. In order to sue, GW needs the assignment... which means they need to negotiate an entirely separate contract, and pay the artists. Which, one notes, they seem to be doing all they can to avoid.

That is all a bit longer then I originally intended, but I hope that it answers some questions.

So in order to have the assignment of rights outside of first publication, it needs to be explicitly stated in the contract, is that correct?

And based on Chaulk's declarative statement, it appears that the 'standard quo' for commission work of this type was for rights to only be held by the commssioner on first publication.

So GW is basically trying to convince Chaulk and other artists to sign over their complete publication ownership rights on some of these commissioned works without offering to pay them for it, which they 'should' be doing?

And because the letter indicates that they're trying to 'shore up records that may have been lost' and that the letter is actually an outcome of the Chapterhouse lawsuit, they're not providing the artists with the 'true' picture of why they need it, thus making them deceptive and unethical?

While all the time, GW could have just as easily said, "we're involved in a lawsuit, we'd like to buy from you the rights for these items as they're subject to copyright infringement in this suit" which would have been completely forthcoming and more ethical/fair?

Is that about right?

 cincydooley wrote:
I've wracked my brain about how GW could use traditional marketing in the United States and without GW stores I don't know how it would work since their products aren't sold in normal US stores like Target or Walmart. Obviously print media makes the most sense, but without the GW stores, how do you direct them to make a purchase? From the website?

And on top of that, there are plenty of LGSs that I would NOT want a new gamer or a parent stepping into for their introduction. Sadly, too many offer examples of the worst our hobby has to offer; at least in a GW store it's a relatively safe experience.

These issues that people are having with GW are not made up.

Either you are intentionally ignoring the core arguments, or you are just honestly bypassing them, thereby assuming that everyone is just making them up.

It is not just about "How GW can make more sales." They don't need that help, they just need to stop acting clownass about thier perception and join the real world.

From thier actions, hostile and continued to be perceived as parasitic, they are in fact alienating both customers and LGS's. They have given the perception and the propaganda set fourth by the company, "That the "Pleabes" will pay whatever we set as a price...", and they have no compunction about letting you know that.

They claim to have a superior product, while at the same time verify that they are using substandard material.

They claim to be "The Best" when they sell incomplete products for the sake of making a quick buck, because the original price is oh so reasonable, that they need to sell more of nothing.

I can go on and on ad-hominum, but the main gist that you are giving is that you are ignoring, or willfully circumventing the points of issue.

And to answer your question about being "Priced out"....

You say you have old stuff for the game? What if I come back and tel you that to be competative, you NEED to come on into the local "One man GW store" and buy this flyer here, because it is so great, then while your at it you have to get the book to use it as a secondary product at an additional 30 bucks or so? Price irrelivent, what I'm asking you to buy the full product for two to three times the cost of the need for it. AND I'm telling you to buy it at a specific place, because you can't go down to your LGS and buy it there from your old pal that you usually buy your stuff from, and bought with a 30-40% discount.

And on the subject of what they do that ticks people off?

They are a hostile company. They treat thier players and employees like gak, and act as if they can do no wrong. They overcharge for shoddy craft products, and they intentionally overstep thier make in local markets and drive away business. If they find that they have a particularly storn area, they open up thier shop thier, suck dry the local market, then close shop to shuck and jive that it counts as a profit. The discarded unsold merchandise is destroyed and counted as profits/ spoilage, and in turn counted as an overall success.

As for the "GW experience", I have found in the past that it is the complete opposite. The GW store is full of the power-playing rules lawyering gakfest, and the LGS is full of a diverse set of characters that are there to have a good time.

And the answer to your question regarding the lawsuit-

Yes. exactly that. Instead, GW did what they arbitrarily do to anyone in the same fasion, C and D them and bully them into submission.

 mattyrm wrote:
Now I make my own fething Burritos. Welcome to the real world men.. man up and deal with it.

Yeah! That's the spirit!

Imma gonna go make me my own Space Mar... oh wait I can't do that.





I'm sorry mattyrm, but "man up" doesn't constitute an effective rebuttal to "the prices are too high". Perhaps it's a good response to "I didn't have enough milk for breakfast this morning" or "I was stuck in the rain for almost an hour on the way home", but not to GW.

clively wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
And for many people, being priced out of a game they enjoy is worse than not being able to afford it from the beginning.

This, more than anything else said here, is the heart of the issue. Which is an unfortunate circumstance.

Pretty much.

If I would care about the game, if I didn't enjoy the background and the fluff, the models and the community and if I wasn't a part of it and invested in it since the mid 1990's...then I wouldn't care about anything GW is doing.

 Amaya wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Amaya wrote:

 insaniak wrote:


People will complain when they see a problem with something that matters to them. And for those of us with years and dollars already invested, this game does matter. Those complaints may or may not achieve anything (that's arguable)... but forcing a company to change its ways isn't the sole aim of discussion. Sometimes, the purpose is just, you know, discussion.

Don't pretend to be encouraging discussion when you allow people to throw around the inflammatory "white knight" term at anyone who disagrees with them. Heck, moderators encourage that sort of activity when they join in the crowd of "these prices are unfair!" and criticize everyone who attempts to defend or explains GW's actions. You can argue that the price increase is insulting to their customer base, alienating, disrespectful, etc, but you can not make a logical argument for the price fluxuations as being unfair.

The consumer of a product makes a decision to purchase that product with a varying degree of information to hand. If the consumer is adding together the evidence presented and comes to the conclusion that the seller is adding too much pure margin to the product or that the product's retailing price exceeds the consumer's perceived worth of the product, then the consumer may well argue that the pricing is unfair to the consumer. If the mark up is a great deal higher than the processes and raw materials necessary to produce the product, you will find a decreasing number of consumers willing to pay for it as it passes out of the perceived worth scale of an increasing number of those consumers.
The decision to purchase or not purchase based on what's being asked vs what the consumer is willing to pay for the item is basic retail and follows a very easy logic to follow.

That's lovely, but what does any of that have to do with fairness?

Everything to do with the consumer's perception of whether or not they are being treated fairly by the supplier. If the consumer believes the supplier is falsely hiking the profit margin and creating scenarios forcing certain purchasing or indulging certain customers over others, then they can certainly state 'I do not believe this is a fair situation'.

Even if consumers are 100% wrong, just ask any company that has attempted to fight incorrect consumer perception with facts how that has worked out for them.

Ignore and anger your customers long enough, even if they are wrong, and you will hurt yourself in the process.

 Grot 6 wrote:
You say you have old stuff for the game? What if I come back and tel you that to be competative, you NEED to come on into the local "One man GW store" and buy this flyer here, because it is so great, then while your at it you have to get the book to use it as a secondary product at an additional 30 bucks or so? Price irrelivent, what I'm asking you to buy the full product for two to three times the cost of the need for it. AND I'm telling you to buy it at a specific place, because you can't go down to your LGS and buy it there from your old pal that you usually buy your stuff from, and bought with a 30-40% discount.

Honestly, I'd probably say, "prove it." And it would really depend on what you mean by "competitive." Now, bear in mind you're talking to a dude who's primary play group took 5E necrons to Adepticon because, "why not" and who's same playgroup took the "bankrupt space marines" that didn't have enough money to use vehicles to that same tournament a year later.

They are a hostile company. They treat thier players and employees like gak, and act as if they can do no wrong. They overcharge for shoddy craft products, and they intentionally overstep thier make in local markets and drive away business. If they find that they have a particularly storn area, they open up thier shop thier, suck dry the local market, then close shop to shuck and jive that it counts as a profit. The discarded unsold merchandise is destroyed and counted as profits/ spoilage, and in turn counted as an overall success.

I've never felt that GW has treated me poorly. Or really treated me in anyway, for that matter. Now, when I've interacted with GW employees, I've always been treated to politness and professionalism, and in the case of their design team members at Adepticon or Games Day, they've even been enthusiastic and friendly. I don't consider their price rises, or their lack of official rumor mongoring to be treating me poorly. Maybe that makes me a sucker.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
Now I make my own fething Burritos. Welcome to the real world men.. man up and deal with it.

Yeah! That's the spirit!

Imma gonna go make me my own Space Mar... oh wait I can't do that.



I'm sorry mattyrm, but "man up" doesn't constitute an effective rebuttal to "the prices are too high". Perhaps it's a good response to "I didn't have enough milk for breakfast this morning" or "I was stuck in the rain for almost an hour on the way home", but not to GW.

I gave other good ideas. Such as second hand models, or proxy models, or a recast off eBay, whatever.

The man up wasn't regarding the price, it was regarding the inevitable march towards popularity.

As I said, it's the same in every single aspect of life. I went to see the stereophonics at Boro town hall in 1995,great venue, cheap as feth, ten years later, they only do stadiums and its 50 quid for a ticket behind a concrete pillar.

If in twenty years time mantic are huge and Ronnie sells it and it gets floated, take one fething guess what happens.

I'm not saying man up because the price is high, I'm saying suck it up, because that's life, that's what happens, in this hobby or anything. Be it your favourite sarnie shop becoming a chain, your shoe maker becoming a franchise, or your favourite musician going platinum.

Mass success is to the detriment of the guys who were there at the beginning... Always has been. Why the feth are model painters such whiny entitled fething nerds when this gak happens to everyone, and it always has done?!

If you can't discuss fairness in absolute terms there is no reason to discuss it. Every customer is going to have a different opinion of what is fair. Can you really make a good argument that not pricing their product at cost plus 10% is unfair? It's a bunch of cheap little plastic soldiers for strange men to play with in dark rooms. You pay how much for it? The concept of fairness is so arbitrary and fluid that you can't pin it down in this scenario.

Again, if you dislike it, do not buy it. That means don't continue to spend X amount on GW and just accept that you'll get less. The only way you can cut into their profit margin is buy not buying any of their product and encouraging fellow gamers to do the same.

