The new assault squad is £25 as opposed to £20.50.
That's as near as dammit a 20% price rise
I stand corrected Azrael, missed that. Was comparing the price to the tacticals, but just noticed the new tactical squad has crept up to €35 too...not happy.
The new assault squad is £25 as opposed to £20.50.
That's as near as dammit a 20% price rise
I stand corrected Azrael, missed that. Was comparing the price to the tacticals, but just noticed the new tactical squad has crept up to €35 too...not happy.
in my opinion, the newer Tac., Dev., and Assault squads have better sculpting and better weapon options, making the price rise over the cost of the previous kits seem justified to me...
if we are just looking at the new Assault squad, the greater variety of weapons, crisper sculpting, and the scenic base bits, definitely make this new kit better...
same goes for the other two kits, where the new weapons, and better sculpting, win over saving a few bucks by buying the older versions of the kits...
for people who don't care about those options, i am sure that there are plenty of the old kits still kicking around, at a hefty discount, online...
personally, i am quite happy to see my favorite minis get updated with better quality kits, even if they cost me a few dollars more...
Space Marine codex comes out, I buy the normal hard copy because you-know I want to play according to the rules however they may be.
I bought one of the assault kits.
I bought one more of the sternguard kits
I bought two of the dev. kits.
I tend to make each of my models unique where possible.
Just one of each of these is enough to modify a company worth of marines in my humble opinion.
I now also have a fair bit of grav. weapons to try out.
I will have to look closer, I think Jah had said that some undercuts were dealt with better than old models and I am enough of a 40k historian to be able to dig some 3rd edition plastics out.
I never thought I would have nostalgia for the "bell bottom" legged dev's from way back in the days of metal: they had that castle-top / gear pattern along the upper trim of the leg too.
I have "enough" marines where I only need to get one of a new kit and call it a day.
I buy and anyone else would buy a GW model if it pretty enough or have enough options contained within it to "justify" the high cost GW asks for.
One less bottle of scotch for me for a month or two.
<edit> The trick is the costs are making us more "discerning" as their product compete with our other disposable income so it better have good bang for the buck or we will give it a pass.
I think basic space marine bikes are really pricey too. The sprues really aren't that nice, and you only get 3 bikes, plus they don't have the most popular weapon option (grav guns).
Plus, they look fething awful!
And that's from a massive fan of anything on two wheels.
I remember in the days they were £4 each or so, which I guess wasn't too bad. How much are they now? The problem is that you make the price higher, and you end up with them being compared to other bikes like this...
Spoiler:
Tell me why, HIPS sprue (which must surely have been produced tens of thousands of times now) costs so much when compared to a metal-cast miniature which is produced by a relatively tiny Spanish company.
Ten years ago, I would say that there was very little that could match GW for miniature sculpt quality. Perhaps Rackham. Now you have CB, Knight miniatures, Mierce, Dark Age, you could list many other top quality producers. In this kind of competitive environment you have to price competitively as well, the fact GW aren't is probably a big reason why they aren't growing in a rapidly growing industry.
Well, military stuff tends to look on the rugged side. The US Marines use this guy: Just need to up-design it to be able to carry a space marine. (According to the Deathwatch core rulebook (page 28), while wearing power armour a Marine weighs between 500-1,000 kilograms, or 1,100-2,200 pounds.) So a "proper" motorcycle to compare is the "V-type Gunbus 410": Maximum engine torque: 710 Nm at 1900 RPM Total weight, empty/curb weight: 650 kg which still seems more like a child's toy (<edit>1433 lbs!). All that is left is the world's biggest bike: made by Harzer Bike Schmiede It is powered by an old tank engine. 4.749 tonnes (10,470 lb), that seems a bit better in comparison (<edit> Note: it would compare better if the not shown here side-car was removed... un-drivable by normal people however if done). 5.28 m (17 ft 4 in) Long, 2.29 m ( 7ft 6 in) tall which again the ratio seems about right.
Point being: The bikes look awful? Look how big they need to get to carry those heavy guys. No spokes or hubless wheels for them!
Let us just say my sense of immersion is not shocked by the present designs. Plus it was fun looking this stuff up... what COULD a marine ride now, never mind super future high tech materials... yeah!
Talizvar wrote: Well, military stuff tends to look on the rugged side.
The US Marines use this guy:
Just need to up-design it to be able to carry a space marine.
(According to the Deathwatch core rulebook (page 28), while wearing power armour a Marine weighs between 500-1,000 kilograms, or 1,100-2,200 pounds.)
So a "proper" motorcycle to compare is the "V-type Gunbus 410":
Maximum engine torque: 710 Nm at 1900 RPM
Total weight, empty/curb weight: 650 kg which still seems more like a child's toy (<edit>1433 lbs!).
All that is left is the world's biggest bike: made by Harzer Bike Schmiede
It is powered by an old tank engine.
4.749 tonnes (10,470 lb), that seems a bit better in comparison (<edit> Note: it would compare better if the not shown here side-car was removed... un-drivable by normal people however if done).
5.28 m (17 ft 4 in) Long, 2.29 m ( 7ft 6 in) tall which again the ratio seems about right.
Point being: The bikes look awful? Look how big they need to get to carry those heavy guys.
No spokes or hubless wheels for them!
Let us just say my sense of immersion is not shocked by the present designs.
Plus it was fun looking this stuff up... what COULD a marine ride now, never mind super future high tech materials... yeah!
the fact the useless power armour weights 2000 pounds is slowed to begin with
I thought sm bikes were amazing when they came out in 97, but they look horrendously dated now. Those forge world outriders are where it's at for me now. I'm not even running bikes in my wolves and I still want a set.
The 2000 AD Lawmaster that every SM rides *is* horribly dated. It's a mid-1970s design from Judge Dredd that has been conceptually silly since the 1990s.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The 2000 AD Lawmaster that every SM rides *is* horribly dated. It's a mid-1970s design from Judge Dredd that has been conceptually silly since the 1990s.
Yep its a Lawmaster, hands down. I did quite like painting a pair of them when I was 16 though, in fact I was all over the light vehicles. The eldar jetbike and the gorkamorka vehicles kept me interested in the hobby for a few years.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The 2000 AD Lawmaster that every SM rides *is* horribly dated. It's a mid-1970s design from Judge Dredd that has been conceptually silly since the 1990s.
What has a comic reference to do with this, the other Hips kits have been updated but the bikes not yet, Shouldn't there be Attack bikes now with grav cannons?
The new assault squad is £25 as opposed to £20.50.
That's as near as dammit a 20% price rise
I stand corrected Azrael, missed that. Was comparing the price to the tacticals, but just noticed the new tactical squad has crept up to €35 too...not happy.
I'm of the opinion that most of the boxes of core models (Guardsmen, Firewarriors, Lesser daemons, Boyz, Tac Marines etc) are amongst the best value that GW offer.
This is speaking relatively, of course, they still don't compare too favourable to the price per model of many of the other producers.
oh look, another post whining about price, ignore that video games, warmahordes, and other similar hobbies are all around the same cost, why is it that these kinds of posts don't get locked, but if you bring up that fact, your post gets locked and everyone jumps on you like your the anti-christ?
Brennonjw wrote: oh look, another post whining about price, ignore that video games, warmahordes, and other similar hobbies are all around the same cost, why is it that these kinds of posts don't get locked, but if you bring up that fact, your post gets locked and everyone jumps on you like your the anti-christ?
It's obviously a grand conspiracy.
Dakka is committed to destroying GW.
But you man, you're not like the rest of the sheeple. You see through it all. Take the RedPill.
Brennonjw wrote: oh look, another post whining about price, ignore that video games, warmahordes, and other similar hobbies are all around the same cost, why is it that these kinds of posts don't get locked, but if you bring up that fact, your post gets locked and everyone jumps on you like your the anti-christ?
It's obviously a grand conspiracy.
Dakka is committed to destroying GW.
But you man, you're not like the rest of the sheeple. You see through it all. Take the RedPill.
totally I'm seriously just confused, box by box, it costs less than warmachine (though you need more of it), about the same as buying a video game every month, matches the entry cost of a new console, why the General hate? If you don't like the game, stop talking about it.
Brennonjw wrote: oh look, another post whining about price, ignore that video games, warmahordes, and other similar hobbies are all around the same cost, why is it that these kinds of posts don't get locked, but if you bring up that fact, your post gets locked and everyone jumps on you like your the anti-christ?
Because you're rude about people and confrontational, but the only thing actually resembling an argument in your post is a well trodden and widely disproved fallacy?
Brennonjw wrote: oh look, another post whining about price, ignore that video games, warmahordes, and other similar hobbies are all around the same cost, why is it that these kinds of posts don't get locked, but if you bring up that fact, your post gets locked and everyone jumps on you like your the anti-christ?
Because you're rude about people and confrontational, but the only thing actually resembling an argument in your post is a well trodden and widely disproved fallacy?
why? I see posts just like mine on every thread asking "why the GW hate", don't see anyone up in arms about those
costs less than warmachine (though you need more of it)
Which ignores the cost of rules and total cost for a reasonable sized army.
about the same as buying a video game every month
Which is relevant how? Buying a Ferrari is also incredibly expensive, and watching paint dry is incredibly cheap. What's the point in comparing them? Compare wargaming to wargaming, the same wayu you'd compare video games to other video games, or cars to cars.
You wouldn't compare the cost of woodworking to gardening would you?
matches the entry cost of a new console
And? So? Therefore?
why the General hate? If you don't like the game, stop talking about it.
People are upset because they fething care. That's the idea! People don't get upset about things they don't care about.
The opposite of love isn't hate, its apathy.
Basically your argument is nothing but fallacies and insults in your first post.
costs less than warmachine (though you need more of it)
Which ignores the cost of rules and total cost for a reasonable sized army.
about the same as buying a video game every month
Which is relevant how? Buying a Ferrari is also incredibly expensive, and watching paint dry is incredibly cheap. What's the point in comparing them? Compare wargaming to wargaming, the same wayu you'd compare video games to other video games, or cars to cars.
You wouldn't compare the cost of woodworking to gardening would you?
matches the entry cost of a new console
And? So? Therefore?
why the General hate? If you don't like the game, stop talking about it.
People are upset because they fething care. That's the idea! People don't get upset about things they don't care about.
The opposite of love isn't hate, its apathy.
Basically your argument is nothing but fallacies and insults in your first post.
What insults? I asked why posts like this don't get locked, when ones complaining about the complainers do. The point of bringing up other things, is that people love to spout out that warhammer is expensive, and yes it is, but no more expensive than many other hobbies, that's the point of comparing them. My point boils down to that if we allow the people who are upset to post about it, even if it ads nothing to the conversation than "I think they cost a lot", why do we lock the posts that say "I think people complain about it a lot"?
Also, I was just wondering, what would you consider a reasonable sized army? 1500? 1850? just curious.
Brennonjw wrote: oh look, another post whining about price, ignore that video games, warmahordes, and other similar hobbies are all around the same cost, why is it that these kinds of posts don't get locked, but if you bring up that fact, your post gets locked and everyone jumps on you like your the anti-christ?
Because you're rude about people and confrontational, but the only thing actually resembling an argument in your post is a well trodden and widely disproved fallacy?
why? I see posts just like mine on every thread asking "why the GW hate", don't see anyone up in arms about those
Would you rather be ignored?
Just because others do it doesn't make a good excuse to make inflammatory arguments. (aka attention getting) (also obviously loaded questions and what not)
Brennonjw wrote: oh look, another post whining about price, ignore that video games, warmahordes, and other similar hobbies are all around the same cost, why is it that these kinds of posts don't get locked, but if you bring up that fact, your post gets locked and everyone jumps on you like your the anti-christ?
Because you're rude about people and confrontational, but the only thing actually resembling an argument in your post is a well trodden and widely disproved fallacy?
why? I see posts just like mine on every thread asking "why the GW hate", don't see anyone up in arms about those
Dude, you just answered a question with a question.
You see posts like yours in every thread, so you've no doubt seen the typical responses to those posts, why did you feel the need to hurl yourself on the bandwagon with such gusto?
Brennonjw wrote: oh look, another post whining about price, ignore that video games, warmahordes, and other similar hobbies are all around the same cost, why is it that these kinds of posts don't get locked, but if you bring up that fact, your post gets locked and everyone jumps on you like your the anti-christ?
Because you're rude about people and confrontational, but the only thing actually resembling an argument in your post is a well trodden and widely disproved fallacy?
why? I see posts just like mine on every thread asking "why the GW hate", don't see anyone up in arms about those
Dude, you just answered a question with a question.
You see posts like yours in every thread, so you've no doubt seen the typical responses to those posts, why did you feel the need to hurl yourself on the bandwagon with such gusto?
I'm sorry, I worded that poorly. On posts asking "why the GW" hate, I see tones of people answering that "oh look, a person whining about whiners". I'm just wondering why it's more acceptable on dakka to hate GW than it is to ask why the hate.