Now if you want to criticize GW, attacking them for bad business practices is fair game. GW has earned its bad reputation. Arguing about whether or not you have the right to buy a commodity for a fair price is pointless.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Grot 6 wrote:
You say you have old stuff for the game? What if I come back and tel you that to be competative, you NEED to come on into the local "One man GW store" and buy this flyer here, because it is so great, then while your at it you have to get the book to use it as a secondary product at an additional 30 bucks or so? Price irrelivent, what I'm asking you to buy the full product for two to three times the cost of the need for it. AND I'm telling you to buy it at a specific place, because you can't go down to your LGS and buy it there from your old pal that you usually buy your stuff from, and bought with a 30-40% discount.

Honestly, I'd probably say, "prove it." And it would really depend on what you mean by "competitive." Now, bear in mind you're talking to a dude who's primary play group took 5E necrons to Adepticon because, "why not" and who's same playgroup took the "bankrupt space marines" that didn't have enough money to use vehicles to that same tournament a year later.

They are a hostile company. They treat thier players and employees like gak, and act as if they can do no wrong. They overcharge for shoddy craft products, and they intentionally overstep thier make in local markets and drive away business. If they find that they have a particularly storn area, they open up thier shop thier, suck dry the local market, then close shop to shuck and jive that it counts as a profit. The discarded unsold merchandise is destroyed and counted as profits/ spoilage, and in turn counted as an overall success.

I've never felt that GW has treated me poorly. Or really treated me in anyway, for that matter. Now, when I've interacted with GW employees, I've always been treated to politness and professionalism, and in the case of their design team members at Adepticon or Games Day, they've even been enthusiastic and friendly. I don't consider their price rises, or their lack of official rumor mongoring to be treating me poorly. Maybe that makes me a sucker.

I will not call you a sucker, but I will say that your "experience" is not even in the ballpark of the rest of us out here in the rest of the.. gaming community(?edit- I don't know for a better word...). I feel that you should stop trying to counter the arguments, and ask yourself WHY there are so many others out here in the country that are having issue. YOU might think that your points are valid, but in the saying "In my experience", it is exactly that. Your experience. In much the same way as you think your getting a good experience, people ( I was one of them.) are getting a crappy one. They get it from one to add another to anotehr to the point where you feel that you've been betrayed for want of a better word. ( Yes, GW is a business, but thier practices are unreasonable and hostile to thier customers.) Like it or not, thats the fact. It is a fact, because it is in the perception, and the writtne, and discussed evidence to the contrary.

As to prove it, I'd go on and just say- it isn't so much in proving a point, as in countering the perceived slight and trying to figure out exactly why are all these people having issue, or reasonably discussing the contention. Just because you have 1-10 people that are happy, and the other 90 are having issue- your still going to lose 90, even if you keep 10. UNLESS YOU DO SOMETHING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE/S.

At this point in time, GW has done nothing of a sort. In this case, it began with a spark, and now the room is on fire. Even if it was as you say , "Perceived"- Perception is reality.

SO in that case, I can see how you perceive that the 90 people are not looking at the issues in the same way you are, but in that, you as well- are not seeming to be getting the full on effect that some of us are in the issues.

 Amaya wrote:
If you can't discuss fairness in absolute terms there is no reason to discuss it. Every customer is going to have a different opinion of what is fair. Can you really make a good argument that not pricing their product at cost plus 10% is unfair? It's a bunch of cheap little plastic soldiers for strange men to play with in dark rooms. You pay how much for it? The concept of fairness is so arbitrary and fluid that you can't pin it down in this scenario.

Again, if you dislike it, do not buy it. That means don't continue to spend X amount on GW and just accept that you'll get less. The only way you can cut into their profit margin is buy not buying any of their product and encouraging fellow gamers to do the same.

Now if you want to criticize GW, attacking them for bad business practices is fair game. GW has earned its bad reputation. Arguing about whether or not you have the right to buy a commodity for a fair price is pointless.

Fairness and it's interpretation is going to vary from individual to individual. If your company is doing things right, the number of people who regard it as unfair is going to be low. If the public perception is that you are behaving questionably, they will believe you are being unfair, the more people think this, the more 'online rants' or 'forums full of whiners' there will be.

If something is released for one army and it's now $90 when something similar in size and use for another army is $60, then people will say it is unfair. You can quibble all you want about the definitions of unfair and that won't matter two jots, the consumers are complaining because they feel GW isn't treating them fairly.

GW's failure to engage it's own consumers is exacerbating this situation further. It's customer relations and PR is nonexistant whilst it's legal team is in overdrive. It creates a fairly bad image.

You can claim the high ground with the actual definition of 'fair' but in retail and business in general, perception is king.

But the primary argument is always centered around people not liking how things are priced.

There's very, very little in regards to people actually, tangibly, being mistreated by representatives from GW.

And as far as being "betrayed" by a business? Come on, son. No one is forcing you to buy a single thing.

The top three complaints are:
1. Prices are too high.
2. They don't give us previews.
3. WD is an advertisement.

And to all three of those things, I say...Okay?

1. Prices are too high IMO on gas. Because I feel this way, I drive less, and therefore have to spend less on it, and bear in mind driving is far more essential than GW products are.
2. So they don't give us previews... So what? I don't know how to respond to this but to say...oh well?
3. Plenty of magazines are advertisement. And...

Is legal attitude questionable. I guess. They send C&D letters and (thanks Buzz) have been somewhat disingenuous and unethical in how they're trying to get info from past artists for the CHS case. Okay. The means rarely justify the ends and they don't IMO in this case, but that hardly affects my everyday experience with GW. I find the bad-faith request for Amazon to take down gaks the Space Marine in poor taste by GW, but just as much by Amazon's lack of due diligence. I'm still going to patronize Amazon. And for me, the fact that GW keeps jobs in the UK and doesn't outsource to China for their production (this could very well solve a lot of #1, mind you) tells me that, while they're clearly lacking in judgement in the legal department, they're concerned about their native land, at least a little bit.

And again, my direct interactions with GW personnel has always been positive and courteous. There are few to no people that actually have anecdotal evidence of being directly mistreated by GW other than the aforementioned three items.

The C&D thing is a problem because they are attacking other parts of the hobby with their aggression and bullying. Just saying 'don't buy GW' doesn't prevent them harming my hobby, you can avoid GW shops but you can't avoid their toxic influence on gaming in general.

I don't want other companies that have nothing to do with GW being impacted by them sending out threatening letters and bullying people into removing products they've invested time and money in.

 cincydooley wrote:
But the primary argument is always centered around people not liking how things are priced.

There's very, very little in regards to people actually, tangibly, being mistreated by representatives from GW.

And as far as being "betrayed" by a business? Come on, son. No one is forcing you to buy a single thing.

The top three complaints are:
1. Prices are too high.
2. They don't give us previews.
3. WD is an advertisement.

And to all three of those things, I say...Okay?

1. Prices are too high IMO on gas. Because I feel this way, I drive less, and therefore have to spend less on it, and bear in mind driving is far more essential than GW products are.
2. So they don't give us previews... So what? I don't know how to respond to this but to say...oh well?
3. Plenty of magazines are advertisement. And...

Is legal attitude questionable. I guess. They send C&D letters and (thanks Buzz) have been somewhat disingenuous and unethical in how they're trying to get info from past artists for the CHS case. Okay. The means rarely justify the ends and they don't IMO in this case, but that hardly affects my everyday experience with GW. I find the bad-faith request for Amazon to take down gaks the Space Marine in poor taste by GW, but just as much by Amazon's lack of due diligence. I'm still going to patronize Amazon. And for me, the fact that GW keeps jobs in the UK and doesn't outsource to China for their production (this could very well solve a lot of #1, mind you) tells me that, while they're clearly lacking in judgement in the legal department, they're concerned about their native land, at least a little bit.

And again, my direct interactions with GW personnel has always been positive and courteous. There are few to no people that actually have anecdotal evidence of being directly mistreated by GW other than the aforementioned three items.

So, you give anecdotal evidence of being happy with your experience with GW but cannot understand why other's don't have your personal experience or viewpoint and find themselves subject to negative factors and express it on a forum about wargaming?

Let me give you a topical example, from my perspective.

I own a large ork army, I have spent a large amount of cash on it. I understood when I bought into it, that I would require a rulebook, a codex and the miniatures. I bought them all, even understanding that the books would rotate and, being an old hand at this, that certain minis would ebb and flow in their capabilities, to continue turning the wheels of purchasing.

Understanding all this, I entered into this unspoken contract of updating my army happily enough, that's how GW operates.

GW then releases a flyer model for my army (Cool! Like that!) but don't give me the rules to play it online for free (hmmm, that's a pain) so I have to buy the white dwarf to get them (oh well, that was greedy)... and now they scrap those rules (so the white dwarf cost was for 'temporary rules') and placed the rules for my already purchased mini into another book (hang on...) for another $40 (what the?) and if I want to use the model I bought, in the army I bought, with the rules and codex I bought, I now have to buy a further book, just for these rules, which will then be either repeated or replaced when the 'cycling' turns and my new codex is replaced. So they have added another layer to my necessary purchasing and now have the potential to further add layers, if they decide to update 'warbosses' in the forthcoming 'Death from HQs' supplement.

Now, this is but one example of a way in which I can claim to have been treated unfairly and the unspoken contract between supplier and consumer of product is breached.

It's like Kirby said 'I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it further'...

MGS--

I think this is one of the only valid things I've heard that doesn't involve pricing, and you're absolutely right.

The PDF should be made available online or included as an insert in the box. I think this is an entirely valid criticism.

I think the thing I struggle with the most is that we can't determine whether or not decisions like this are out of malevolence or stupidity. With GW, I generally err on the side of stupidity, honestly.

But everything else focuses on the pricing of things.

Arguing with MGS is a lost cause. He is only concerned with emotion.

 Amaya wrote:
Arguing with MGS is a lost cause. He is only concerned with emotion.

Naw, I think the point on the flyer rules is a completely valid one. There's really no excuse to not release rules for new models with the model itself or at least make the rules easily available, even if that is via a purchase method. Making the rules available only in a limited print book is shockingly poor judgement.

He is correct about that. Complaints about GW's clandestine secrecy over upcoming releases, nerfbatting old models, overpowered new models, and slow updates for certain armies would also be valid. I'm sure there are some other valid criticisms that I haven't thought of as well.

But hanging up on the price issue and not admitting that it just comes to people not liking it is foolish.

 Amaya wrote:
He is correct about that. Complaints about GW's clandestine secrecy over upcoming releases, nerfbatting old models, overpowered new models, and slow updates for certain armies would also be valid. I'm sure there are some other valid criticisms that I haven't thought of as well.

But hanging up on the price issue and not admitting that it just comes to people not liking it is foolish.

The reason why people are getting hung up on the pricing for this stuff relates to every "valid criticism" you listed. Don't know what we're releasing until 2 weeks before we release it? can't save up some cash to pay for their high prices, nerfing all my old models? Now I have to buy your high priced new models. Overpowered new models? Now I have to buy your high priced new models. Slow updates for armies are probably the only thing that isn't directly related to pricing...

cincydooley wrote:MGS--

I think this is one of the only valid things I've heard that doesn't involve pricing, and you're absolutely right.

The PDF should be made available online or included as an insert in the box. I think this is an entirely valid criticism.

I think the thing I struggle with the most is that we can't determine whether or not decisions like this are out of malevolence or stupidity. With GW, I generally err on the side of stupidity, honestly.

But everything else focuses on the pricing of things.

Thank you for reading my post and taking what I said onboard there, it's a recent and topical cause for complaint and I think, as a customer, I'm entitled to be pissed off about it, I'm also, as a human, likely to want to share my thoughts with other likeminded individuals who share my interests, that occurs on these wonderful forums every day.

Now, lets take a look at pricing for a bit. We know, as long term customers, that the following has occurred:

1. Metal miniatures became suddenly and greatly increased in price due to the 'tin crisis', this was openly admitted to by GW, followed by a statement that the price would likely fall again once the 'tin crisis' was over. That reduction never happened.

2. This was followed by an increase in the prices of plastics, stated by Kirby and Co in the investors report as due to feeling that the plastics were now of a similar quality to the metals and should therefore be brought into line with the pricing for the metals (you know, the pricing that got elevated due to the 'tin crisis' several years before).

3. This was followed by the metals being replaced, largely, by the finecast resin, a substance that is openly stated by other manufacturers to be considerably cheaper than 'white metal'. This should absolutely alleviate the elevated prices brought about by the tin crisis, also it's even cheaper than the original metal prior to that calamity...

4. We are then told that the 'transition process' was labor intensive and costly, so the prices should remain high. Transition processes are, by nature, temporary and yet the price remains higher than when the models were created by 'tin crisis' white metal...

5. Now, we are beginning to see plastic character models in new ranges, beginning to replace the finecast minis, likely due to the absolutely dire implementation of finecast (you remember, the implementation that was so intensive and thorough it caused an increase in price, despite moving to a cheaper medium). The plastic minis are now being released to a higher cost than the finecast...

ALL of this to a background wherein Kirby openly admitted in the investor's report that the customers of GW's product will 'tolerate a great degree of price elasticity', which if you're having trouble interpreting the corporate jargon, means 'will put up with a good degree of fleecing and still buy this stuff'.

Given all that I have listed above, I have zero problem with people who've been in this hobby for a while and invested years to collecting, modelling, painting and gaming, feeling somewhat disgruntled about their treatment. I certainly have little to no support for GW's pricing policies given what I've witnessed with the above evidence.

If you can see something I've missed in the above, all historically provable btw, then do please show me the side of that that's 'just business' and not 'cynical exploitation of the hobbyist's love of the games and background'.

Amaya wrote:Arguing with MGS is a lost cause. He is only concerned with emotion.

You gain experience +20

No, I said that you are entirely disregarding it in your argument and to disregard the emotions of the consumers is fatal in business. Your definition of what 'actually is' fair vs what someone else believes is fair is pointless in the discussion of the reasons people complain to one another about their experiences.

Edited by Manchu

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
He is correct about that. Complaints about GW's clandestine secrecy over upcoming releases, nerfbatting old models, overpowered new models, and slow updates for certain armies would also be valid. I'm sure there are some other valid criticisms that I haven't thought of as well.

But hanging up on the price issue and not admitting that it just comes to people not liking it is foolish.

The reason why people are getting hung up on the pricing for this stuff relates to every "valid criticism" you listed. Don't know what we're releasing until 2 weeks before we release it? can't save up some cash to pay for their high prices, nerfing all my old models? Now I have to buy your high priced new models. Overpowered new models? Now I have to buy your high priced new models. Slow updates for armies are probably the only thing that isn't directly related to pricing...

If they didn't nerfbat old models in order to sell new models then this wouldn't be an issue. Personally, I'd be more annoyed that my already painted, customized, and based model is no longer useful at all then that there is a general price increase.

 Amaya wrote:
He is correct about that. Complaints about GW's clandestine secrecy over upcoming releases, nerfbatting old models, overpowered new models, and slow updates for certain armies would also be valid. I'm sure there are some other valid criticisms that I haven't thought of as well.

The rotation of units in rules from must haves to dead ducks according to new minis and the cycle of purchasing is something I got very used to years ago, it's part of the contract between GW and I that I understand, they sell new minis to remain in business, it's something I've never minded.

Slow updates for certain armies is certainly a very valid cause for complaint, it creates a tiered system of service from the company to the purchaser, you get higher level of service if you have marines vs if you have wood elves... However I do feel GW have made great strides here lately, what with necrons and dark eldar, and I remain hopeful they will pick up the pace for all the currently 'out in the cold' armies. Credit where it's due.

The clandestine secrecy is fething weird, I don't get it. I understand how they have to do it for NLC stuff, LotR and hobbit, but don't understand it one bit for the rest of their ranges. I'd have thought hype and greens and occasional puzzle shots would whip the customers into a frenzy? My suspicion is that they just employ a blanket silence covering all minis because it's easier than picking out the LotR/Hobbit stuff from their own range stuff. Perhaps it's to demonstrate to NLC that they can now keep a lid on things... Who knows...

 Amaya wrote:
But hanging up on the price issue and not admitting that it just comes to people not liking it is foolish.

I'm temperamental but I've never considered myself foolish...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mattyrm wrote:
Aye, the flier gripe is definitely a fair gripe.

Still, at least they are consistent! No need for the incessant crying though is there? As I said, do what I do. Buy feth all.. But don't sob online all day, you just look like a sucker for punishment.

Matty, understand the difference between commenting on something and crying or sobbing. I can pass comment on what GW's doing because I have a computer and an opinion, I'm further more likely to because I'm a hobbyist with 25 years of gaming and a room given over to my toy soldiers. My chosen system for about 22 of those years have been GW's. This notion that people should suddenly drop everything and leave 'the hobby' because their pissed at 'the gw' is bs.

Also, as I've said before, I've got little to no actual beef with the design team, I still love that GW, quibbles with rules editions aside.

I do have a strong dislike for the other GW, Corporate GW.

So basically this wife analogy you used, I still have to deal with her, despite Thomasina going back to her maiden name of Kirby, because we need to make arrangements to see the kids, I still want to have little Jes, Matthew, Phillip et al, even tiny Jervis, despite his allergies, because I'm still fond of them and I've spent years of my life raising them.

ALL of this to a background wherein Kirby openly admitted in the investor's report that the customers of GW's product will 'tolerate a great degree of price elasticity', which if you're having trouble interpreting the corporate jargon, means 'will put up with a good degree of fleecing and still buy this stuff'.

Given all that I have listed above, I have zero problem with people who've been in this hobby for a while and invested years to collecting, modelling, painting and gaming, feeling somewhat disgruntled about their treatment. I certainly have little to no support for GW's pricing policies given what I've witnessed with the above evidence.

Makes perfect sense. I think this is where we really start to see the difference between a private and public company rear its ugly head. As much as we don't want to believe it, that's a big part of the equation. It's at odds with the entilement and closeness of input people in this hobby typically want and are used to, as (and correct me if I'm wrong) GW is the ONLY miniatures wargaming company that is public.

The only response to this, really, is to stop buying the items that are outliers to what the price elasticity will allow. I haven't bought as much, but it's been more a product of not wanting as much of it, or not wanting to start a new army. I already warned my wife that whenever the Space Wolves HH book comes out from forge world, she wont see me for a few weeks and she won't be getting any new purses

With that in mind, I think more of my $$ has gone to FW or BL than GW main lately.

 cincydooley wrote:

ALL of this to a background wherein Kirby openly admitted in the investor's report that the customers of GW's product will 'tolerate a great degree of price elasticity', which if you're having trouble interpreting the corporate jargon, means 'will put up with a good degree of fleecing and still buy this stuff'.

Given all that I have listed above, I have zero problem with people who've been in this hobby for a while and invested years to collecting, modelling, painting and gaming, feeling somewhat disgruntled about their treatment. I certainly have little to no support for GW's pricing policies given what I've witnessed with the above evidence.

Makes perfect sense. I think this is where we really start to see the difference between a private and public company rear its ugly head. As much as we don't want to believe it, that's a big part of the equation. It's at odds with the entilement and closeness of input people in this hobby typically want and are used to, as (and correct me if I'm wrong) GW is the ONLY miniatures wargaming company that is public.

The only response to this, really, is to stop buying the items that are outliers to what the price elasticity will allow. I haven't bought as much, but it's been more a product of not wanting as much of it, or not wanting to start a new army. I already warned my wife that whenever the Space Wolves HH book comes out from forge world, she wont see me for a few weeks and she won't be getting any new purses

With that in mind, I think more of my $$ has gone to FW or BL than GW main lately.