Brennonjw wrote: oh look, another post whining about price, ignore that video games, warmahordes, and other similar hobbies are all around the same cost, why is it that these kinds of posts don't get locked, but if you bring up that fact, your post gets locked and everyone jumps on you like your the anti-christ?
It was not specifically about "whining about price".
Some productive statements of why some "are" buying and their reasons.
While others state they are "not" buying and their reasons.
Nice to see you acknowledge with your opening statement that GW can be a controversial topic.
Topics of this nature tend to get locked if people get personal in their "jumping all over you" or too many posts with nothing constructive to add occur.
<edit> I suspect the condescending tone of the post is the greater reason for being treated like an "anti-Christ", go looking for trouble, "oh look," you find it!
Personally, the examples you gave have a subjective "value for money" that appears greater than many GW product, never mind game rule systems.
You do however have a point that the costing itself is very similar model for model.
The base cost to get to play the game however is vastly different from GW to Warmahordes and a "video game".
- GW: Big rule book, Codex, minimum models for a valid game.
- Warmahordes: Rulebook, minimum models for a valid game (model info on included cards).
- Video game: Base system PC, console, purchased game (download or DVD).
I have a vested interest in GW product because I started when GW had "good" rules and the pricing seemed competitive on all levels.
Past performance vs. present is where the perceived "whining" is about the "good ol' days" with hopes of seeing them again.
Brennonjw wrote: oh look, another post whining about price, ignore that video games, warmahordes, and other similar hobbies are all around the same cost, why is it that these kinds of posts don't get locked, but if you bring up that fact, your post gets locked and everyone jumps on you like your the anti-christ?
Because you're rude about people and confrontational, but the only thing actually resembling an argument in your post is a well trodden and widely disproved fallacy?
why? I see posts just like mine on every thread asking "why the GW hate", don't see anyone up in arms about those
Dude, you just answered a question with a question.
You see posts like yours in every thread, so you've no doubt seen the typical responses to those posts, why did you feel the need to hurl yourself on the bandwagon with such gusto?
I'm sorry, I worded that poorly. On posts asking "why the GW" hate, I see tones of people answering that "oh look, a person whining about whiners". I'm just wondering why it's more acceptable on dakka to hate GW than it is to ask why the hate.
Because people complaining about GW are generally complaining about something.
Not only do people complaining about complaining not actually have any substance to their argument, they frequently frame it in inflammatory language.
Brennonjw wrote: oh look, another post whining about price, ignore that video games, warmahordes, and other similar hobbies are all around the same cost, why is it that these kinds of posts don't get locked, but if you bring up that fact, your post gets locked and everyone jumps on you like your the anti-christ?
It was not specifically about "whining about price".
Some productive statements of why some "are" buying and their reasons.
While others state they are "not" buying and their reasons.
Nice to see you acknowledge with your opening statement that GW can be a controversial topic.
Topics of this nature tend to get locked if people get personal in their "jumping all over you" or too many posts with nothing constructive to add occur.
<edit> I suspect the condescending tone of the post is the greater reason for being treated like an "anti-Christ", go looking for trouble, "oh look," you find it!
Personally, the examples you gave have a subjective "value for money" that appears greater than many GW product, never mind game rule systems.
You do however have a point that the costing itself is very similar model for model.
The base cost to get to play the game however is vastly different from GW to Warmahordes and a "video game".
- GW: Big rule book, Codex, minimum models for a valid game.
- Warmahordes: Rulebook, minimum models for a valid game (model info on included cards).
- Video game: Base system PC, console, purchased game (download or DVD).
I have a vested interest in GW product because I started when GW had "good" rules and the pricing seemed competitive on all levels.
Past performance vs. present is where the perceived "whining" is about the "good ol' days" with hopes of seeing them again.
I see your points, and tend to agree with you, nicley worded. The condecending tone was probably a bad idea, I was basically trying to copy the feel of the posts I see on most, if not all of the threads questioning the GW hate, I messed up, time to deal with the consequences
Brennonjw wrote: I'm sorry, I worded that poorly. On posts asking "why the GW" hate, I see tones of people answering that "oh look, a person whining about whiners". I'm just wondering why it's more acceptable on dakka to hate GW than it is to ask why the hate.
Yeah, the wording you chose was about perfect to get a rise out of people (myself included).
GW "hate" may appear more acceptable because much of the communication from a corporate level is rather condescending and appears to have little care for their customers. Comments in the financial reports are a good read to get the idea.
"Why the hate" is asking for us to examine why we get upset with GW. Mine is that when I started they were "doing it right" it was an exciting time. Now I feel like a wallet with legs rather than part of a community which they were quite good at for a time.
Also when you have much money "invested" in their product it is irritating when you see their game system go in a direction you may not agree with.
I like meeting new players, "pick-up" games are proving difficult with their present rule-set.
It may just be another game and you do not think about it much, that is fine too.
You're right, I should have used a different word. Your post was hyperbolic and non-sensical and laden with fallacies. Better?
The point of bringing up other things, is that people love to spout out that warhammer is expensive, and yes it is, but no more expensive than many other hobbies, that's the point of comparing them. My point boils down to that if we allow the people who are upset to post about it, even if it ads nothing to the conversation than "I think they cost a lot", why do we lock the posts that say "I think people complain about it a lot"?
And my point is that those comparisons are completely and totally useless. Compare like to like. Compare 40k to other wargames, nothing else. Again, you don't compare gardening to shooting, so why compare 40k to any other hobby? Luxury yachting is infinitely more expensive than watching your grass grow, but what does that have to do with anything?
The only comparison in your first post that was relevant was WM/H, which as has been pointed out, is cheaper to buy into, cheaper to buy a tournament sized army, and has better written rules.
Also, I was just wondering, what would you consider a reasonable sized army? 1500? 1850? just curious.
I was talking to my mate at the game store last week, and we discussed this. The thing I do find most bizarre is that its always the biggest collectors that have the biggest hate for GW, its never the new kid trying to break into the hobby is it?
Log on dakka and see the really irrational stuff and its always someone who has been into the hobby for twenty years and remembers the good old days.
Anyway, I remember the good old days, it was much better. fething hell, even White Dwarf was worth buying. Alas, it has all gone to gak now, but it still doesn't mean there is any need for the most ridiculous vitriol.
GW is a gakky company. So what? I'm 35 years old now, it seems like the entire planet has took a leaf out of Americas marketing handbook and the entire world is full of gakky companies. They exist to make a profit, they exist to sell us gak. You can make the argument that GW does it particularly badly (their marketing strategy is definitely a bad one in my opinion) but that doesn't mean their models suck, clearly they do not. Indeed, if you make the claim, I instantly think you are not being objective. Occasionally they make a gakky one, but some of GWs models are absolute pearlers. Even the most vehement GW hater in my FLGS does not make the ridiculous claim that their models "suck."
So to answer the question, you can hate the company but still occasionally buy GW models. I dont see what all the fuss is about really, its not difficult to get started, go halves on a starter box and drop $150 dollars a year and you soon have a big army to play with.
As I always say, I probably only spend about that, and I have a vast collection of minis. I still don't think the price is prohibitively expensive, it just feels that way because everything was so much cheaper 20 years ago.
Brennonjw wrote: I'm seriously just confused, box by box, it costs less than warmachine
Well, now you've done it, you've summoned the Warhamordes White Knights!
Battlecry: Facts be damned, Warmahordes is cheaper. And better. Except if it's more expensive and you don't like it!
I'm sure you can make numbers dance to prove whatever point a speaker is trying to make, but warmahordes is going to run a bit cheaper due to having smaller armies. Of course, what a lot of people forget is that for steamroller (probably the most common way to play WM/H), you need two 50point lists, which can share models between them but frequently don't. I wouldn't be shocked if the average total cost of a two list Steamroller event cost slightly more than some 2000pt 40k armies. That being said, high dollar cost, low point cost options from either will sway that dramatically.
Where Wm/H has a real advantage is that while 50pt, two list steamrollers is probably the most common way to play, it's certainly not the only way, and with comprehensive league support single list 50pt armies shine. At that point, unless you're building a wacky list, your investment will be significantly cheaper than 40k, while also playing meaningful games at the lower points values.
And don't get them started on how PP backpedaled about "Play like you got a pair!" and how they would never move to plastic. Right.
Yeah, I remember thinking their earlier mentality was really cool. Of course, that was ten years ago when they were a fringe upstart. Now their a solid #2 to 40k, and they've both toned down their marketing pitch and expanded the materials used to reach a bigger audience. As a hobbyist, I strongly prefer metal to Restic, but it's a lot easier for casual gamers to build an army.
They are moving to plastic now too (unless you mean they back-pedalled on saying 'we won't move to plastic' in which case how is that even an issue?) You don't have to use two lists for most steamrollers I believe (I mean you'll be better off doing so but it isn't forced), your lists can have a lot of crossover, and I'd argue more games are played that aren't steamroller tournaments than are. You can just as easily use one list in a pick up game, tournaments aren't the only way to play like with 40k. The start up cost for Warmahordes is significantly cheaper too.
Sorry, am I white knighting here?
I also don't see the issue with the 'play like you've got a pair' "backpedal"... They still say that in the books, it just has the caveat of basically 'don't use this to be a dick'...
To whine is to "complain in a feeble or petulant way"
If its a widespread sentiment among a lot of players then it's probably valid and therefore probably isn't whining. Grumbling perhaps, but not whining.
By and large, I'm a big fan of gw minis, so it frustrates and angers me when I see yet another price increase. So very occasionally, yes, I grumble! I As much to vent as to to see what other players think about the issue.
Also mutually grumbling can still be constructive:
"The f**king price of missile launchers on ebay is extortionate"
"Then why not convert them out of hunter killer launchers. See this tutorial" =Solution.
WM/H was cheaper when it first came out, but not any more. I just tailed up under current points, and my Cryx force doesn't even fill ONE of the 50-pt lists, to say nothing of the second. I would basically need to triple my "investment' in WMH models to be able to play WMH tournaments, to say nothing of buying all new rulebooks and faction books and so forth. That's a big change from my being able to play as Warmachine tournament "walk on".
I've been that big into the attitude, finding it a bit off-putting. I do like the precision of plastic, but I also like the weight of metal. Definitely, the mellowing of the attitude and has helped them attract more players.
You don't need to buy faction books. You literally just need a rulebook (my Warmachine rulebook cost £15 brand new) and you get all the cards with the models. It still is cheaper, overall, and crucially the start up investment is much much lower.
I often wonder if the retail staff treated the GW customers the way the corporate management think of them, how many loyal fans GW would have?
It would be a bit like a scene from ''The invention of lying'...
''Hello basement dwelling socially inept pathetic looser.''
''I will put up with your bad breath/ hideous body odor / vile skin conditions, if you give me all your money for a few pence worth of plastic.And purchase any of our equally over priced items from our emporium of products you could buy cheaper else where.But fortunately for us you are too stupid or idle to go any where else. ''
Fortunately for the GW fans the retail staff tend to be much nicer human beings than Tom Kirby.
@TheAuldGrump: what the heck is a "gimcracky" miniature???
my argument is not, "i am ok with the way GW does business", it is "i don't care how GW does business"...
i have no control over the choices that management make, so i am not going to stress about it...
if i were the CEO, i would do things differently, but i'm not, so i am not going to worry about things that i cannot change...
the whole Spots the Space Marine debacle may have been stupid on management's part, but it is nothing for me to get upset over...
the Chapterhouse lawsuit, once again, stupid move on management's part in the way they handled facts and testimony, but again, nothing for me to get upset over...
you seem to want people to be moral crusaders against the people in charge of the company, when the people in charge of the company are not the ones actually doing the actual creative work...
i have said repeatedly, that i support the artists, sculptors, mini painters, and fiction writers...
they are the guys producing the Space Marines i like so much, drawing them, sculpting them, and painting them...
i am not going to write off the design studio's good work, simply because the guys in charge are jerks...
i buy miniatures that i like the look of, then i paint them and sell them...
why should the politics of a company's management be something that i stand up and protest, when i don't care about those things???
what i do care about is whether or not the design studio is producing miniatures that i want to paint...
if the answer is yes, then i buy them...
if the answer is no, then i don't...
it's pretty simple...
i would never presume to tell anybody what they should be doing with their own time or money, or even care what someone chooses to do with their time and money...
the only person i have any control over is myself, and i wouldn't want it any other way...
jah-joshua wrote: i buy miniatures that i like the look of, then i paint them and sell them...
why should the politics of a company's management be something that i stand up and protest, when i don't care about those things???
When those politics are having a direct effect on other companies or independant artists, it's worth stepping up and caring, at least a little.
The Spots the Space Marine debacle may not feel like it affected you personally... but ultimately corporations over-stepping their bounds where copyright is concerned should be something that every artist cares about, because in many cases their livelihood depends on companies not getting stupid with their IP.
JohnHwangDD wrote: WM/H was cheaper when it first came out, but not any more. I just tailed up under current points, and my Cryx force doesn't even fill ONE of the 50-pt lists, to say nothing of the second. I would basically need to triple my "investment' in WMH models to be able to play WMH tournaments, to say nothing of buying all new rulebooks and faction books and so forth. That's a big change from my being able to play as Warmachine tournament "walk on".