Preface: I worked for several years as the complaint coordinator for a large, multinational, insurance firm - a public company. Working towards resolving customer complaints, business retention, root cause analysis/process improvement and keeping our company compliant with business regulation and governmental monitoring bodies. I worked with our customers to keep them onboard, I defended us against the regulators and I made us a better, more efficient company into the bargain.

If our brokers, their customer businesses or the larger businesses we dealt with directly, had any inkling we were manipulating our rates or their premiums along the lines I've just listed in the five points about GW I raised in my prior post to you, we would have been out of business in a month.

Your statement about private v public company only stretches halfway, but GW's guilty of behaving like a little private company, a corner shop owner pointing to his sign to say 'the management reserves the right to refuse custom', when it comes to their customer relations.

You say it's the difference because they are a public company, but look at how they conduct themselves, they are a multinational company with shareholders, who refuse to deal with the press, who pull all that smoke and mirrors bs with pricing that I listed. They want all of the benefits of being a big company and are utterly unwilling (or just incapable) of dealing professionally with the customer or with maintaining their profile as a big company.

There is, in my opinion, one factor saving GW from a really big reality check and that's the lack of a significant rival thus far. PP is still very small in comparison, it's IP far from as recognizable.

I do not think that state of affairs will last for ever, nor for that much longer. I welcome the change when it comes and as a business, GW should to, it will be the crucible that fashions it back into a capable company or kills it, allowing it's IP to be bought up by another to try the same thing with the opportunity to learn from their fatal mistake.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
There is, in my opinion, one factor saving GW from a really big reality check and that's the lack of a significant rival thus far. PP is still very small in comparison, it's IP far from as recognizable.

I do not think that state of affairs will last for ever, nor for that much longer. I welcome the change when it comes and as a business, GW should to, it will be the crucible that fashions it back into a capable company or kills it, allowing it's IP to be bought up by another to try the same thing with the opportunity to learn from their fatal mistake.

100% agree. I don't know how PP overcomes this, and again, until we have any real solid numbers as to their revenue, they may as well be a fart in the wind to GW.

Even more interesting than the price discussion is the Finecast stunt, that is a crystal clear example of no regards for their clients and IMO one of the biggest fiascos of GW in this Industry. ( No I'm not opening a door to debate that you think FC is uber good).

This is were a community has responsibilities, these issues should be flagged over and over again so that these actions are not left unnoticed and the less hobby experienced people are a bit more informed.

 cincydooley wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
There is, in my opinion, one factor saving GW from a really big reality check and that's the lack of a significant rival thus far. PP is still very small in comparison, it's IP far from as recognizable.

I do not think that state of affairs will last for ever, nor for that much longer. I welcome the change when it comes and as a business, GW should to, it will be the crucible that fashions it back into a capable company or kills it, allowing it's IP to be bought up by another to try the same thing with the opportunity to learn from their fatal mistake.

100% agree. I don't know how PP overcomes this, and again, until we have any real solid numbers as to their revenue, they may as well be a fart in the wind to GW.

Hardly a fart in the wind... You might have had a point several years ago, but PP is steadily increasing in clout and strength. When a computer game was made using their IP, GW's board of directors should have all collectively let out a high pitched panic-fart of their own... GW's made an army of independent store owners actively willing another company to rise up and take GW's mantle, the only thing holding PP back from that historically has been their gakky distribution methods. If they get their shiz together on the North American continent, they'll take GW down a dark alleyway and make it call them daddy...

 Tigerone wrote:
Some of the most vocal "bashers" have not spent 200 a year on GW. They spend more time on Dakka than they ever have or will painting or playing.

why would I support a company I don't like
I have a Warriors of Chaos army on the go, bought right here on Dakka
only money of mine that goes to GW is for paint, but sometimes I buy other companies' paints, depends on the colours I need

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 Tigerone wrote:
Some of the most vocal "bashers" have not spent 200 a year on GW. They spend more time on Dakka than they ever have or will painting or playing.

why would I support a company I don't like
I have a Warriors of Chaos army on the go, bought right here on Dakka
only money of mine that goes to GW is for paint, but sometimes I buy other companies' paints, depends on the colours I need

Yeah, that statement doesn't make too much sense tigerone, RD has it right... why would I drop 200 of my precious hard earned dollars on a company who's practices I don't agree with?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Hardly a fart in the wind... You might have had a point several years ago, but PP is steadily increasing in clout and strength. When a computer game was made using their IP, GW's board of directors should have all collectively let out a high pitched panic-fart of their own... GW's made an army of independent store owners actively willing another company to rise up and take GW's mantle, the only thing holding PP back from that historically has been their gakky distribution methods. If they get their shiz together on the North American continent, they'll take GW down a dark alleyway and make it call them daddy...

I didn't realize that game had come out already? I mean, I know they did an E3 trailer like, 2 years ago? But after some rudimentary googling, it looks like their website hasn't even been updated in over a year....are we sure this game even still exists?

And we'll really have no idea as to PP's actual "clout and strenght" until we see some solid revenue numbers, which they aren't required to provide, as they're not a public entity.

I admit I don't play, cause I think the rules are gak and codex's overpriced (here and there I might play fantasy but I am hard pressed to play against a non broken codex) I am a painter and modeller first, going on Dakka and looking at other peoples' work often inspires me to start painting or gives me little ideas

2011 had me spending close to $1000 on GW products.
2012 had me spend close to $1000 as well as another $1000 to attend a convention for the sole purpose of playing a GW game.

2013 had me spending $5 for a bottle of wash so far.

"Bashers who don't spend money" used to be loyal customers.

To be fair MGS, I'd feth Jervis off for adoption.

 d-usa wrote:
2011 had me spending close to $1000 on GW products.
2012 had me spend close to $1000 as well as another $1000 to attend a convention for the sole purpose of playing a GW game.

2013 had me spending $5 for a bottle of wash so far.

"Bashers who don't spend money" used to be loyal customers.

Yup, 2011 I spent roughly at least 750 on GW models, not to mention codices, rulebook, and paints

2012 I bought only paint, VC armybook, and a few VC models (including a terrorgeist), a chaplain in termy armor and the Empire Witch Hunter...

2013 has been GW free so far...

 mattyrm wrote:
To be fair MGS, I'd feth Jervis off for adoption.

I still want Alessio back from his exchange student holiday and Ricky back from his spin off series, 'Priestly's Luck'...

 cincydooley wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Which, in the category of the ethics of GW, means that GW is trying to obtain rights by misstatements, in a sense trying to steal from their own former artists. That is, because the art in question was done on commission without assignment of rights outside of a right of first publication, after these works appeared in White Dwarf once, they were the property of the artists. In order to sue, GW needs the assignment... which means they need to negotiate an entirely separate contract, and pay the artists. Which, one notes, they seem to be doing all they can to avoid.

That is all a bit longer then I originally intended, but I hope that it answers some questions.

So in order to have the assignment of rights outside of first publication, it needs to be explicitly stated in the contract, is that correct?

That is correct: an assignment of copyright needs to be explicit.

 cincydooley wrote:
And based on Chaulk's declarative statement, it appears that the 'standard quo' for commission work of this type was for rights to only be held by the commssioner on first publication.

So GW is basically trying to convince Chaulk and other artists to sign over their complete publication ownership rights on some of these commissioned works without offering to pay them for it, which they 'should' be doing?

Why did you put "should" in ''? Assuming, arguendo, that the two artists with nothing to gain are being truthful in their independent statements, the following is what is going on;

1) GW does not now have, nor did it have at any previous point in time, assignment (which is to say ownership in the lay sense) to certain copyrights, at least some of which are the basis for suit against CHS.

2) The artists have the ownership of the copyrights.

3) GW attempts to obtain the artists signatures on documents with 2 material untruths;
- That the copyrights are assigned to GW. Untrue, Chalk and Nichols are quite clear that no such assignment was ever made.

-That the assignment was contemporaneous with the work being done (that is, GW has held ownership for the last 30 odd years). Again, flatly contradicted.

If we accept the statements of the artists as true (and the available evidence provides no reason to doubt them), then GW may be, in strict terms, crossing from unethical into criminal in two possible ways;
-The first is fraud in the inducement: " The heart of this type of fraud is misleading the other party as to the facts upon which he/she will base his/her decision to act"; let's be very clear, an assignment of rights is a piece of property. Obtaining property without payment is an act with a name, we call it theft, and when it's accomplished with misleading statements it's fraud. Forgive the big letters (but perhaps we can distract for a moment from the interminable debate over pricing), reduced to the simplest formulation, if you believe the sworn declaration of G. Chalk,

Games Workshop is lying to artists in an attempt to steal their property.

-The document that GW wanted signed, that would have been an assignment of rights, would not only have deprived the artists of their (intellectual) property, but they would have been offered into evidence. That is, the artists would have put their names on legal documents prepared by GW that misrepresent material facts. Facts like who owns what, and as of what date that ownership commenced are very important facts in a legal controversy.

 cincydooley wrote:
And because the letter indicates that they're trying to 'shore up records that may have been lost' and that the letter is actually an outcome of the Chapterhouse lawsuit, they're not providing the artists with the 'true' picture of why they need it, thus making them deceptive and unethical?

While all the time, GW could have just as easily said, "we're involved in a lawsuit, we'd like to buy from you the rights for these items as they're subject to copyright infringement in this suit" which would have been completely forthcoming and more ethical/fair?

Is that about right?

Well, no. The reason for asking for the documents isn't particularly important, the problem with the "shore up records that may have been lost" assertion is... the records weren't lost, they never existed.