I've been that big into the attitude, finding it a bit off-putting. I do like the precision of plastic, but I also like the weight of metal. Definitely, the mellowing of the attitude and has helped them attract more players.
You dont need to buy the faction books. Only the much cheaper rule book. Every time you attempt to talk about WMH you demonstrate your ignorance on the subject. My 50pt COC army cost me $300, including rules. Can WMH be expensive? Absolutely. More than 40k? No. But I dont go to tournaments.
jah-joshua wrote: i buy miniatures that i like the look of, then i paint them and sell them...
why should the politics of a company's management be something that i stand up and protest, when i don't care about those things???
When those politics are having a direct effect on other companies or independant artists, it's worth stepping up and caring, at least a little.
The Spots the Space Marine debacle may not feel like it affected you personally... but ultimately corporations over-stepping their bounds where copyright is concerned should be something that every artist cares about, because in many cases their livelihood depends on companies not getting stupid with their IP.
This makes me think of the CHS case, where GW tried to basically trick artists of older publications into signing away their rights to their materials.
jah-joshua wrote: i buy miniatures that i like the look of, then i paint them and sell them...
why should the politics of a company's management be something that i stand up and protest, when i don't care about those things???
When those politics are having a direct effect on other companies or independant artists, it's worth stepping up and caring, at least a little.
The Spots the Space Marine debacle may not feel like it affected you personally... but ultimately corporations over-stepping their bounds where copyright is concerned should be something that every artist cares about, because in many cases their livelihood depends on companies not getting stupid with their IP.
But this is not limited to GW. For instance, Sky networks made Microsoft change the name, SkyDrive. I mean, how do you copyright the word, "Sky"? Look at the billions Microsoft has milked out of Android.
Every company with the capability to do so vigilantly defends its IP or perceived IP, to the maximum extent allowed by law. It's not evil corporations... it's just smart businesses in today's landscape.
jah-joshua wrote: i buy miniatures that i like the look of, then i paint them and sell them...
why should the politics of a company's management be something that i stand up and protest, when i don't care about those things???
When those politics are having a direct effect on other companies or independant artists, it's worth stepping up and caring, at least a little.
The Spots the Space Marine debacle may not feel like it affected you personally... but ultimately corporations over-stepping their bounds where copyright is concerned should be something that every artist cares about, because in many cases their livelihood depends on companies not getting stupid with their IP.
so should i boycott GW because the management are jerks, or should i continue to support a product that i am passionate about???
what is the solution here???
the lady who wrote Spots could have easily named it Spots the Space Soldier, which is a nice bit of alliteration anyway...
how do we know that she wasn't trying to caplitalize off of the popularity of GW's Space Marines???
like i keep saying, if i had the power to make GW management change, i would...
since i have no power, except to vote with my wallet, i continue to purchase products i like, and not purchase products i don't like...
personally, i think replacing metal minis with Finecast was a bad move, so i don't buy Finecast for my collection...
i don't think that redesigning the plastic Devastator kit with a better set of sculpts and more weapon options, then charging a few dollars more than the previous, now inferior, kit IS unjustified, so i will buy that kit...
so why could she not have titled the book Spots the Space Soldier???
it was a self-published book, right???
i have a feeling that a publishing company would have asked for a title change before release, for exactly the reason that GW management went after her...
a simple Google search of Space Marine will show you who has the most recognizable product under that name, even though Heinlein is credited with first using the name in his novels in 1939...
maybe Heinlein's estate should sue GW...
that would be a bit of karma...
jah-joshua wrote: so why could she not have titled the book Spots the Space Soldier???
As I said, she COULD but she shouldn't HAVE TO. "Space Marine" is a generic thing that GW can't and shouldn't own. Their own take on it, the Adeptus Astartes is one thing but them claiming to own "Space Marines" is kinda like Burger King claiming to own the word "burger".
ah, i see...
your quote boxes were all wonky when i read your post...
i didn't see the "she could, but shouldn't have to" bit...
essentially, i agree with you, but i don't blame GW for trying to protect their IP...
i don't have to like the way they go about it, but obviously, it doesn't bother me enough to make me boycott the company...
the things i like about GW's products outweigh the things i don't like about the way the company is run...
on the topic of price, they have not passed beyond what i am willing to pay...
they may, one day, but they haven't yet...
Talizvar wrote: It can boil down to "why reward bad behavior?".
if you can separate the raw product from those who provide it in your mind you may feel better.
When seeing bad behavior of an artist or company it is a mixed feeling giving money to someone / something you ethically do not agree with.
At some point you draw the line when the product is not worth enough to you to fund someone's bad lifestyle.
Exactly.
And it why some folks (myself included) get annoyed when folks say that they are okay with the way GW does business.
That the price gouging, poor rules, gimcracky miniatures, and IP bullying is just 'the way GW does business'.
I think that the Spots the Space Marine did more damage to GW than any number of online complaints.
And GW did that all by themselves.
The Auld Grump
Not everyone agrees that they have poor rules or "gimcracky" miniatures, I hope that doesn't actually annoy you. Some of their prices are very high, some not, wouldn't call it gouging unless you'd call, say, Warmachine or Star Wars Armada the same. IP bullying is indeed horrible, but it's something most large companies do (for example, video game companies), and while it makes me annoyed at their legal department, it doesn't really affect the way I feel about their product. There are a whole lot of companies that do much worse things but whose products I still use, and I suspect the same is true for most people.
JohnHwangDD wrote: WM/H was cheaper when it first came out, but not any more. I just tailed up under current points, and my Cryx force doesn't even fill ONE of the 50-pt lists, to say nothing of the second. I would basically need to triple my "investment' in WMH models to be able to play WMH tournaments, to say nothing of buying all new rulebooks and faction books and so forth. That's a big change from my being able to play as Warmachine tournament "walk on".
I've been that big into the attitude, finding it a bit off-putting. I do like the precision of plastic, but I also like the weight of metal. Definitely, the mellowing of the attitude and has helped them attract more players.
- You don't need Faction Books (all models come with their cards)
- The main rule book is significantly cheaper, and is available in paperback if you want to get cheaper again
- IIRC the only tournament format which requires multiple lists is Iron Gauntlet. Most steamroller formats are 'up to 2/3' lists.
- If you're desperate to play in a tournament which requires 2 or 3 lists, simply buying one more caster suffices.
- Last time I checked 2 50pt lists was still cheaper than 1 1750pt 40k list.
Talizvar wrote: It can boil down to "why reward bad behavior?".
if you can separate the raw product from those who provide it in your mind you may feel better.
When seeing bad behavior of an artist or company it is a mixed feeling giving money to someone / something you ethically do not agree with.
At some point you draw the line when the product is not worth enough to you to fund someone's bad lifestyle.
I can understand this point but - and however much some dislike this - you have to put it in context with other large companies. GW is about average. I buy rather little GW, but I pay a lot for Apple stuff to use for work, I pay a lot of money to energy companies, I probably contribute huge amounts to Google and they are all far less ethical than GW.
GW have a patronising moron for a chairman and hike prices far too quickly. But they don't have high incidence of worker suicides and profit from regimes with poor human rights.
Every company with the capability to do so vigilantly defends its IP or perceived IP, to the maximum extent allowed by law. it's just smart businesses in today's landscape.
Not smart if it does more damage to the company than the original "infraction" would ever have caused...
so should i boycott GW because the management are jerks, or should i continue to support a product that i am passionate about???
what is the solution here???
like i keep saying, if i had the power to make GW management change, i would...
since i have no power, except to vote with my wallet, i continue to purchase products i like, and not purchase products i don't like...
Keep buying what you want to buy. I'll be doing the same.
jah-joshua wrote: @TheAuldGrump: what the heck is a "gimcracky" miniature???
Sorry, archaic North American colloquialism.
Gimcrack is excessive detail that does not add to the appearance or value of a place or object. (An example would be too much gingerbread on a Victorian house.) And that extra detail may obscure shoddy workmanship. *EDIT* Merriam-Webster definition
GW has been adding detail in amounts that actively detract from the appearance of their models.
Not always - their High Elves, for example, have a nice level of detail - adding things like button loops and buttons does not hurt the model. (I do not love all of their High Elf models - but the ones that I painted on commission were very nice indeed - and the customer skipped the eagle with a trailer hitch....)
Adding gobs, and gobs of skulls, on the other hand... does not help the model.
In my opinion it is lazy craftsmanship they are using the ease of adding detail via computer design and 3d printing, in a ham handed cut-n-paste fashion.
There is an art to knowing when to stop adding detail - this is like a kid adding stickers to a notebook so that they clash with each other.
Accolade wrote: @ auld: I think space marines centurions are a good example of "gimcrack"
It is possible that is one of the examples that I was thinking of, yes....
I think that a turning point for me, though, was looking at the latest Vampire Counts models a few years ago... and realizing that I didn't want any of them. (Though I will admit, the job Tin Racer did of turning the Mortis Engine into a merry-go-round made me smile.)
The Auld Grump - I didn't even buy Dark Vengeance - and I had a Dark Angels army since first edition.
Gimcrack is excessive detail that does not add to the appearance or value of a place or object.
Thanks, that is a damn useful word that spot on describes a lot of what I don't like about sci-fi designs that rely on high /repetitive detail to make up for poor or mundane form and other aesthetics. Gimcrack...memorising now
Talizvar wrote: I like meeting new players, "pick-up" games are proving difficult with their present rule-set.
On that note (and in an attempt to get some positive stuff in this thread) where in Canada are you? I'm in Burlington, Ontario. I'd love to meet for a pick-up game at some point in the future. I'm still pretty green on this edition, but I've been in the game since 4th.
Azreal13 wrote: Is there a distinction between gimcrack and greeble?
If I remember properly, Greeble was a term coined by a properties master for a film company - and means 'stuff added to a model that it looks like it does something (even though it doesn't)'.
So, similar. The difference is that gimcrack doesn't look like it does anything.
Haven't bought a model in around a year. Sold ~75% of all of my 40k in the last two years, down to one army. I've also been selling all of my good friend's, one of the guys who got me into 40k, remaining armies. Plus all of his remaining Fantasy. Not to mention the formerly strong local 40k community is virtually extinct, I can only think of one new player in the last two years, he chose CSM, and is so frustrated he no longer plays. Where we'd have 6-9 games on a 40k night there may be 1.
Talizvar wrote: It can boil down to "why reward bad behavior?".
if you can separate the raw product from those who provide it in your mind you may feel better.
When seeing bad behavior of an artist or company it is a mixed feeling giving money to someone / something you ethically do not agree with.
At some point you draw the line when the product is not worth enough to you to fund someone's bad lifestyle.
I can understand this point but - and however much some dislike this - you have to put it in context with other large companies. GW is about average. I buy rather little GW, but I pay a lot for Apple stuff to use for work, I pay a lot of money to energy companies, I probably contribute huge amounts to Google and they are all far less ethical than GW.
GW have a patronising moron for a chairman and hike prices far too quickly. But they don't have high incidence of worker suicides and profit from regimes with poor human rights.
This is very true, in the grand scheme of things GW are an ethical company.
With the wealth info available these days, shining a light onto the murkier areas of business practice, I think a lot of people are more consientious. I don't buy McDonalds for instance, after reading about practises in their toy production facilities, or try not to buy from Amazon (it's difficult!) because of the tax business. I try to buy Nokia phones (again difficult! ) after reading about the way Samsung and Apple obtain materials for their phones from the Congo. You certainly don't read any stories about workers being burned alive because their overseers had locked the fire exits.
So, in this vein, I think if GW were honestly producing a game I was interested in playing, the bad treatment of fans, lack of social media etc. and other things are really more of an 'annoyance' than something that would out and out stop you buying from them, as posted in the examples above. I will still buy a miniature if I see a nice one I want to paint, and can appreciate them when painted and modelled well by others.
I do think though that the 'corporate bigwigs', 'money men/sales team' or however you want to call them, are interfering with what the core of artists and creatives are trying to do, and I think generally have made the company excessively conservative compared to how they used to be. The name 'Games Workshop' did really apply at one time, and the company were head and shoulders above the competition in terms of games, rules, miniatures. Now, really that name has become something of an ironic reminder of what used to be.
So while I agree to an extent with what Jah-Joshua and other guys have said here, while you might be happy with the current state of affairs, it's too hard to not imagine what they could be doing if they were more effectively managed and the creative guys were allowed greater freedoms. The industry has grown in breadth, people are still buying GW models, but they're also buying a lot of other stuff too.
I agree with a lot of what Hive Fleet Oblivion and Pacific have said in terms of GW's corporate citizenship.
Their chairman is a douche, but the job of a chairman or CEO of a large company is to maximize share profits, not to make players happy.