It's also important to note that while they need to offer to buy the assignments (as opposed to obtaining them by fraud), there are potentially a lot of reasons why they can't do that: offering to buy the assignments is an admission that they don't currently, and didn't previously, own these rights. Which could potentially mean big trouble for any previous filings and representations they have made.

 cincydooley wrote:
Is legal attitude questionable. I guess. They send C&D letters and (thanks Buzz) have been somewhat disingenuous and unethical in how they're trying to get info from past artists for the CHS case. Okay. The means rarely justify the ends and they don't IMO in this case, but that hardly affects my everyday experience with GW. I find the bad-faith request for Amazon to take down gaks the Space Marine in poor taste by GW, but just as much by Amazon's lack of due diligence. I'm still going to patronize Amazon. And for me, the fact that GW keeps jobs in the UK and doesn't outsource to China for their production (this could very well solve a lot of #1, mind you) tells me that, while they're clearly lacking in judgement in the legal department, they're concerned about their native land, at least a little bit.

And again, my direct interactions with GW personnel has always been positive and courteous. There are few to no people that actually have anecdotal evidence of being directly mistreated by GW other than the aforementioned three items.

"gaks the Space Marine"? (Please note that Cinc did not use the word "gaks".) So, a woman writes a book, using terms that are completely generic and have been in use since before the second World War. Games Workshop misuses a legal filing in an attempt to improperly increase their IP and destroy this random woman's livelihood, and and in the interest of fairness you insult her?

"poor taste by GW, but just as much by Amazon's lack of due diligence"? Again, Amazon should have done more diligence, but their ultimate failing is they believed that GW was being truthful. GW's actions "in poor taste" were willfully misusing the law in an attempt to increase their portfolio and coincidentally deprive someone of income, someone they knew or should have known did not have the financial means to fight GW's blatantly unethical and improper filing.

In all seriousness, you say "I hope GW smashes [Chapterhouse Studios] into tiny pieces and bankrupts the company, if only because of Chapterhouse's arrogance in their exploitation of GWs IP", but when faced with evidence that GW is misusing the legal process, filing false statements with the courts, attempting to defraud independent authors and stomping on random people... you "guess" GW "have been somewhat disingenuous and unethical"?

It seems almost incomprehensible how you are able to reconcile these beliefs. GW isn't in breach of some petty, corner case legalities here, they are violating bedrock principles of law and order: seriously now, thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not swear falsely are... not new ideas.

Warhammer 40k feels like it could play the exact same, but instead of having squads of 10, just have one model with 10 wounds, and so on.

I don't love GW, but I side with them in the Chapterhouse case. They are profitable because of a GW product. It seems unfair they pay them feth all.

Same here.

Start selling Unlicensed Disney products and see what happens!

 Monster Rain wrote:
Same here.

Start selling Unlicensed Disney products and see what happens!

What if I made accessories to Disney products? Like a dress for a Minnie doll or something.

Does it incorporate unlicensed Disney IP?

 Monster Rain wrote:
Does it incorporate unlicensed Disney IP?

It's compatible with it

There have been more than enough threads on this, and I genuinely don't feel like getting caught up in another one.

My point is pretty obvious.

 Monster Rain wrote:
There have been more than enough threads on this, and I genuinely don't feel like getting caught up in another one.

Very well. While we have differing opinions, I won't continue it in this thread.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Why did you put "should" in ''? Assuming, arguendo, that the two artists with nothing to gain are being truthful in their independent statements, the following is what is going on;

I think this portion is a misunderstanding: I meant that if GW wanted to obtain the rights of the pieces from the artists, they SHOULD pay them for them.

- That the copyrights are assigned to GW. Untrue, Chalk and Nichols are quite clear that no such assignment was ever made.

-That the assignment was contemporaneous with the work being done (that is, GW has held ownership for the last 30 odd years). Again, flatly contradicted.

Thanks for clarifying this piece. That's pretty much what I assumed; I don't think I articulated that understanding well.

reduced to the simplest formulation, if you believe the sworn declaration of G. Chalk, Games Workshop is lying to artists in an attempt to steal their property

I agree this is an unethical act. They should pony up the cash and pay. Like I stated, I don't understand their lack of willingness to be forthright about it. Would it have been that damaging to the case, or would that have necessitated the artists' willingness to participate in the suit because, at the time of the suit, the copyright wasn't owned by GW? Had GW purchased these copyrights from the artists prior to the suit, would that have made a difference?

The reason for asking for the documents isn't particularly important, the problem with the "shore up records that may have been lost" assertion is... the records weren't lost, they never existed.

I'm probably wrong again here, but what I read made it sound like a paper trail didn't exist out of lack of due dilligence, but rather no one did it at the time. Have we come that far since 1985 in regards to paperwork filing? Or is GW just a disorganized mess?

"gaks the Space Marine"? (Please note that Cinc did not use the word "gaks".) So, a woman writes a book, using terms that are completely generic and have been in use since before the second World War. Games Workshop misuses a legal filing in an attempt to improperly increase their IP and destroy this random woman's livelihood, and and in the interest of fairness you insult her? ]

I probably shouldn't have insulted her, but the book looks like a pile of crap to me. If Amazon believed they were being truthful, shouldn't they STILL Have allowed the author to respond before removing the files? I have more trouble seeing this as more an unethical act as an act of bad faith or, in crude terms, a crappy move. But I can understand why they'd do it. If they can establish a precedent for ownership of the phrase Space Marine I'm sure that somewhere that makes the road to aquiring that trademark easier. Or not. There's a good chance I'm completely off base here.

It seems almost incomprehensible how you are able to reconcile these beliefs. GW isn't in breach of some petty, corner case legalities here, they are violating bedrock principles of law and order: seriously now, thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not swear falsely are... not new ideas.

You're right. Though Shalt not steal and thou shalt not swear falsely aren't new. But if we're going to apply them to GW, we have to apply them to Chapterhouse. All the legalese aside, it's very apparent that Chapterhouse ONLY exists because of GW. While studios like Kromlech, Puppets War, etc, can say the same, none of those companies removed photos or webpages or so brazenly abused any grey area that exists within IP law. I have no sympathy for Chapterhouse. None. If in fact GW is suborning perjury or doing anything else illegal, they'll be punished for it.

If that's the case, my opinion will certainly change. But if they're doing stuff that is legal but a bit seems a bit crappy...well at least in regards to Chapterhouse, I don't care. Because the perception of ethics isn't a black and white area, and because it seems like most of the acts in this instance that would be considered unethical are also illegal, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to think. Should our code of ethics be dictated by the Bible or Darwin? Living in the United States, especially now, I can't say there aren't times I lean more towards Darwin and survival of the fittest. I realize this is going to win me exactly zero points with a bunch of you, but it is what it is.

Again, I have no respect for Chapterhouse or their business practices or their arrogance in regards to what could have been an easy fix. Based on how they've operated, I think it's a reasonable conclusion that CHS wanted this to go to court from the outset. If that's the case, they're as bad as the woman that spills hot coffee on her hooch and the sues because she didn't realize it was hot.

In an unrelated note:

The Hot Coffee lawsuit was valid and is often misused as an example of a frivolous lawsuit even though it isn't.

 d-usa wrote:
In an unrelated note:

The Hot Coffee lawsuit was valid and is often misused as an example of a frivolous lawsuit even though it isn't.

There are just as many people that think that is a prime example of a frivolous lawsuit as there are that claim it isn't. HBO documentarys aren't the end all be all of opinions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
In an unrelated note:

The Hot Coffee lawsuit was valid and is often misused as an example of a frivolous lawsuit even though it isn't.

There are just as many people that think that is a prime example of a frivolous lawsuit as there are that claim it isn't. HBO documentarys aren't the end all be all of opinions.

Also, a curious question: Why do some of you put your "amount spent" in 2012 in your signature? Is there some kind of competition here that we should all be aware of?

1) Never saw any HBO documentary, but thanks for assuming.
2) Why does anybody put anything in their signatures?

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
In an unrelated note:

The Hot Coffee lawsuit was valid and is often misused as an example of a frivolous lawsuit even though it isn't.

There are just as many people that think that is a prime example of a frivolous lawsuit as there are that claim it isn't. HBO documentaries aren't the end all be all of opinions.

Well fortunately the court managed to identify negligence in spite of the uninformed opinions of some who think saying 'coffee it hot' is the be all and end all.

 cincydooley wrote:
Also, a curious question: Why do some of you put your "amount spent" in 2012 in your signature? Is there some kind of competition here that we should all be aware of?

Several DCMs are attempting to track how much they spend on models in an attempt to either put everything into perspective or to see how much they can spend so they can curb it.

The "money spent on GW" is because someone in this thread had said that the bashers who don't spend money have no room to talk, and d-usa had shown roughly how much he spent on GW models in 2011 and 2012, and then 2013... because and he says it best...

 d-usa wrote:
"Bashers who don't spend money" used to be loyal customers.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Also, a curious question: Why do some of you put your "amount spent" in 2012 in your signature? Is there some kind of competition here that we should all be aware of?

Several DCMs are attempting to track how much they spend on models in an attempt to either put everything into perspective or to see how much they can spend so they can curb it.

The "money spent on GW" is because someone in this thread had said that the bashers who don't spend money have no room to talk, and d-usa had shown roughly how much he spent on GW models in 2011 and 2012, and then 2013... because and he says it best...

 d-usa wrote:
"Bashers who don't spend money" used to be loyal customers.

Thanks for the explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

The argument wasn't that the coffee was hot, but that it was too hot. Hot enough to cause "deep tissue damage" at a significantly faster rate.
The woman suffered some pretty extensive burns, it's not as if it was some minor issue like a scalded palette.

Np

 Amaya wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

The argument wasn't that the coffee was hot, but that it was too hot. Hot enough to cause "deep tissue damage" at a significantly faster rate.
The woman suffered some pretty extensive burns, it's not as if it was some minor issue like a scalded palette.

She still spilled it on herself and the fact that she had on cotton sweatpants exaserbated the burn. Why didn't she sue Fruit of the Loom?

The fact that the jury found an 80-20 fault discrepancy is absurd. The amount they awarded in punative damages is absurd, which the judge pretty much said by reducing it.