From a governance and corporate citizenry perspective, I'm just as happy to pay a company a relatively high price for product if I can afford it, if it means that this allows them to keep production "ethical" (eg no child labour, no suicide workers, no slave labour, no working in unsafe/toxic environments, etc), and even more if primary manufacture can be in a first-world country. GW doesn't horde its cash in other countries to avoid paying taxes, it doesn't mistreat its workers (to the degree that other companies that take stuff offshore to a large degree do, anyhow), pays its workers wages that are competitive in the nations it operates in, and so on.
How much more would I pay for that? In other things (like cell phones and PCs) probably a maximum of double. After that, I would say, the manufacturer needs to find efficiencies somewhere to be competitive. In miniatures, maybe a little more, because at the end of the day, as I like to say, fifty bucks is only fifty bucks. Whether I get one miniature more or less hardly matters. It's not like making a $1,000+ purchase for a tablet or cell phone, and I'm not stuck with it for a couple of years.
Like you, Pacific, I buy Nokia phones (now Microsoft), avoid Apple products, use Bing instead of Google (as the lesser of two evils), and buy Samsung only for their TVs... because they are so damn good, lol.
When push comes to shove, I'll buy the product I want, sadly. But I think this is so for most people.
The moral ethics of a company like GW are certainly something I notice, but they don't generally influence my purchasing habits of their goods that much: for example, I thought the Spots the Space Marine thing was an incredible douchey move that I have no problem calling them out for, but it's not something that was so negative that I'd stop purchasing from them (ie. the way many clothing manufacturers operate). I realize I'd be hypocritical for freaking out against GW for this (in the scale of things) relatively minor upset.
What I DO take issue with is the way they treat their game. I tend to come at it from the perspective of the customer, and I strongly feel that GW is giving us an increasingly poor value for the cost of purchasing/playing the game.
The bombardment of codexes and rule cycles is one of the most egregious issues, as it represents the single biggest attempt to "gouge" customers. This comes through (a) not actually improving the rule sets as they come out, but instead just mixing up the game and maintaining the swinging imbalances; (b) continuing to shorten the rules cycles, thereby exacerbating the issues even more; and (c) effectively using the rules as a vehicle to sell miniatures, via constant game point inflation and a wildly swinging meta.
These to me are much better reasons for having issue with what GW is doing. There is so little concern over selling a game now, and instead it's all about taking the maximum amount of money from the customer without doing anything to bump up the experience.
so should i boycott GW because the management are jerks, or should i continue to support a product that i am passionate about???
That's up to you.
the lady who wrote Spots could have easily named it Spots the Space Soldier, which is a nice bit of alliteration anyway...
She could have. Instead, she chose to use a different name, that used a term that is not, despite their claims to the contrary, the property of Games Workshop.
Authors shouldn't have to censor themselves out of a fear that some company that they've quite possibly never even heard of will claim ownership of generic terms that are commonly used in a given genre.
jah-joshua wrote:
essentially, i agree with you, but i don't blame GW for trying to protect their IP...
You really should, there's no reason for that sort of crap.
easy, Tiger...
a company should be able to protect their IP, and GW has over 30 years behind their investment in Space Marines...
whether they have a real right to the name is up to a court to decide, not me...
if some new lawyer at GWHQ was trying to make his bones by going after Spots, or if Kirby was in a mood, i don't know...
i highly doubt that Jes, Darren, and a the rest of the designers got together and decided Spots must be crushed...
at the end of the day, the attention brought by the FAILED attempt to squash Spots brought more attention to the author, and her biggest royalty checks ever...
Spots is still a Space Marine, and still available on Amazon...
if you really think that GW should not try to protect what they perceive to be their IP, that is your choice...
telling me that i should blame them, is stepping over the line...
when people try to pass off one of my painted minis as their work, it is infuriating, and i have to protect my hard work...
i've also been accused of trying to pass off Ali McVey's work as my own on the 'Eavy Metal Facebook page by some random guy, even though i painted for PP for a few years, and all the minis i showed off were my own work, so i have been on both sides of the equation...
GW management's bungled attempts at protecting their perceived IP make them look like some bad parody of a thug in a Pink Panther movie...
i think that they were right to go after Chapterhouse, with models that he was selling like the female Striking Scorpion...
they stepped way over the line on the amount of things they tried to claim as theirs, and got slapped down on a lot of it...
it hurt GW's image, as did Spots, and cost them a boatload of money...
maybe it taught a lesson to the higher-ups, as they seem a lot less litigious since those two cases...
is it worth me getting worked up over???
not in my opinion...
if you are going to produce a product for sale, when you know that a company has already been producing their own product under the same name for over 30 years, or are selling a sculpt based on a unit that GW's designers clearly did invent (ie Chapterhouse's female Striking Scorpion), you have to expect a bit of backlash from the company (GW) that perceives that as "their" product...
so should i boycott GW because the management are jerks, or should i continue to support a product that i am passionate about???
That's up to you.
the lady who wrote Spots could have easily named it Spots the Space Soldier, which is a nice bit of alliteration anyway...
She could have. Instead, she chose to use a different name, that used a term that is not, despite their claims to the contrary, the property of Games Workshop.
Authors shouldn't have to censor themselves out of a fear that some company that they've quite possibly never even heard of will claim ownership of generic terms that are commonly used in a given genre.
as i said in the previous reply to CrashGordon, people seem to overlook the fact that GW lost on their claim, and the author of Spots cashed in...
as i also said earlier, a simple Google search of the term Space Marine by the author would have brought up heaps of pics of the main image of what a Space Marine is in the eyes of the world...
hint, it is a GW product...
i agree with you, "Authors shouldn't have to censor themselves out of a fear that some company that they've quite possibly never even heard of will claim ownership of generic terms that are commonly used in a given genre."
turns out they don't, huh???
yes, GW management made a dumb move, was smacked down, and it hurt their reputation...
that is on them...
it is not going to make me dislike the work that the designers do, just make me lose respect for the beancounters running the show...
A Google result doesn't show what a Space Marine looks like "in the eyes of the world."
What an absolutely daft thing to try and argue!
Seriously, give me anything to Google, and in a few seconds I'll know what it looks like.
I don't need to have heard of the thing before that point, I don't need to be aware it exists, and that's exactly what a Space Marine is "in the eyes of the world" - a thing completely unheard of.
Except that unlike say, an obscure medical instrument or some outdated piece of medieval farming equipment, the term "Space Marine" is so generic that any half intelligent person can probably surmise what it is simply from the name, and I bet, if asked to draw one, sight unseen, a good percentage of people with no prior knowledge would draw something with at least some elements that could be ported straight onto GW's version.
Correct me if I'm wrong: The last I heard about Spots the vanguard Veteran with Power Sword was that Amazon immediatly pulled the book when GW lodged their dispute, and the author stated that she hadn't the funds to fight them over it...so it's remained off of Amazon's shelves.So damage done.
In any case I hope GW's execs realised they were being over the top and won't be repeating such ridiculous stunts, it's beneath them. Time will tell I suppose...
Talys wrote: I agree with a lot of what Hive Fleet Oblivion and Pacific have said in terms of GW's corporate citizenship.
Their chairman is a douche, but the job of a chairman or CEO of a large company is to maximize share profits, not to make players happy..
Actually, since players are also the folks that buy the products that his company makes... this is exactly his job.
Happy players make for happy profits. Happy profits make for happy shareholders. Happy shareholders make for a happy CEO....
Alienating the source of your bread and butter is a lousy business tactic.
The Auld Grump
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thegreatchimp wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong: The last I heard about Spots the vanguard Veteran with Power Sword was that Amazon immediatly pulled the book when GW lodged their dispute, and the author stated that she hadn't the funds to fight them over it...so it's remained off of Amazon's shelves.So damage done.
In any case I hope GW's execs realised they were being over the top and won't be repeating such ridiculous stunts, it's beneath them. Time will tell I suppose...
Games Workshop took a bath on it - the EFF stepped in, as did other lawyers providing pro bono representation - and Amazon had already put it back up (just) before the threat of GW being taken to court over this came up.
Games Workshop's legal stance went squish like a cockroach under a shoe.
Azreal13 wrote: A Google result doesn't show what a Space Marine looks like "in the eyes of the world."
What an absolutely daft thing to try and argue!
Seriously, give me anything to Google, and in a few seconds I'll know what it looks like.
I don't need to have heard of the thing before that point, I don't need to be aware it exists, and that's exactly what a Space Marine is "in the eyes of the world" - a thing completely unheard of.
Except that unlike say, an obscure medical instrument or some outdated piece of medieval farming equipment, the term "Space Marine" is so generic that any half intelligent person can probably surmise what it is simply from the name, and I bet, if asked to draw one, sight unseen, a good percentage of people with no prior knowledge would draw something with at least some elements that could be ported straight onto GW's version.
i disagree...
anyone coming up with a new product, whether it be sculpting a miniature, writing a book, or any other commercial endeavor should do their research, and know what products already carry that name...
then it is their choice to carry on, or change their angle...
if you honestly think that a Space Marine, after over 30 years of Warhammer 40,000 and numerous worldwide video game releases (one of which is even titled "Space Marine"), is "a thing completely unheard of" in the eyes of the world, then i have to wonder what rock you live under...
i have never once said that i think GW should be able to trademark the words Space Marine, but if you asked anyone who was not aware of 40K to draw a Space Marine, i am pretty sure that the result would look much more like a character from Aliens or Starship Troopers, and not an 8-foot power armored behemoth...
my point is, which you have neatly side-stepped as usual, there is over 30 years of usage by GW of the term Space Marine, and it is not surprising that they should feel some propriety over the term...
turns out they are wrong, so no worries...
but hey, thanks for trying to imply that i am stupid...again...
Azreal13 wrote:No, still not a fact, just a consensus.
Nope, a fact. Everyone knows it's true and anyone who "disagrees" is wrong.
Not everything in the universe is mutable or opinion-based. That sort of attitude does nothing but support awful behavior by treating it as a choice that someone disagrees with rather than something actually wrong.
Society can't function without moral facts. We'd end up with stuff like innocent people being murdered with it being passed off with "Well, you think it's wrong but that's just your opinion!".
Desubot wrote:Its clearly opinion considering if it was a fact that they shouldn't be doing it "that" way it would be law..
Nope, just means the law is royally screwed up, hardly the only example of that.
Azreal13 wrote:No, still not a fact, just a consensus.
Nope, a fact. Everyone knows it's true and anyone who "disagrees" is wrong.
Not everything in the universe is mutable or opinion-based. That sort of attitude does nothing but support awful behavior by treating it as a choice that someone disagrees with rather than something actually wrong.
Society can't function without moral facts. We'd end up with stuff like innocent people being murdered with it being passed off with "Well, you think it's wrong but that's just your opinion!".
Desubot wrote:Its clearly opinion considering if it was a fact that they shouldn't be doing it "that" way it would be law..
Nope, just means the law is royally screwed up, hardly the only example of that.
Morals aren't subjective?
Ask Ted Bundy.
Society functions on a consensus of rights and wrongs, these are then written into law and enforced by state appointed enforcers (the police.)
Right and wrong are human constructs, they are not facts. Water freezing at 0C is a fact. Killing another person is a thing that most of us have decided is wrong, but there's no way on earth you can prove it, because it isn't a fact, it's just a consensus of opinion.
I am. Although not anywhere near the amount I used to. With price increases, now I just buy a few minis, and maybe a codex or two. The days of buying an entire army on release day are far gone.
CrashGordon94 wrote: ^No they SHOULDN'T "protect their IP" that way, nobody should. Ever. That's not an opinion, it's a simple moral fact.
And you don't have to stop supporting 40k or the models or anything, but don't stand up for GW pulling that lawsuit crap.
Its clearly opinion considering if it was a fact that they shouldn't be doing it "that" way it would be law..
considering that GW got the smackdown over Spots and Chapterhouse, i would say that you are right, Crash...
GW should not protect their IP in the way that they do, simply because it is bad for their reputation...
being so publicly wrong in the internet age is something that doesn't go away so easily...
this is illustrated well here, where many people seem to perceive GW as a bully, even though they lost on so many of their claims...
your moralizing doesn't help your argument...
telling me what i should be up in arms about is over the line, as far as i'm concerned...
i don't know you, but it is pretty obvious that i don't share your moral view...
i think GW was wrong in many of their legal claims, and the court agrees...
that has nothing to do with morality, but a lot to do with good business sense, which GW management has shown a distinct lack of over the last few years...
That's no subjectivity, that's someone being wrong, there's a difference.
An example of subjectivity:
40k fan 1: I like the Dark Angels best.
40k fan 2: I like the Space Wolves best.
An example of someone being wrong:
Random dude: The sky is blue.
Stupid dude: No, it's green!
Azreal13 wrote: Society functions on a consensus of rights and wrongs, these are then written into law and enforced by state appointed enforcers (the police.)
Right and wrong are human constructs, they are not facts. Water freezing at 0C is a fact. Killing another person is a thing that most of us have decided is wrong, but there's no way on earth you can prove it, because it isn't a fact, it's just a consensus of opinion.
No because sometimes the law is quite blatantly wrong (see many of the screwed up laws of older times), but that doesn't change moral facts.