A different jury could have found differently. Simply because one found in her favor doesn't make it any less frivolous a lawsuit. She took the lid off the coffee. She put the coffee between her legs. Take some freakin accountability.

And if it wasn't 180 degrees+ it wouldn't have been as severe.

Edit: Whether or not the amount awarded was frivolous it besides the point. As is the fault breakdown. McDonald's was at least partly at fault and the lawsuit was not entirely frivolous as it is frequently decried.

Visit a burn center if you think suing over third degree burns is frivolous.

Or google third degree burn.

Warning: NSFW and may induce vomiting.

I'm not going to belabour this point anymore, especially since it isn't related to the topic.

I think I'm just a gakky, uncaring person compared to the rest of you.

I read about a lawsuit filed by a dude in a wheelchair because the ordering counter was too high and he was 'deprived of the Chipotle experience' on ADA grounds.

Here's a link to the article, written by someone with a disability, that also thinks it's a load of bs:

http://abledbody.com/2011/08/23/chipotle-ada-suit-is-a-big-fat-flop/

But again, I'm pretty sure this lack of compassion makes me a big right wing American donkey-cave.

Why would you bring up an unrelated lawsuit at all?

It's almost like comparing apples to oranges.

Or coffee to wheel chairs, as it were.

Not seeing a burrito is the same at 3rd degree burns of course.

And everytime I use GW clippers I cut my finger and their glue makes my skin burn. They are evil.

Damn it, the DCM sharks smell blood again.

 Amaya wrote:
Damn it, the DMC sharks smell blood again.

DMC?




Walk this way son...

Please don't perpetuate that bull gak.

Kung Fu Hamster has spread that lie enough here and elsewhere.

 kronk wrote:
Please don't perpetuate that bull gak.

Kung Fu Hamster has spread that lie enough here and elsewhere.

Really? can I have links? I've got nothing better to do atm.

40k Radio forums require a subscription, sadly. A link won't help you.

 kronk wrote:
40k Radio forums require a subscription, sadly.

I'm now really sad...

We are 40K radio famous?

Not really. Just him grinding his axe. I'll PM if you'd like, as we're off topic.

Wouldn't somebody complaining of DCMs ruining Dakka and/or ruining the hobby be on-topic?

Last comment from me.

I'll still read, but I won't be replying:

She spilled the coffee on herself. She spilled the coffee on herself because she took the lid off. She spilled the coffee on her legs because she put her hot coffee in between her legs.

McDonalds, nor their employees, did any of these things.

Is it unfortunate that she got burned. Sure.

Are there any laws that say McDonalds has to serve coffee below a certain point? Absolutely not.

So the fact that fault was placed on McDonalds is, IMO, absolutely absurd.

The coffee was not faulty. In fact, there are other drinks (black & chai tea) that you're supposed to serve at a higher temperature than that.

The packaging was not faulty. It was marked "Hot" and given to her with a lid on. She removed the lid. She spilled the coffee on herself.

Just because a single jury found in her favor doesn't mean it's 'right' or any less 'frivolous.' Juries don't always get it right.

I used the other example simply to demonstrate that, just because something is upheld in court doens't make it "right;" that's the sole reasoning for using the perspective of another disabled person.

But again, a large percentage of the United States has no interest in being held accountible for their own actions, so I guess I should be used to it.

Just like GW is not interested in being held liable for their own actions, and people like to blame anybody but GW.

If the coffee wasn't 180F, which is well past the zone of safe temperatures, I would not have given her a cent. Not one.

However, the coffee was too hot. Well outside of what you are allowed to safely serve the public. That's on them.

I'm not sure why people don't understand that.

 kronk wrote:
Well outside of what you are allowed to safely serve the public.

Which law is that again? (I'm being serious.)

 cincydooley wrote:

Spoiler:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Why did you put "should" in ''? Assuming, arguendo, that the two artists with nothing to gain are being truthful in their independent statements, the following is what is going on;

I think this portion is a misunderstanding: I meant that if GW wanted to obtain the rights of the pieces from the artists, they SHOULD pay them for them.

- That the copyrights are assigned to GW. Untrue, Chalk and Nichols are quite clear that no such assignment was ever made.

-That the assignment was contemporaneous with the work being done (that is, GW has held ownership for the last 30 odd years). Again, flatly contradicted.

Thanks for clarifying this piece. That's pretty much what I assumed; I don't think I articulated that understanding well.

reduced to the simplest formulation, if you believe the sworn declaration of G. Chalk, Games Workshop is lying to artists in an attempt to steal their property

I agree this is an unethical act. They should pony up the cash and pay. Like I stated, I don't understand their lack of willingness to be forthright about it. Would it have been that damaging to the case, or would that have necessitated the artists' willingness to participate in the suit because, at the time of the suit, the copyright wasn't owned by GW? Had GW purchased these copyrights from the artists prior to the suit, would that have made a difference?

The reason for asking for the documents isn't particularly important, the problem with the "shore up records that may have been lost" assertion is... the records weren't lost, they never existed.

I'm probably wrong again here, but what I read made it sound like a paper trail didn't exist out of lack of due dilligence, but rather no one did it at the time. Have we come that far since 1985 in regards to paperwork filing? Or is GW just a disorganized mess?

"gaks the Space Marine"? (Please note that Cinc did not use the word "gaks".) So, a woman writes a book, using terms that are completely generic and have been in use since before the second World War. Games Workshop misuses a legal filing in an attempt to improperly increase their IP and destroy this random woman's livelihood, and and in the interest of fairness you insult her? ]

I probably shouldn't have insulted her, but the book looks like a pile of crap to me. If Amazon believed they were being truthful, shouldn't they STILL Have allowed the author to respond before removing the files? I have more trouble seeing this as more an unethical act as an act of bad faith or, in crude terms, a crappy move. But I can understand why they'd do it. If they can establish a precedent for ownership of the phrase Space Marine I'm sure that somewhere that makes the road to aquiring that trademark easier. Or not. There's a good chance I'm completely off base here.

It seems almost incomprehensible how you are able to reconcile these beliefs. GW isn't in breach of some petty, corner case legalities here, they are violating bedrock principles of law and order: seriously now, thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not swear falsely are... not new ideas.

You're right. Though Shalt not steal and thou shalt not swear falsely aren't new. But if we're going to apply them to GW, we have to apply them to Chapterhouse. All the legalese aside, it's very apparent that Chapterhouse ONLY exists because of GW. While studios like Kromlech, Puppets War, etc, can say the same, none of those companies removed photos or webpages or so brazenly abused any grey area that exists within IP law. I have no sympathy for Chapterhouse. None. If in fact GW is suborning perjury or doing anything else illegal, they'll be punished for it.

If that's the case, my opinion will certainly change. But if they're doing stuff that is legal but a bit seems a bit crappy...well at least in regards to Chapterhouse, I don't care. Because the perception of ethics isn't a black and white area, and because it seems like most of the acts in this instance that would be considered unethical are also illegal, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to think. Should our code of ethics be dictated by the Bible or Darwin? Living in the United States, especially now, I can't say there aren't times I lean more towards Darwin and survival of the fittest. I realize this is going to win me exactly zero points with a bunch of you, but it is what it is.

Again, I have no respect for Chapterhouse or their business practices or their arrogance in regards to what could have been an easy fix. Based on how they've operated, I think it's a reasonable conclusion that CHS wanted this to go to court from the outset. If that's the case, they're as bad as the woman that spills hot coffee on her hooch and the sues because she didn't realize it was hot.

With all due respect Cinc, you are simply wrong. After... wait... whaaaaa?

 cincydooley wrote:
But if they're doing stuff that is legal but a bit seems a bit crappy...well at least in regards to Chapterhouse, I don't care. Because the perception of ethics isn't a black and white area, and because it seems like most of the acts in this instance that would be considered unethical are also illegal, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to think. Should our code of ethics be dictated by the Bible or Darwin? Living in the United States, especially now, I can't say there aren't times I lean more towards Darwin and survival of the fittest. I realize this is going to win me exactly zero points with a bunch of you, but it is what it is.

Ooooookay. You got me, I got nothing on that.

Just one thing though: if you're going to be all Blue and Orange Morality, that's fine (makes discussions a bit more trying, but c'est la vie), but you seem to be rather inconsistent in applying the moral system you appear to be espousing.

That is, if you are going to regard GW's blatantly unethical and legally improper DMCA action with "I have more trouble seeing this as more an unethical act as an act of bad faith or, in crude terms, a crappy move. But I can understand why they'd do it. If they can establish a precedent for ownership of the phrase Space Marine I'm sure that somewhere that makes the road to aquiring that trademark easier. Or not. There's a good chance I'm completely off base here." That is, if it helps GW do better then perhaps some misconduct is understandable. Very Nietzschean.

But if that's going to be your position... how can you dislike CHS so viscerally? In terms of purely quantifying their disrespect for the law, GW seems miles ahead of CHS, to the extent that CHS is a mere disciple of the art GW has mastered. Is the problem that CHS isn't stealing enough? They should be more aggressive about screwing people over?

Or, on the other hand, if you are going to take the position that the court cases are still in play, that's fine... but then don't say that CHS can burn in hell.

Put another way, you've been presented with evidence of malfeasance by CHS and GW.
-You read the accusations against CHS, realized that you didn't really understand the law and pronounced that "I have no sympathy for Chapterhouse. None."

-You read the accusations against GW, realized you didn't really understand the law and decided " If in fact GW is suborning perjury or doing anything else illegal, they'll be punished for it. ...If that's the case, my opinion will certainly change."

 Amaya wrote:


Don't pretend to be encouraging discussion when you allow people to throw around the inflammatory "white knight" term at anyone who disagrees with them.

So you and others get to thorw around the term haters, bu the defenders of GW get bent out of shape like you are for beiing called a white knight.

Fine, fanboy, if thats whats really bothering you. I'll simply start calling you something else. You refuse to accept facts, throw around terms like "no one cares about" aussie and new zeland, among other things. Inoging facts about compaines IS what fan boys do after all.