You can prove them, just not THAT way. That's why I said moral fact rather than something like mathematical fact or historical fact. Just because you can't do a mathematical proof of water freezing at 0 degrees Celcius doesn't mean it's subjective, just means you use a different method.
Azreal13 wrote: A Google result doesn't show what a Space Marine looks like "in the eyes of the world."
What an absolutely daft thing to try and argue!
Seriously, give me anything to Google, and in a few seconds I'll know what it looks like.
I don't need to have heard of the thing before that point, I don't need to be aware it exists, and that's exactly what a Space Marine is "in the eyes of the world" - a thing completely unheard of.
Except that unlike say, an obscure medical instrument or some outdated piece of medieval farming equipment, the term "Space Marine" is so generic that any half intelligent person can probably surmise what it is simply from the name, and I bet, if asked to draw one, sight unseen, a good percentage of people with no prior knowledge would draw something with at least some elements that could be ported straight onto GW's version.
i disagree...
anyone coming up with a new product, whether it be sculpting a miniature, writing a book, or any other commercial endeavor should do their research, and know what products already carry that name...
then it is their choice to carry on, or change their angle...
if you honestly think that a Space Marine, after over 30 years of Warhammer 40,000 and numerous worldwide video game releases (one of which is even titled "Space Marine"), is "a thing completely unheard of" in the eyes of the world, then i have to wonder what rock you live under...
i have never once said that i think GW should be able to trademark the words Space Marine, but if you asked anyone who was not aware of 40K to draw a Space Marine, i am pretty sure that the result would look much more like a character from Aliens or Starship Troopers, and not an 8-foot power armored behemoth...
my point is, which you have neatly side-stepped as usual, there is over 30 years of usage by GW of the term Space Marine, and it is not surprising that they should feel some propriety over the term...
turns out they are wrong, so no worries...
but hey, thanks for trying to imply that i am stupid...again...
cheers
jah
You disagree? Really?!!!
Well, first up, I didn't imply you were stupid, I said your argument was, a distinct and important difference.
I'm sure there's a tiny percentage of the population that thinks of the image you're suggesting when "Space Marine" is mentioned, but then, I'm sure there plenty of people who would think of some other image associated with the decades it had been in use before GW co-opted it.
You'll also notice I didn't say "would draw something that looks like a GW Space Marine" (although good try at strawmanning) I said "would include elements that could be ported onto a GW Marine." So, big guns, armour, backpacks, maybe a CCW of some sort. There is nothing unique about the idea of a superhuman space soldier, and while GW have undoubtedly run with the idea to the point that people on the Internet are trying to argue that theirs is the only true Space Marine, the courts decided otherwise.
But, to address the point you accuse me of sidestepping, why would a non-thinking, non-emotional entity like a company "feel" anything? It is a fact they didn't have the ownership of Space Marine they thought they had, their lawyers should have been better at making something protectable or advising them of their vulnerabilities. It's all matters of fact, they can't sue someone because they "feel" entitled to something and win.
Azreal13 wrote:No, still not a fact, just a consensus.
Nope, a fact. Everyone knows it's true and anyone who "disagrees" is wrong.
Not everything in the universe is mutable or opinion-based. That sort of attitude does nothing but support awful behavior by treating it as a choice that someone disagrees with rather than something actually wrong.
Society can't function without moral facts. We'd end up with stuff like innocent people being murdered with it being passed off with "Well, you think it's wrong but that's just your opinion!".
Desubot wrote:Its clearly opinion considering if it was a fact that they shouldn't be doing it "that" way it would be law..
Nope, just means the law is royally screwed up, hardly the only example of that.
Morals aren't subjective?
Ask Ted Bundy.
Society functions on a consensus of rights and wrongs, these are then written into law and enforced by state appointed enforcers (the police.)
Right and wrong are human constructs, they are not facts. Water freezing at 0C is a fact. Killing another person is a thing that most of us have decided is wrong, but there's no way on earth you can prove it, because it isn't a fact, it's just a consensus of opinion.
I really hate to say this, but ask Nazi Germany as well. :(
There are cultures that do not feel that folks should be allowed the luxury of continued breathing, for a multitude of reasons.
That you, or I, or even Ted Bundy feels that something is beyond any morality does not mean that some culture, at some time, and in some place, will not disagree.
For me, that was part of why Oskar Schindler stood out - the man was, well, kind of scummy.
Yet in a position where he had to do something that he found morally reprehensible, he turned around.
But the leadership of his nation would have found his actions to be morally unacceptable.
A society cannot enforce morals, but it can try to enforce either mores, ethics or both.
This is why mores, morals, and ethics are all such very different things.
GW is a company, it cannot have morals, but it can have ethics - and to some extent it does. That these ethics fall short of what much of the public feels should be the case... has an impact upon GW's bottom line.
your moralizing doesn't help your argument...
telling me what i should be up in arms about is over the line, as far as i'm concerned...
Note that I specifically said you didn't have to stop supporting 40k or GW, just admit they were wrong about something.
I personally recognize that (and some other things) as bad things they've done but continue to support 40k anyway, sometimes it's just a matter of admitting that someone you like did something wrong, doesn't necessarily have to change anything.
That's no subjectivity, that's someone being wrong, there's a difference.
An example of subjectivity:
40k fan 1: I like the Dark Angels best.
40k fan 2: I like the Space Wolves best.
An example of someone being wrong:
Random dude: The sky is blue.
Stupid dude: No, it's green!
Azreal13 wrote: Society functions on a consensus of rights and wrongs, these are then written into law and enforced by state appointed enforcers (the police.)
Right and wrong are human constructs, they are not facts. Water freezing at 0C is a fact. Killing another person is a thing that most of us have decided is wrong, but there's no way on earth you can prove it, because it isn't a fact, it's just a consensus of opinion.
No because sometimes the law is quite blatantly wrong (see many of the screwed up laws of older times), but that doesn't change moral facts.
You can prove them, just not THAT way. That's why I said moral fact rather than something like mathematical fact or historical fact. Just because you can't do a mathematical proof of water freezing at 0 degrees Celcius doesn't mean it's subjective, just means you use a different method.
Facts are facts, they don't come in different flavours.
You can measure the wavelengths of the light reflecting from things, so you can prove what colour it is, even if you can't see colours yourself.
You can argue that murder is wrong, the overwhelming majority will agree, but you still can't prove the rightness or wrongness of a thing.
Desubot wrote: Other dude. No the sky is grey ya morons. (Color blind) does that make him wrong?
Yep, because the sky is blue whether he sees it being blue or not. Much like if a deaf person doesn't hear a marching band nearby doesn't mean there isn't a marching band nearby making noise.
We are not Orks, just believing something isn't enough to make it true.
jah-joshua wrote: if you really think that GW should not try to protect what they perceive to be their IP, that is your choice...
See, that's the thing... GW trying to protect what they perceive as their IP is exactly the problem, because what they perceive as their IP has no basis in reality. But they largely get away with it because most of the people they go after can't afford the legal costs of trying to defend themselves.
Just to be clear, are you aware that GW consider this to contain multiple violations of their IP rights? There is no copyright attribution on the image, it's a conversion, and it includes a third party component... all of which GW considers to be a violation. And none of which are actually a violation.
Desubot wrote: Other dude. No the sky is grey ya morons. (Color blind) does that make him wrong?
Yep, because the sky is blue whether he sees it being blue or not. Much like if a deaf person doesn't hear a marching band nearby doesn't mean there isn't a marching band nearby making noise.
We are not Orks, just believing something isn't enough to make it true.
As well you are aware the the sky can be green at times or any number of other colors.
of course believing something doesn't make it true. that's why you have to set out and prove it. now feel free to Prove to me that IP protection of the 3rd kind is in "FACT" morally wrong.
Try and prove to me that the sky is in FACT blue right before a tornado when it is in fact green (ish).
Azreal13 wrote: Facts are facts, they don't come in different flavours.
I certainly find it helpful to label them based on nature, but it's really not important I'l admit.
Azreal13 wrote: You can measure the wavelengths of the light reflecting from things, so you can prove what colour it is, even if you can't see colours yourself.
You can argue that murder is wrong, the overwhelming majority will agree, but you still can't prove the rightness or wrongness of a thing.
And measuring wavelength wouldn't work for proving that matrix multiplication is not commutative, some things require different methods.
Similarly proving a particular action is wrong requires laying out the reasons for and consequences of the action in question instead. For murdering an innocent for personal pleasure, it is known (axiomatically) that losing an innocent life is bad and someone's personal enjoyment of it doesn't outweigh that. Thus it's wrong, and of course every sane, decent human being already knows this. That's a moral fact.
All this "oh it's not a fact!" thing does is whitewash unacceptable behavior, we'd be better off without it.
Desubot wrote: Other dude. No the sky is grey ya morons. (Color blind) does that make him wrong?
Yep, because the sky is blue whether he sees it being blue or not. Much like if a deaf person doesn't hear a marching band nearby doesn't mean there isn't a marching band nearby making noise.
We are not Orks, just believing something isn't enough to make it true.
As well you are aware the the sky can be green at times or any number of other colors.
of course believing something doesn't make it true. that's why you have to set out and prove it. now feel free to Prove to me that IP protection of the 3rd kind is in "FACT" morally wrong.
Try and prove to me that the sky is in FACT blue right before a tornado when it is in fact green (ish).
Desubot wrote: of course believing something doesn't make it true. that's why you have to set out and prove it. now feel free to Prove to me that IP protection of the 3rd kind is in "FACT" morally wrong.
Easy peasy lemon squeezy!
They're claiming ownership of a general concept that does not, can not and should not belong to them - BAD
It results in restricting harmless, potentially worthwhile art - BAD
They don't actually have anything to gain from it, it's not a direct competitor nor are they being ripped off or threatened in anyway - NO REASON TO DO IT So it's a bad thing to do and they don't have any reason to do it, thus it's wrong.
On a sidenote, if the third bullet point were true in part, it might not be enough to change it, but that's not the discussion so no need to get into that.
Everyone blames Tom Kirby for everything. But I just read that he's been heading up GW since -91, through all the highs and lows, including most people's personal "golden age" of GW. So what gives?
Azreal13 wrote: You can measure the wavelengths of the light reflecting from things, so you can prove what colour it is, even if you can't see colours yourself.
You can argue that murder is wrong, the overwhelming majority will agree, but you still can't prove the rightness or wrongness of a thing.
And measuring wavelength wouldn't work for proving that matrix multiplication is not commutative, some things require different methods.
This isn't a point. The means of determining something aren't relevant to whether the thing can be determined. If you try and prove something with the wrong method, that just makes you a poor scientist.
Similarly proving a particular action is wrong requires laying out the reasons for and consequences of the action in question instead. For murdering an innocent for personal pleasure, it is known (axiomatically) that losing an innocent life is bad and someone's personal enjoyment of it doesn't outweigh that. Thus it's wrong, and of course every sane, decent human being already knows this. That's a moral fact.
All this "oh it's not a fact!" thing does is whitewash unacceptable behavior, we'd be better off without it.
It is not fact. Self evident? Yes. Sensible? Absolutely. A fact? No.
The Aztecs had no problem with human sacrifice. The Greeks had no issue with sodomy. The Chinese have very different ideas about IP and their ownership.
That doesn't make them wrong It makes them wrong from a given perspective. For instance, most people these days don't have a problem with same sex relationships, yet historically societies in different parts of the world have had varying attitudes from total acceptance to outright persecution. We can decide how we feel about these things, but societal attitudes vary with location and time, who's to say which was right and wrong from an objective point of view?
Oh, that's right, nobody, because it is impossible to assess morals objectively.
Mymearan wrote: Everyone blames Tom Kirby for everything. But I just read that he's been heading up GW since -91, through all the highs and lows, including most people's personal "golden age" of GW. So what gives?
He's in charge , so it's his fault .
The fact that he may have been doing a better job 20 years ago doesn't change that .
Mymearan wrote: Everyone blames Tom Kirby for everything. But I just read that he's been heading up GW since -91, through all the highs and lows, including most people's personal "golden age" of GW. So what gives?
Essentially, most of the highs involved an element of dumb luck, and most of the lows are self inflicted.
And your post shows why this "Morality is subjective" spiel is horrible. Stuff like human sacrifice and homophobia are wrong, and the people who do them are wrong if they think they're okay, saying they're only wrong "from a certain perspective" is horrible, it encourages those awful things by saying they're an opinion rather than a mistake to be corrected and avoided entirely. That people come to these incorrect conclusions only show that morality is complicated, rather than subjective. People often get a different answer to a math question than the accepted one, not because it's subjective but because they don't fully understand math and thus make mistakes. So definitely be open to something being proven right or wrong, but don't say it's subjective.
And who's to judge? Anyone with any sense. And if they get it wrong, well that's what logical debate is for!
@Above: Ninja'd by that. I feel I should leave this up, but if this is off-topic I won't say any more in this debate.
Rather I'll bring it mildly back on topic. This kinda weighs into how I feel about buying GW stuff. Their artists and such are good and creative and many local shop owners are nice so I don't mind supporting GW by buying 40k miniatures, but their upper management are a load of assorted douche-balls so I don't mind screwing over GW by buying stuff off eBay or pirating Codexes. There's a split in GW's merit to me so there's a split in me supporting them. Could imagine the same is true of others too.
Mymearan wrote: Everyone blames Tom Kirby for everything. But I just read that he's been heading up GW since -91, through all the highs and lows, including most people's personal "golden age" of GW. So what gives?
Essentially, most of the highs involved an element of dumb luck, and most of the lows are self inflicted.
So why are people ever surprised or disappointed when he makes bad decisions, or expect him to change, or indeed quote his otiose marketing thing like its something new? He's been doing the same thing as long as all of us have been involved in the hobby (well, not ALL of us, sorry oldtimers)!
Mymearan wrote: So why are people ever surprised or disappointed when he makes bad decisions, or expect him to change? He's been doing the same thing as long as all of us have been involved in the hobby (well, not ALL of us, sorry oldtimers)!
Most probably aren't SURPRISED and if they are it's because of it being a "new low" or in a place they didn't expect it would be.
If they're disappointed, probably because upper-management jerk-ery is saddening regardless.
Expecting him to change? Most probably don't expect it, they just want it. Or if they expect it, maybe they're expecting that the consequences will hit him eventually. Which isn't too unreasonable. If your tooliness endangers the business, then your investors might very well give you a boot up the bum... Or maybe they just expect him to get sick of all this and just quit. Not too unreasonable either if he has enough money, if that's all he wants it wouldn't be surprising if he just decides one day he has enough and just retires early with all the money he's already got.
So why are people ever surprised or disappointed when he makes bad decisions, or expect him to change, or indeed quote his otiose marketing thing like its something new? He's been doing the same thing as long as all of us have been involved in the hobby (well, not ALL of us, sorry oldtimers)!
Because it's not really that black and white.
Back in the 90s, GW were still projecting that vibe of being a part of a community. Sure , they were expensive, and did some odd things.. . But they also did a lot to build the community up .
In the time since then , they've been steadily stripping that all away, leaving just the corporate entity that exists purely for immediate sales. It's harder for people to feel a connection with that entity, and so they become more critical... Which is compounded when that entity does things that seem completely ridiculous.
I know a lot of people descend into nuclear rage over GW's prices, but I'm personally not bothered. I can still afford the models I want and I still have lots of fun playing and painting with friends. Of course I'd buy more if they were cheaper, but having a full-time job and moving into law school, I already buy more than I have time to finish. And why complain so viciously to all of us about it?
I guess it's also become more obvious. 20 years ago there weren't really any competition, so GW could just keep on keeping on, they got lucky with the success of LotR and essentially trod water.
Fast forward to present day, LotR is long dead in any meaningful sense, and GW are managing the increased pressure from competition horribly, the Internet means people with knowledge can converse about it and educate people who may have otherwise had no idea.
wow, CrashGordon, you really seem to like telling people what is right or wrong...
i happen to disagree with you being the judge of how other people should think or feel...
on this one, i am going to have to go with Azrael here...
i have been very clear in my opinion of feeling that GW have a right to protect their IP, but that they shouldn't be bullies...
they tried, the court disagreed, and GW took the hit to their reputation...
you completely blew away any credibility you may have had in your stance as soon as you said you support the pirating of a Codex...
very hypocritical...
@Insaniak: i don't understand what you are trying to convince me of...
as we have seen, many lawyers are happy to step-in to defend the little guy, do the defense pro-bono, and give GW the smackdown in the bargain...
yes, i am aware of GW management's technical stance on my work...
they are more than welcome to have a go at me...
feel free to give them a call and blow the whistle if you would like to...
Also I think the main reason for their success if because they're often known as THE wargaming company and 40k is often known as THE wargame (in terms of popular exposure for both, of course), if they weren't so much more well-known than everyone else they would have a "clean up your act or die" moment long before now, I could imagine.
On the subject of trademarks and intellectual properties, one daft move GW made is changing the names of their model ranges. I get for example that they want Astra Militarium to replace the term Imperial Guard, because God forbid they can't copyright "Imperial Guard" But ffs, if you're going to make a unique trademark name for something, at least make it reasonably fething prounouncable! not that I have a difficulty wrapping my tongue around a bit of latin (or pseudo-latin?) but I doubt your average 11 year old walking into the store for the first time does...
thegreatchimp wrote: On the subject of trademarks and intellectual properties, one daft move GW made is changing the names of their model ranges. I get for example that they want Astra Militarium to replace the term Imperial Guard, because God forbid they can't copyright "Imperial Guard" But ffs, if you're going to make a unique trademark name for something, at least make it reasonably fething prounouncable! not that I have a difficulty wrapping my tongue around a bit of latin (or pseudo-latin?) but I doubt your average 11 year old walking into the store for the first time does...
Sorry all the good names where taken. probably by people that can actually defend there claims
I think its fine that they are using TM able names even if it all sounds like gibberish. most people will keep using the "slang" terms
yes, i am aware of GW management's technical stance on my work...
they are more than welcome to have a go at me...
feel free to give them a call and blow the whistle if you would like to...
I wasn't pointing it out as a threat, just as an example of how GW's perception of their IP is a very different, and much less reasonable, thing to their actual IP.
yes, i am aware of GW management's technical stance on my work...
they are more than welcome to have a go at me...
feel free to give them a call and blow the whistle if you would like to...
I wasn't pointing it out as a threat, just as an example of how GW's perception of their IP is a very different, and much less reasonable, thing to their actual IP.
yup, i am well aware that their stance is flawed, which is why i am not outraged over Spots...
they tried, and they failed, and in doing so brought the author more publicity and sales than she ever could have hoped for...
i am not going to stop buying the work of sculptors who i respect immensely, simply because the company they work for is run by a few jackasses...
jah-joshua wrote: i am not going to stop buying the work of sculptors who i respect immensely, simply because the company they work for is run by a few jackasses...
And that's totally your choice. But by buying that work, you're endorsing the behaviour of said jackasses.
jah-joshua wrote: i am not going to stop buying the work of sculptors who i respect immensely, simply because the company they work for is run by a few jackasses...
And that's totally your choice. But by buying that work, you're endorsing the behaviour of said jackasses.
and as i said before, i am fine with that...
you seemed to want to convince me that i shouldn't be, which is why i asked you, "what is the solution???"
it seems to me like there are two choices:
1. take the moral highground, and actually boycott GW's products completely
2. endorse jackassery
i have chosen option 2, because a boycott would mean giving up one of the great passions of my life, as well as my job, which is painting Adeptus Astartes models...
if their is a socially acceptable option that does not make me a hypocrite, allows me to paint what i like, and continue to earn a living, i am all ears...
there has been a lot of judgement presented in this thread, but not much in the way of solutions to the perceived problems with management's behavior...
thegreatchimp wrote: On the subject of trademarks and intellectual properties, one daft move GW made is changing the names of their model ranges. I get for example that they want Astra Militarium to replace the term Imperial Guard, because God forbid they can't copyright "Imperial Guard" But ffs, if you're going to make a unique trademark name for something, at least make it reasonably fething prounouncable! not that I have a difficulty wrapping my tongue around a bit of latin (or pseudo-latin?) but I doubt your average 11 year old walking into the store for the first time does...
If I may, I find this goofy simply because if they can't trademark it, nobody else can either so it's safe for everyone, GW included!
Refusing to use something like that because you can't claim dibs on it and exclude everyone else seems really daft and almost childish. Quite simply nobody else could invalidate your right to use it if everyone's allowed to use it.
I would've laughed if they tried to solve it for SMs by calling them SPESS MAHREENS at all times like Boreale though, I must admit.
On a sidenote, I just know remembered something I though about GeeDubs. They seem to have a real Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde thing going on, one minute they're making awesome creative stuff, the next minute they're borderline-insane douche-balls, it's almost hilarious when you contrast the two, but very difficult and confusing for those who want to form an informed decision about them and are hit in the face with both sides of the coin. It's especially hard because you can't support one side while screwing over the other, since you can't just buy models and books straight from the artists and writers without the high-up tools' involvement (though that gave me the mental image of Matt Ward in a trenchcoat approaching people in a dark alley and being all like "Psst, want some Grey Knights?").
there has been a lot of judgement presented in this thread, but not much in the way of solutions to the perceived problems with management's behavior...
Ultimately, if the company won't listen to their customers (and this is a company whose boss quite proudly pointed out to the world that they do no market research) then yes, not buying their product is really the only way to get the message across that you're unhappy with their business direction.
That balance between how much you care about their business direction and how much you want their product is obviously going to be different for everyone... Although if you are making a living from GW's product, I would think that self-interest should leave you at least slightly interested in the company maintaining some level of health...
jah-joshua wrote: if their is a socially acceptable option that does not make me a hypocrite, allows me to paint what i like, and continue to earn a living, i am all ears...there has been a lot of judgement presented in this thread, but not much in the way of solutions to the perceived problems with management's behavior...cheers
jah
It is your job so sometimes a moral high ground tends to be less of an option.
Going to used models would work but makes too much work and customers may not like that.
You do not usually get entire armies so I think your boycott would mean little anyway.
But making other company's game figures look better would be a positive impact.
My purchases to GW are about 1/3 of what they were annually (monetarily) so considering the cost increases physical model count is less than half.
IK's do not count!
It would not be a forum thread without being a little judgmental, especially when you disagree with others.
GW sometimes makes product that is "worth it" to me with all that entails, it is less frequent however.
there has been a lot of judgement presented in this thread, but not much in the way of solutions to the perceived problems with management's behavior...
Ultimately, if the company won't listen to their customers (and this is a company whose boss quite proudly pointed out to the world that they do no market research) then yes, not buying their product is really the only way to get the message across that you're unhappy with their business direction.
That balance between how much you care about their business direction and how much you want their product is obviously going to be different for everyone... Although if you are making a living from GW's product, I would think that self-interest should leave you at least slightly interested in the company maintaining some level of health...
of course i am interested in GW maintaining some level of health...
i have said it a few times in this thread, i do not want to see GW die...
i have also said that i have zero control over Kirby, Merritt, or any of the other execs, so i am not going to worry about it too much...
at the end of the day, i am not unhappy with their business direction, in that they still produce products that i think are awesome (like the new Dev. and Assault squads)...
my beef is with people telling me that i should be unhappy about it...
i can't get behind it, because i simply don't feel the outrage or disillusionment that others do...
the heart wants what the heart wants...
I tend to look out for the box set starters or more recently the marines and tyranids box as they are good value.
I dont play the game but like the models so now and then a larger model catches my eye too.
there has been a lot of judgement presented in this thread, but not much in the way of solutions to the perceived problems with management's behavior...
Ultimately, if the company won't listen to their customers (and this is a company whose boss quite proudly pointed out to the world that they do no market research) then yes, not buying their product is really the only way to get the message across that you're unhappy with their business direction.
That balance between how much you care about their business direction and how much you want their product is obviously going to be different for everyone... Although if you are making a living from GW's product, I would think that self-interest should leave you at least slightly interested in the company maintaining some level of health...
I'm not sure that there's anything left that I haven't said before, but in short I guess I just don't really care about how a business is managed (at all) unless they're doing something repulsive to humanity, like having little kids slave away for my toys. Hell, I buy electronics from companies that use Foxconn, so sadly my threshold there can't be supremely high either. But in this respect I do care.
I could give a rat's ass as to how they listen to me as an individual, how they treat their vendors, how they don't foster a community, or any of that kind of thing. If they don't make nice minis, if I find the game loses its entertainment value or if they're perceived as too expensive for me, I wont buy them. If they mistreat my FLGS too badly, they can stop selling GW.
At the moment (nor at ant time since the me 80s), none of this is true. I like their stuff, like their game, and while it ain't cheap, neither do I find 40k horribly expensive. My stores obviously like them enough to give the best product placement, whatever other misgivings they may have --though I think it's not nearly as bad as some horror stories, especially in Australia, that I read about here.
Why don't I care about how the company is managed, or whatever? Well, first of all, it doesn't really affect me, personally. I believe it's for players to form successful (local) communities anyways, and personally, I've never cared much for tournaments. Not that I have anything against them. Bust secondly, and more importantly, I don't have this standard for any other company of any size that I deal with. Not for cars, cell phones, computers, monitors, TVs, air conditioners, tennis rackets, skiis, soft drinks, fruit, house paint, video games, or RCs/drones. Why would miniatures be so different? Also, I don't expect every company to act the way they were when they were a 20 man small company when they become a hundred-million-dollar public company. It might be romantic, but t's just not realistic.
Now, if I lived in Australia, I admit a lot of this might be different. Among other things, the pricing seems almost like personal animosity towards the region, lol.
@Azrael13: do you really think that it is daft for me to think hat an author might want to do a Google search of the words "Space Marine" when thinking of using that in the title of the book, even just to see whether the term is being used by an existing company, and know what they may be in for, or are you just trying to be argumentative???