Or how about we don't use personal insults that are against the rules you agreed to follow in order to be allowed to post on this site?

Troll, fanboy, white knight, etc, are off the table, my good sirs. Please make arguments without reducing them to personal attacks.

Thanks!

 Manchu wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Well outside of what you are allowed to safely serve the public.

Which law is that again? (I'm being serious.)

I'm not entirely certain, but I believe this sort of thing is effectively an OSHA style issue - people have the right to go about their daily activities without concern that mundane, everyday situations that they might encounter will cause grievous bodily injuries. Remember, they recommend that you reduce your hot water heater setting to 120 degrees in order to reduce the risk of recieving scalding injuries from hot water out of your tap - 130 degree water will cause 1st degree burns in 30 seconds.

160 degree water will cause 3rd degree scalding burns in one second. That the coffee being served was at 180 degrees was a serious health hazard - realistically it was a burn hazard to both employees and the people it was being served to.

I don't believe there is an OSHA reg regarding how hot a restaurant can serve its coffee (which makes sense considering that body of regulations deals with work place safety).

Here are the regs in case someone else wants to take a look: http://www.osha.gov/law-regs.html

 Manchu wrote:
I don't believe there is an OSHA reg regarding how hot a restaurant can serve its coffee (which makes sense considering that body of regulations deals with work place safety).

Here are the regs in case someone else wants to take a look: http://www.osha.gov/law-regs.html

Overall though, the case got as far as it did due to McDonalds refusing a settlement of more than $800 when the woman's medical bills had totaled over $10k. To an extent, you can argue that there would have been no major outcry if they had been willing to settle for covering her bills as opposed to fighting it out in court, which resulted in the 2.8 million dollar judgment (was later settled for about $640k before an appeal could be completed).

Getting this back to the topic, it's a good example of why a company needs to show some sensitifity and not just fall back on the courts as its first option - a light touch with a degree of sympathy and empathy for the people you are dealing with generally is less expensive and less embarassing than simply pulling out the legal department sledgehammer right off the bat.

 RuneGrey wrote:
realistically it was a burn hazard to both employees and the people it was being served to

Realistically, we can expect adults to understand that things that are hot could burn them.

I love the McDonald's coffee case. When you look at from a 1st year torts perspective, it's actually a pretty simple case.

The plaintiff showed that what caused the burns wasn't just coffee, but coffee at that temperature. They also showed all the complaints McDonalds had received about how hot the coffee was. Finally, McDonald's served the coffee 20 degrees above industry standard.

So, McDonald's served coffee hotter than most, knew it carried a risk, and kept doing it.

It's a dopey case, but not ludicrously so.

 Manchu wrote:

 RuneGrey wrote:
realistically it was a burn hazard to both employees and the people it was being served to

Realistically, we can expect adults to understand that things that are hot could burn them.

Realistically, we can expect adults shouldn't require skin grafts for drinking coffee.

 Manchu wrote:

 RuneGrey wrote:
realistically it was a burn hazard to both employees and the people it was being served to

Realistically, we can expect adults to understand that things that are hot could burn them.

Without referring to the specific facts of the case, there is a legal point that you can't sell someone something that is hazardous if used in the usual way. Certainly we all can agree that it is not proper to serve someone coffee at 200 degrees F, at which temperature the merest touch would raise painful burns, right? So the question then is, how hot is too hot? I honestly don't know the answer, but it does not seem unreasonable that a beverage is assumed to be in a consumable state at the time of sale.

In the simplest analysis, a product such as that would be un-merchantable: that is, unfit for its intended purpose.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 RuneGrey wrote:
realistically it was a burn hazard to both employees and the people it was being served to

Realistically, we can expect adults to understand that things that are hot could burn them.

Without referring to the specific facts of the case, there is a legal point that you can't sell someone something that is hazardous if used in the usual way. Certainly we all can agree that it is not proper to serve someone coffee at 200 degrees F, at which temperature the merest touch would raise painful burns, right? So the question then is, how hot is too hot? I honestly don't know the answer, but it does not seem unreasonable that a beverage is assumed to be in a consumable state at the time of sale.

In the simplest analysis, a product such as that would be un-merchantable: that is, unfit for its intended purpose.

Also, as fun as it is to say that stupid people should suffer for their lack of wit or knowledge, society doesn't work that way. People who do (or should) know better generally have an ethical obligation to protect those who do not. That's why we require licensing for a lot of jobs where the average lay person simply doesn't have the knowledge to understand what is going on, and it's why we need to place warning signs for hazards - you can't just assume people will understand something. 'Should have known' is not an acceptable excuse.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
there is a legal point that you can't sell someone something that is hazardous if used in the usual way

That's not quite it. If a product is foreseeably hazardous in the course of its normal use, regardless of how the product is intended to be used, the company manufacturing or selling it has a duty to warn of the hazard. Hence, the coffee cup says "CAUTION HOT."

There is a law that you can't serve coffee above 100 degrees centigrade.

 Manchu wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Well outside of what you are allowed to safely serve the public.

Which law is that again? (I'm being serious.)

The FDA has State Retail and Food Service Codes and Regulations by State My Ex used to refer to them as she was in the training department.

McDonald's, as an example, has these rules and regulations in their employee hand book. Some are good practices, and some are requirements. When you are audited by your local food safety guy (I have no idea what they call them), they can fine you or shut you down for serious food and or health code violations. Like nu-refrigerated meat. The McD book DID have rules about how hot the coffee could be, but I admit that I do not know if that was company policy or a regulation at the time. I admit that my statement might be erroneous.

This time...


And now I'm off on a long weekend. Have fun!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There is a law that you can't serve coffee above 100 degrees centigrade.

I see what you did there!

Both of you are talking about negligence but without specific reference to its elements. Negligence requires:

(1) Duty
(2) Breach
(3) Fact Causation
(4) Legal Causation
(5) Harm

In the case of this coffee, we're not getting past point one. Does a restaurant have a duty to sell coffee at any specific temperature? No, it does not. Does it have a duty to warn the customer that the coffee is hot? Not according to any statute or regulation -- so far as anyone here can tell. But clearly that does not relieve the restaurant of all potential liability. Generally speaking, a duty does arise out of the inability to make a product safe in the course of its foreseeable use -- but that duty is only to warn. Therefore, whether or not there is in any given circumstances a judge that would find such duty did indeed arise from such circumstances, as matter of managing liabilities many companies will incur the additional cost of warning.

Why is a warning enough? Again, because it is reasonable to expect that an adult who is told that a liquid is hot will be careful not to be burned or that an adult who is told that a floor is wet will be careful not to slip.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
The FDA has State Retail and Food Service Codes and Regulations by State!

And which one requires coffee to be served at or below a specific temperature?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Surtur wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 RuneGrey wrote:
realistically it was a burn hazard to both employees and the people it was being served to

Realistically, we can expect adults to understand that things that are hot could burn them.

Realistically, we can expect adults shouldn't require skin grafts for drinking coffee.

It turns out we are saying the same thing because if adults can reasonably handle hot liquids then they will not require skin grafts as a matter of handling hot liquids.

 Amaya wrote:
Damn it, the DCM sharks smell blood again.

I have never heard of anyone talking about this "Us and them" nonsense with DCM's and Dakkanauts who aren't DCM's.

What a load...

 Manchu wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
there is a legal point that you can't sell someone something that is hazardous if used in the usual way

That's not quite it. If a product is foreseeably hazardous in the course of its normal use, regardless of how the product is intended to be used, the company manufacturing or selling it has a duty to warn of the hazard. Hence, the coffee cup says "CAUTION HOT."

First, I did not mean to imply that there was either no duty to warn, nor that items that have some hazard cannot be sold.

The problem with that analysis is the inadequacy of the word "HOT"; coffee at 150 degrees is hot, but then what is coffee at 205 degrees? Surely there must be some differentiation between a cup of coffee that can be pleasurably consumed, and one that will scald the palette.

Put another way, if you are given a cup of hot coffee, what will you do? You might blow on it, but at some point you will test it, probably by sipping it. If the coffee is so hot that it retains the ability to scald exposed flesh for some time, then a more fulsome warning would seem to be indicated.

"Hot" as a word of caution means the same thing whether applied to coffee at 160 F or 180 F. It means, "this is hot -- use your best judgment when you drink this." The word "Hot" suffices not because it describes a temperature but because it prescribes caution regarding temperature.

 Surtur wrote:
Realistically, we can expect adults shouldn't require skin grafts for drinking coffee.

If you're not capable of handling hot liquids without spilling them on yourself, maybe you shouldn't be ordering a drink that is made by heating water to near boiling point...

Can I sue the makers of my kettle if I spill boiling water on myself when I'm making coffee at home? Or should I just assume that if I choose to consume a drink made with boiling water, that boiling water may be involved and I should take due care to not injure myself with it...?





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Put another way, if you are given a cup of hot coffee, what will you do?

Assume that it might involve water that is near boiling, and be appropriately careful...?

Sorry guys, I know you want to be arm chair lawyers and bemoan an old case of someone spilling coffee, but what was the connection with the topic of the thread again? I missed it.

By all means, read through the thread.

A responsible community helps prevent coffee burns.

Manchu wrote:

Spoiler:

Both of you are talking about negligence but without specific reference to its elements. Negligence requires:

(1) Duty
(2) Breach
(3) Fact Causation
(4) Legal Causation
(5) Harm

In the case of this coffee, we're not getting past point one. Does a restaurant have a duty to sell coffee at any specific temperature? No, it does not. Does it have a duty to warn the customer that the coffee is hot? Not according to any statute or regulation -- so far as anyone here can tell. But clearly that does not relieve the restaurant of all potential liability. Generally speaking, a duty does arise out of the inability to make a product safe in the course of its foreseeable use -- but that duty is only to warn. Therefore, whether or not there is in any given circumstances a judge that would find such duty did indeed arise from such circumstances, as matter of managing liabilities many companies will incur the additional cost of warning.