@MWHistorian: when i Google "Space Marine" i get a whole page of GW links and pictures of Adeptus Astartes artwork, right up until a Gears of War dude pops up at the bottom of the page...
wasn't Hicks a Colonial Marine???
anyway, thanks for a fun afternoon guys, but i am done arguing for argument's sake...
since there really is no constructive truth to get down to, i'm out...
time to go paint some Space Marines...
Talys wrote: Why don't I care about how the company is managed, or whatever? Well, first of all, it doesn't really affect me, personally.
GW's choice to price their toys as high-end collectibles affects everyone who buys them. Their decision to make so much of their range either limited edition or only available through their own webstore affects everyone who wants those products, and anyone who relies on an independant store that's lost a substantial portion of their sales to GW pulling the range out from under them. And their compulsive need for secrecy, their refusal to hire an editor, their refusal to support the resultant shoddy rulebooks with errata or FAQs, and their general drawing back from all engagement with their customers have all resulted in a shrinking pool of gamers ... which affects anyone who isn't just playing at home with friends.
So yes, it's possible that none of that affects you personally... but their actions most definitely do affect a lot of their customers.
Talys wrote: Why don't I care about how the company is managed, or whatever? Well, first of all, it doesn't really affect me, personally.
GW's choice to price their toys as high-end collectibles affects everyone who buys them. Their decision to make so much of their range either limited edition or only available through their own webstore affects everyone who wants those products, and anyone who relies on an independant store that's lost a substantial portion of their sales to GW pulling the range out from under them. And their compulsive need for secrecy, their refusal to hire an editor, their refusal to support the resultant shoddy rulebooks with errata or FAQs, and their general drawing back from all engagement with their customers have all resulted in a shrinking pool of gamers ... which affects anyone who isn't just playing at home with friends.
So yes, it's possible that none of that affects you personally... but their actions most definitely do affect a lot of their customers.
I think the limited run stuff really doesn't affect nearly as many real players as forums might have you think. I mean, really, how many people were actually going to buy a skyhammer set just to get the glossy? And that's probably the best bundle they've ever had -- most suck. All the LE codex are available to local stores on launch week, and almost everything else is available, just not stocked locally. To give you an idea there isn't one item on the web store in stock that my store can't get within about a week (normal orders = day after next). Local stores are welcome to stock web exclusive products -- one store here puts lots on the shelf -- but the problem is, the stuff moves so slow.
Yeah, I wish I got a void shield generator, but I'll live.
With regards to the rules and errata, that's TOTALLY different. If I thought the rules were unplayable or not fun to play, I'd stop buying them. I mean, that falls under product rather than management, IMO. The thing is, even though the rules aren't perfect, we have tons of fun playing the game, and we even have fun laughing at GW.
Like I said, in your neck of the woods, I'd probably consider them extraordinarily high priced toys too... here in North America, they just feel like adult or young adult priced toys. My wife has some collectibles (plates for instance) and I assure you, GW product doesn't even come close. Add a 20 hour paint job by a golden demon winner doing commission work, and you're in the range.
Also, I get it for other people disliking the product -- I just don't share the sentiment. I understand even why people dislike GW as a company; I just think there might be a bit of a double standard being applied. Not that anyone needs a reason to dislike a company anyhow.
Talys wrote: I think the limited run stuff really doesn't affect nearly as many real players as forums might have you think.
Some of it, certainly.
SOme of it is just pants on head stupid, though. Like making the redone Apocalypse blast markers a limited edition that sold out within minutes... which meant that anyone buying Apocalypse couldn't get blast markers for several months until GW made the old ones available again.
To give you an idea there isn't one item on the web store in stock that my store can't get within about a week
It's possible that things work differently in Canada, but what I've been told by other retailers is that there are two 'grades' of exclusive product. One can be special ordered (for a reduced margin). The other is only available through GW, and has at times included things like the Wave Serpent... you know, stuff that clearly isn't necessary to stock in store.
Regardless even if this stuff can be special ordered, having to order stuff in rather than having it on shelf costs stores sales.
Just for reference, there are currently 1056 items listed in the 40K section on the GW website. 395 of those items are listed as 'Webstore Exclusive'.
@insaniak - yeah, it seems a recurring theme that stuff is just damned hard to get in Australia, which is mind-boggling to me.
Of those Webstore Exclusives, there are a few that are pretty useful, like Skyshield, Fortress of Redemption, Shrine of the Aquilla, and Eldar Falcon. Then there are hundreds of crappy finecast and metal minis that stores have stuck on their shelves forever and ever. They can't hawk them at 50% clearance.
I do believe at least in part of that is a stocking/manufacturing issue, as I *just* bought (another) Skyshield, special order from my FLGS, and it came in a generic white box. My old one came in a nice pretty box with photography on it.
And yeah, some of the "limited run" stuff is totally slowed forecasting. I've missed out on stuff like that, too. Head scratcher, to me. And some weird items, like edge paints, and certain bases that I just think would be popular (and high enough margin) to spread around to various distribution centers.
there has been a lot of judgement presented in this thread, but not much in the way of solutions to the perceived problems with management's behavior...
Ultimately, if the company won't listen to their customers (and this is a company whose boss quite proudly pointed out to the world that they do no market research) then yes, not buying their product is really the only way to get the message across that you're unhappy with their business direction.
That balance between how much you care about their business direction and how much you want their product is obviously going to be different for everyone... Although if you are making a living from GW's product, I would think that self-interest should leave you at least slightly interested in the company maintaining some level of health...
I'm not sure that there's anything left that I haven't said before, but in short I guess I just don't really care about how a business is managed (at all) unless they're doing something repulsive to humanity, like having little kids slave away for my toys. Hell, I buy electronics from companies that use Foxconn, so sadly my threshold there can't be supremely high either. But in this respect I do care.
I could give a rat's ass as to how they listen to me as an individual, how they treat their vendors, how they don't foster a community, or any of that kind of thing. If they don't make nice minis, if I find the game loses its entertainment value or if they're perceived as too expensive for me, I wont buy them. If they mistreat my FLGS too badly, they can stop selling GW.
At the moment (nor at ant time since the me 80s), none of this is true. I like their stuff, like their game, and while it ain't cheap, neither do I find 40k horribly expensive. My stores obviously like them enough to give the best product placement, whatever other misgivings they may have --though I think it's not nearly as bad as some horror stories, especially in Australia, that I read about here.
Why don't I care about how the company is managed, or whatever? Well, first of all, it doesn't really affect me, personally. I believe it's for players to form successful (local) communities anyways, and personally, I've never cared much for tournaments. Not that I have anything against them. Bust secondly, and more importantly, I don't have this standard for any other company of any size that I deal with. Not for cars, cell phones, computers, monitors, TVs, air conditioners, tennis rackets, skiis, soft drinks, fruit, house paint, video games, or RCs/drones. Why would miniatures be so different? Also, I don't expect every company to act the way they were when they were a 20 man small company when they become a hundred-million-dollar public company. It might be romantic, but t's just not realistic.
Now, if I lived in Australia, I admit a lot of this might be different. Among other things, the pricing seems almost like personal animosity towards the region, lol.
Completely agree with this. I don't "take a stand" against every company that does unethical things, if I did I wouldn't be able to buy any product from a big corporation, ever. And what they do is orders of magnitude worse than anything GW has ever done. They produce most of their stuff locally, contributing to the economy and providing jobs, and they don't have Indian factories where workers handle carcinogens without safety equipment, or make use of child labor... In that context, IP bullying and an donkey-cave chairman are pretty low on the list of things that would make me boycott a company. Obviously if I lived in Australia and had to pay those prices, I would tell them to go feth themselves
Now if I DID boycott them, the only thing that would happen for sure is that I would lose my favorite pastime, and see a lot less of a ton of people in my gaming group I enjoy seeing. What could theoretically happen in several years, if enough people follow my example, is that GW might change their ways... By which time I would have missed out on years of enjoyment.
Azreal13 wrote: the term "Space Marine" is so generic that any half intelligent person can probably surmise what it is simply from the name, and I bet, if asked to draw one, sight unseen, a good percentage of people with no prior knowledge would draw something with at least some elements that could be ported straight onto GW's version.
This is a stretch. You have Colonial Marines, from James Cameron, or you have Space Cadets by Robert Heinlein. The actual term space marine was mentioned in a couple of books, but nowhere in a title to my knowledge, not to the extent it represents a recognisable and familiar image or brand. If I had written a book called Harry Potter before JK Rowling I might have had legal recourse against her; but if I merely used the name in passing, of a minor character, then I wouldn't.
I think GW were stupid to launch the action, which damaged the company's reputation - it was a classic example of the Barbara Streisand effect.
He didn't say Space Marine was used before, just that it's such a generic term it's obvious that it refers to soldiers in space.
Ask any arty person you know that doesn't know about GW, to draw you a space marine, and see what you get.
The Harry Potter Analogy isn't a good one, that's using a specific fictional name. It's more like Aliens. You can't trademark the term "Aliens".
To highlight GW's incompetence/malice, they tried to bring down Spots The Space Marine using Amazons DMCA form - digital millenium COPYRIGHT act. So they abused a copyright law to prevent use of a generic term in a book based on a trademark complaint.
Completely agree with this. I don't "take a stand" against every company that does unethical things, if I did I wouldn't be able to buy any product from a big corporation, ever.
For myself, I don't really see it as 'taking a stand' so much as that all of the nonsense makes me value the brand less than I used to, and that (coupled with the price rises and the drop in the quality of the game itself) has resulted in me just not buying any more.
I'd like to. Some of GW's recent releases, model-wise, have been awesome.
I do not run around and tell everyone to stop buying their products at full price but of course everyone who does has my gratitude. At least, once they sell their stuff again, to me, for 70-50% of the price.
Yeah, this thread turned into Philosophy 101 in a hurry.
If my BA in Philosophy taught me anything, it's that wisdom is the art of asking better questions, not necessarily getting better answers. The greatest minds in human history haven't been able to really nail down morality, and I doubt anybody here has a magic elixer.
Regardless, social construct or universal absolute, subjective or objective, there are clearly moral guidelines that nearly all people of nearly every culture have agreed upon. And when viewing another person's actions, that's the best way to judge them. Hold yourself to your own standard, but holding any other person to your own standard is going to be tricky.
From my view, bullying is wrong. Bullying being defined as using a position of power to harass, intimidate, or coerce those weaker than yourself with no justification. GW has done a little bit of bullying, and that's probably not honorable,
That said, who cares? When I"m buying a product, I don't care about the moral nuances of its production or backstory. I buy diamonds and electronics, gasoline and clothing, all things that have moral price tags on them I can' even fathom. So why on earth would it bother me that the producer of my toys bullied an author of the dumbest sounding Sci-fi enovel ever?
All the stuff about GW being the evil empire, or complaints (no matter how justified) about prices actually detracts from the biggest reason people stop buying GW: they don't need anymore.
Sure, with a weakening rule set and rising prices, long time players may decide to bow out, but I have a simple guideline: nobody that is having fun with 40k leaves because of prices. If you leave, it's because you stoppped having fun, and it's too expensive to buy and stick on a shelf.
But the real reason you see buying taper off for veterans is simple: they have nearly everything they need! When you first your own place, you buy a ton of furniture. Maybe you buy more as you get a better job, or move to a bigger place, but at some point you have all the furniture you can use. 40k models are like that. Sure, you can buy more, but will you ever use it?
Now, GW could make more of an effort to produce a product that older players want, but that's a different story.
Personally I don't care about GW's morality etc. What I care about is that they have ruined a game I love, are charging a premium for terrible rules, and are attempting to gouge loyal customers wherever possible while doing nothing to support the hobby. This is why I stopped buying, and it cost them $1000+/year in revenue. These are the reasons 40k has effectively died locally and the general moral for 40k has plummeted and every and anyone is playing other games. 40k reigned supreme, no longer.
GW could sell small Codices with minimal fluff in paper back and electronically with full priced fluff version in hardcover.
GW could errata and update online codices for balance.
GW could write rules with even a modicum of concern for balance.
GW could write rules with a general idea of scale.
GW could stop competing against FLGS and work with them.
GW could stop their pay to win mentality and direction.
GW could do a lot of things that would have kept me happily paying them lots of my hard earned money, but they've done none of it and have effectively lost me and many like me as a customer.
There may be a group of people who have continued to collect 40k stuff even though the new releases weren't the most exciting new toy ever, just because it fell into a comfortable price range, and then once it grew out of that, it's just "too expensive to buy and stick on a shelf".
I think that for anyone who's spending significant time modelling the miniatures and playing the game, the product just isn't that expensive -- compared to anything else you spend that much time on/with, and if someone "really loved it", they'd find a way. Just like similarly priced PP models, if they're into WMH. At some point, they'll get bored of that game (might be 15 years!), and then the next model that costs, in today's dollars, $40 (then, it might be $100 accounting for inflation), will just be a step too far.
To your point, Polonius, gasoline is a perfect example -- I'm not sure there's an oil company that I'd consider an "ethical" company, yet I gas up every week. It would be almost impossible for me to live in today's world using vendors and manufacturers whom I respect or like.