Why is a warning enough? Again, because it is reasonable to expect that an adult who is told that a liquid is hot will be careful not to be burned or that an adult who is told that a floor is wet will be careful not to slip.

Polonius wrote:

Spoiler:

I love the McDonald's coffee case. When you look at from a 1st year torts perspective, it's actually a pretty simple case.

The plaintiff showed that what caused the burns wasn't just coffee, but coffee at that temperature. They also showed all the complaints McDonalds had received about how hot the coffee was. Finally, McDonald's served the coffee 20 degrees above industry standard.

So, McDonald's served coffee hotter than most, knew it carried a risk, and kept doing it.

It's a dopey case, but not ludicrously so.

I'm just going to say I tentatively concur with my learned colleague Polonius and respectfully disagree with learned colleague Manchu, and express my own preference for applying the standard of merchantability (which, one will note, no one ever seems to do in these cases, which may be an indication of how far from my practice area these cases are).

 insaniak wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
Realistically, we can expect adults shouldn't require skin grafts for drinking coffee.

If you're not capable of handling hot liquids without spilling them on yourself, maybe you shouldn't be ordering a drink that is made by heating water to near boiling point...

Can I sue the makers of my kettle if I spill boiling water on myself when I'm making coffee at home? Or should I just assume that if I choose to consume a drink made with boiling water, that boiling water may be involved and I should take due care to not injure myself with it...?

Well accidents happen. I agree she could have been more careful, but seriously, something you drink shouldn't be giving you 3rd degree burns. People die from those if they're extensive enough.

This is really getting off the rails, but I did research on the McDonald's coffee case in a law class in college, here is what the major turning point of the case was IMO:

The McDonald's store had been warned that their coffee was too hot, it was too hot because the machine was faulty, McDonald's store did not take steps to have it repaired or replaced - even after multiple warnings that their product was too hot by both customers and health inspectors. Result: a woman was burned, badly, requiring skin grafts as well as other problems 'down there', a lawyer would call it pain and suffering as well as mental anguish because of the damage done to her 'parts'.

Now we have all spilled coffee on ourselves, undoubtedly she set the coffee her between her legs as she probably had done hundreds of times before, this time though it spilled.

So, seem so silly now, frivolous, shifting blame?

Nuff said.


Now on with GW, they seem to be framing mischief by decree with their suits against CHS and a little known writer. Hmmm, really? CHS products require you to buy GW kits in order to use them, yep that really causes harm. Space Marines are not GW's sole creation, neither in concept or even execution.

I think you are projecting an opinion on both of us. I don't really about the case as such so much as the general principle. Coffee at any temperature does not require detailed instruction as to its consumption. Therefore a restaurant should not be held.liable for failingto provide them.

 Surtur wrote:
Well accidents happen. I agree she could have been more careful, but seriously, something you drink shouldn't be giving you 3rd degree burns. People die from those if they're extensive enough.

It's coffee. It's made with near-boiling water. Near-boiling water can, indeed, give you severe burns. That's not the result of negligence on the part of the person making the coffee... it's a side effect of making a beverage with near boiling water.

The whole situation is absurd. It's like someone buying a knife and accidentally cutting off a finger then turning around and suing the knife-maker because it was too sharp.

This isn't some crazy act of negligence. It's a product doing what it is supposed to do.

I know I said I wasn't going to post again, and I'm not really . Two things:

1. Thanks to Buzz for his patience and fantastic explanations with some of the pieces of the chapterhouse case.

2. Apologies for getting us completely off topic in regards to this coffee case. -10 internets for me.

Cheers all!

Dooley

 Manchu wrote:
I think you are projecting an opinion on both of us. I don't really about the case as such so much as the general principle. Coffee at any temperature does not require detailed instruction as to its consumption. Therefore a restaurant should not be held.liable for failingto provide them.

You're completely missing the point. If the coffee hadn't been excessively hot due to a broken machine that McDonald's neglected to fix the lady would have spilled, possibly suffered a minor burn, and went about her day. The issue was that the coffee was so hot it caused third degree burns almost instantly and was only aggravated by her clothing.

I think it's completely outside of reason to expect that coffee will be so hot that it will cause burns so severe that you require skin grafts and years of rehabilitation to repair the damage tissue. The entire case is simply that the coffee was significantly hotter than reasonable, to the point that it was extremely dangerous. Whether or not the restaurant provided a pamphlet on how to handle coffee is irrelevant.

Broken machine? I believe McDonald's actually intended the coffee to be as hot as it was in that case.

xraytango wrote:
This is really getting off the rails, but I did research on the McDonald's coffee case in a law class in college, here is what the major turning point of the case was IMO:

The McDonald's store had been warned that their coffee was too hot, it was too hot because the machine was faulty, McDonald's store did not take steps to have it repaired or replaced - even after multiple warnings that their product was too hot by both customers and health inspectors. Result: a woman was burned, badly, requiring skin grafts as well as other problems 'down there', a lawyer would call it pain and suffering as well as mental anguish because of the damage done to her 'parts'.

Now we have all spilled coffee on ourselves, undoubtedly she set the coffee her between her legs as she probably had done hundreds of times before, this time though it spilled.

Are we just going to ignore posts that are inconvenient to our viewpoint or what Manchu?

 Amaya wrote:
You're completely missing the point. If the coffee hadn't been excessively hot ...

...which it wasn't. Having the water actively boiling would have been 'too hot' as it scalds the coffee. 80-85 degrees is not 'excessively hot'... It's the optimum temperature for making coffee.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that freshly made coffee will be around that temperature.

In tort there is the idea of a reasonable level of care. A professional is expected to perform with a higher level of care than a shlub off the street. Therefore the McDonald's store had a higher standard to adhere to.

Under a preponderance of the evidence it was decided by a jury that the while the woman might have been a bit careless in her handling of the product (though accidents happen), McDonald's did blatently and willfully disregard the malfunction of the machine after having been aware of it for more than a reasonable amount of time, in which it should/could have been replaced or repaired.

What exactly are you unclear of. If you would like, I can send you my old textbooks and you can read up on torts and reasonable care.

 Amaya wrote:
Whether or not the restaurant provided a pamphlet on how to handle coffee is irrelevant.

Not at all. Recall that the duty is to warn.

 Amaya wrote:
Are we just going to ignore posts that are inconvenient to our viewpoint or what Manchu?

The case (Liebeck v. McDonald's) as summarized in Products Liability and Safety Fifth Edition by Owen, Montgomery, and Davis:

The plaintiff's claim was based on McDonald's failure to warn customers that the company served its coffee exceedingly hot, at 180-90 [degrees].

I don't know of a broken machine in this case.

You might try Lexus-Nexus as opposed to a textbook with a one line summary.

If I remember correctly it was a broken machine, but I will concede that it may have been that the setting on the machine was too high, either way, McDonald's was at fault for not providing a remedy for the situation before someone got hurt.

Either way, it was community responsibility that held that store to be accountable for it's bad deeds.

xraytango wrote:
You might try Lexus-Nexus as opposed to a textbook with a one line summary.

I think you mean LexisNexis. Actually, we use WestLaw at my firm. I don't practice personal injury but it looks like I remember my law school classes well enough. You might be thinking of Judge Easterbrook's widely followed opinion McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic, where plaintiffs claimed the coffee machine made the coffee too hot. Judge Easterbrook disagreed. As for some broken machine argument, please let me know which case you are talking about if you can find your class materials. Of course, what we're talking about here is the duty to warn and not the duty to keep machinery in good repair.

I'm pretty sure there is a significant difference between "Caution: Hot" and "Danger: May cause severe burns."

There are multiple levels of safety. This issue seems really simple from a base standpoint. The woman put a hot drink in her lap and got burned. Happens a lot of times where someone spills coffee on themselves.

What some people are forgetting is the volume of a cup of coffee is actually quite small, even if she did manage to spill the entire contents of a standard cup over herself it's still a very small amount of liquid. But the maximum volume is a constant in this.

The two variables that matter are duration of contact and energy. The coffee was hot enough to cause injury instantaneously. This is where the safety level changes. I know people may think they like hot coffee, but imagine taking a sip and burning yourself so badly that you need medical attention. Can you honestly imagine that?

It's very obvious that McDonalds was responsible for this. The simple warning on the cup was not enough to indicate the level of danger the cup presented. Same thing can go with any product without a warning of the significance of injury. Compare this to any chemical product out there. They don't just have the warning lable "Caution: toxic". They have detailed instructions on what to do if exposed to skin or if injested.

Good point Manchu. Obviously you passed your bar. Yes I did mean Lexis Nexis.

I however had to drop out for family concerns, however that does not preclude my ability to use my brain and understand the principles behind a case. You know, reasonable care and all that.

Do us a favor, and send us a link to the McDonald's case if there is a way to get the material off of WestLaw, or another reference library

EDIT: Nevermind, found some references on caselaw, evidently used the parallel with the Bunn-o-matic case to make my point in that paper. It has been ten years since I wrote that paper. Although it seemed to be the McDonald's policy to serve their coffee at extraordinarily high temperatures. Which still doesn't let them off the hook in that one.

I think there's a paper thin difference between "hot" and "hotter than normal."

We all know hot coffee is hot. What most people don't know is that they serve their coffee even hotter than normal.

The whole case is silly, not in the result, but because somebody decided to take a case to trial where the plaintiff is a grandma with third degree crotch burns.

But, this is why you don't take stuff like this to a jury.

We are way off topic. Locking.

The Liebeck vs. McDonalds case is an important one because it's been held up so many times as an example of abuse of the legal system, and been referenced in many arguments for tort reform. Despite the facts of the case. The wikipedia article actually summarizes it pretty well. There's also a documentary called Hot Coffee which goes into some detail on the case as part of discussing tort reform in general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_Hot_Coffee