To Insaniak's point -- your issue is mostly with not liking the game in it's current state. I think if you loved one of their models a lot, and wanted to spend 20 or 30 hours (never mind a real competition piece, and spend hundreds of hours) to make a great Dominus, to take the most expensive model as an example, the price tag wouldn't be the such an influence. What kills it is that you see it as a game piece, for a game you don't really like all that much in its current form. Maybe enough to play if it were a cheap game, but not as a premium game.
On the other hand, I'd submit to you, within your budget, play a game and paint the minis you really like rather than the ones that are cheap, anyhow, because life is too short to do otherwise!
@Polonius:
Weren't we supposed to drop the moral discussion after Insaniak told us to? That's why I stopped after that post (which I left up because i was ninja'd and didn't see him until after I posted it).
Regardless, the point about not needing any more is a good one, and probably the reason why GW introduced some new sides (like the AdMech) recently.
Polonius wrote: When I"m buying a product, I don't care about the moral nuances of its production or backstory. I buy diamonds and electronics, gasoline and clothing, all things that have moral price tags on them I can' even fathom. So why on earth would it bother me that the producer of my toys bullied an author of the dumbest sounding Sci-fi enovel ever?
Now, GW could make more of an effort to produce a product that older players want, but that's a different story.
OTOH, Subaru is growing faster than any other OEM, based on "feel good" marketing and action (green factory, charitable contributions, etc.).
The question is what this homogenous bloc of older players wants and is willing to pay for.
Talys wrote: To Insaniak's point -- your issue is mostly with not liking the game in it's current state. .
Not really, no. That's a big part of it, certainly. And if GW were still the only company producing awesome miniatures, they may well still be getting some of my cash... But right now, there are miniatures that are just as fantastic being released by companies that aren't doing everything they can to convince me that they don't want my money. And so those other companies get my money instead.
jah-joshua wrote: @Azrael13: do you really think that it is daft for me to think hat an author might want to do a Google search of the words "Space Marine" when thinking of using that in the title of the book, even just to see whether the term is being used by an existing company, and know what they may be in for, or are you just trying to be argumentative???
@MWHistorian: when i Google "Space Marine" i get a whole page of GW links and pictures of Adeptus Astartes artwork, right up until a Gears of War dude pops up at the bottom of the page...
wasn't Hicks a Colonial Marine???
That's probably the result of you googling (on your hardware) for space marines and they anticipating that you are looking for GW space marines (due to trackers/search history), somebody else who has no connection to this hobby would get something totally different, probably really generic, and not related to any of this.
jah-joshua wrote: @Azrael13: do you really think that it is daft for me to think hat an author might want to do a Google search of the words "Space Marine" when thinking of using that in the title of the book, even just to see whether the term is being used by an existing company, and know what they may be in for, or are you just trying to be argumentative???
@MWHistorian: when i Google "Space Marine" i get a whole page of GW links and pictures of Adeptus Astartes artwork, right up until a Gears of War dude pops up at the bottom of the page...
wasn't Hicks a Colonial Marine???
That's probably the result of you googling (on your hardware) for space marines and they anticipating that you are looking for GW space marines (due to trackers/search history), somebody else who has no connection to this hobby would get something totally different, probably really generic, and not related to any of this.
was n't really convinced that the above would be quite true and was also kinda curious to see what a google search would turn up if done by someone (well, some computer) that had no connection to the hobby whatsoever. So I gave it a bash. Tried it out at work. Classroom computer in an all girls high school in Korea (where I work). Safe to say there wasn't gonna be history of 40k searches on that. Cleared history, cookies et al anyways. Did a google web search first of the term 'Space Marine'. It wasn't until the 5th page of results that a non-GW space marine result came up. One - and that was someone talking about 'Space Marine Colonial' (ie from the Aliens movies) after that the results went back to GW related. Next - an image search using the same term. I got bored after the first 15 pages of results but in those 15 pages there were only 3 non_GW Space Marine hits (pages 8, 9 & 13) and they were all images from deviant art of artists' idea of what a Space Marine looked like (all looked rather Imperial Guard-y, but nice work). This is not to say that GW should be allowed to totally own the term "Space Marine' and sue the bejesus out of anyone who dares to use those two words together but it certaibly shows how much the term and the GW concept of said term are now inextricably linked in the web/peoples/media/whatever's minds.
*edit* oh and OP's original question - Hells yes I'm still buying. Just got back into the hobby 6 months agao after a looong hiatus and loving it
MWHistorian wrote: Its not about morality, its about community. GW does everything they can to trash the netdy gamming community I love.
To be fair, I don't think gw wants to 'destroy' the community, they seem to just want it to self govern, and look after itself. They'd seemingly rather put the game in the hands of their players and let them play the games they want to play. They have no interest in 'organised play'. This is not a 'bad' thing...
Now, as to how they're doing this; it's being done in a rather ham fisted way if you ask me, but not against the principle of letting the community organise itself...
Even if that author did a search and found GW Space Marine stuff, 'Space Marine' is not (however much they want to think otherwise) a term owned by Games Workshop.
MWHistorian wrote: Its not about morality, its about community. GW does everything they can to trash the netdy gamming community I love.
To be fair, I don't think gw wants to 'destroy' the community, they seem to just want it to self govern, and look after itself. They'd seemingly rather put the game in the hands of their players and let them play the games they want to play. They have no interest in 'organised play'. This is not a 'bad' thing...
Now, as to how they're doing this; it's being done in a rather ham fisted way if you ask me, but not against the principle of letting the community organise itself...
I would say that trying to get websites/forums closed down through C&D letters would be classed as actively aggressive. This is well documented.
Believe there were also C&D letters sent to sites that featured unofficial images and discussion of Finecast before that went on sale.
If you spent a lot of time on various forums, as I did, there was actually something of an atmosphere-shift on some of them during that time. Some became ultra conservative, started using heavy-handed moderating, others started to distance themselves from discussing GW entirely. The whole thing was just really ugly and to some extent it's still going on, all this put on to people that really are just trying to discuss the hobby and pastime that they enjoy..
One coukd imagine it's different departments though. I'm sure jervis would have more respect for the community than gw legal...
Bear in mind as well-Online forums don't represent the entirety community though - clubs, societies and friends meeting in each other's houses. That's what gw sees as their community. Gw got burned online. They don't want to be a part of it. And if the community can chop change and modify, and play the game that they want to play, then let them do it. Gw probably don't want to impose an 'organised play' attitude on their players. At least, that seems like their thinking to me. How they've gone about doing this? Lol, different story!
While accepting your point that non-executive staff probably have a friendlier view towards the community, I'd say specifically in the case of Jervis, it would be quite easy to argue he may really dislike it, or at least parts of it.
I mean, look at his editorials, he seems to enjoy a lot of the aspects of 40K that are roundly criticised (all the randumb most prominently) and it appears that one can link the rise of that sort of approach with his tenure as head of the studio and custodianship of 40K without what now appears was the balancing influence of Rick et al.
As 40K is now ostensibly his baby, and a lot of people are vocal in their dislike for it, it isn't a leap to consider he may be a bit resentful.
Azreal13 wrote: While accepting your point that non-executive staff probably have a friendlier view towards the community, I'd say specifically in the case of Jervis, it would be quite easy to argue he may really dislike it, or at least parts of it.
I've met him, and he was an absolute gentleman. Very polite and friendly and enthusiastic about the hobby and our clubs approach to it. And keys say he dislikes part of the community - so what? I dislike large parts of the community. Gamers as individuals range from some pretty cool guys and girls to some utter morons. 'Gamers' as a brand have large elements that stink of smug self entitlement, as well as being fickle, toxic and unreasonable.
I mean, look at his editorials, he seems to enjoy a lot of the aspects of 40K that are roundly criticised (all the randumb most prominently) and it appears that one can link the rise of that sort of approach with his tenure as head of the studio and custodianship of 40K without what now appears was the balancing influence of Rick et al.
As 40K is now ostensibly his baby, and a lot of people are vocal in their dislike for it, it isn't a leap to consider he may be a bit resentful.
Editorials? PR. where he has to tow the company line. White dwarf etc is a catalogue in order to sell models. And bear in mind - he is a famous face, but has very limited 'real' power. The design studio don't have that much creative freedom, just deadlines and dictates from management.
Azreal13 wrote: While accepting your point that non-executive staff probably have a friendlier view towards the community, I'd say specifically in the case of Jervis, it would be quite easy to argue he may really dislike it, or at least parts of it.
I've met him, and he was an absolute gentleman. Very polite and friendly and enthusiastic about the hobby and our clubs approach to it. And keys say he dislikes part of the community - so what? I dislike large parts of the community. Gamers as individuals range from some pretty cool guys and girls to some utter morons. 'Gamers' as a brand have large elements that stink of smug self entitlement, as well as being fickle, toxic and unreasonable.
I mean, look at his editorials, he seems to enjoy a lot of the aspects of 40K that are roundly criticised (all the randumb most prominently) and it appears that one can link the rise of that sort of approach with his tenure as head of the studio and custodianship of 40K without what now appears was the balancing influence of Rick et al.
As 40K is now ostensibly his baby, and a lot of people are vocal in their dislike for it, it isn't a leap to consider he may be a bit resentful.
Editorials? PR. where he has to tow the company line. White dwarf etc is a catalogue in order to sell models. And bear in mind - he is a famous face, but has very limited 'real' power. The design studio don't have that much creative freedom, just deadlines and dictates from management.
Well, that paints him either as a corporate puppet, who, unlike his peers, didn't value his creative integrity sufficiently that he needed to move on or that he fundamentally agrees with the direction he endorses.
I bought my first space marine tac squad 3 weeks ago. The price of ~20 paunds is fair. You have transfer sheets inside and you can convert in evertyhign you wanna actually. However im forward looking to some good second hand deals, cause some models are way too damn expensive. I really want to buy them new and ansemble them on my own... but cash is cash.
Azreal13 wrote: While accepting your point that non-executive staff probably have a friendlier view towards the community, I'd say specifically in the case of Jervis, it would be quite easy to argue he may really dislike it, or at least parts of it.
I've met him, and he was an absolute gentleman. Very polite and friendly and enthusiastic about the hobby and our clubs approach to it. And keys say he dislikes part of the community - so what? I dislike large parts of the community. Gamers as individuals range from some pretty cool guys and girls to some utter morons. 'Gamers' as a brand have large elements that stink of smug self entitlement, as well as being fickle, toxic and unreasonable.
I mean, look at his editorials, he seems to enjoy a lot of the aspects of 40K that are roundly criticised (all the randumb most prominently) and it appears that one can link the rise of that sort of approach with his tenure as head of the studio and custodianship of 40K without what now appears was the balancing influence of Rick et al.
As 40K is now ostensibly his baby, and a lot of people are vocal in their dislike for it, it isn't a leap to consider he may be a bit resentful.
Editorials? PR. where he has to tow the company line. White dwarf etc is a catalogue in order to sell models. And bear in mind - he is a famous face, but has very limited 'real' power. The design studio don't have that much creative freedom, just deadlines and dictates from management.
Well, that paints him either as a corporate puppet, who, unlike his peers, didn't value his creative integrity sufficiently that he needed to move on or that he fundamentally agrees with the direction he endorses.
Alan Merret is in control of 40k, and generally is the final word on everything that the design studio release, not Jervis.
Azreal13 wrote: Yep, most of the boxes of core troops for 40K aren't terrible, but if you wanted to run a Lascannon in that Tac Sqd of yours you're SOL.
From experience Lascanon it never lands a wound or it's almost always a save...
Azreal13 wrote: While accepting your point that non-executive staff probably have a friendlier view towards the community, I'd say specifically in the case of Jervis, it would be quite easy to argue he may really dislike it, or at least parts of it.
I've met him, and he was an absolute gentleman. Very polite and friendly and enthusiastic about the hobby and our clubs approach to it. And keys say he dislikes part of the community - so what? I dislike large parts of the community. Gamers as individuals range from some pretty cool guys and girls to some utter morons. 'Gamers' as a brand have large elements that stink of smug self entitlement, as well as being fickle, toxic and unreasonable.
I mean, look at his editorials, he seems to enjoy a lot of the aspects of 40K that are roundly criticised (all the randumb most prominently) and it appears that one can link the rise of that sort of approach with his tenure as head of the studio and custodianship of 40K without what now appears was the balancing influence of Rick et al.
As 40K is now ostensibly his baby, and a lot of people are vocal in their dislike for it, it isn't a leap to consider he may be a bit resentful.
Editorials? PR. where he has to tow the company line. White dwarf etc is a catalogue in order to sell models. And bear in mind - he is a famous face, but has very limited 'real' power. The design studio don't have that much creative freedom, just deadlines and dictates from management.
Well, that paints him either as a corporate puppet, who, unlike his peers, didn't value his creative integrity sufficiently that he needed to move on or that he fundamentally agrees with the direction he endorses.
Alan Merret is in control of 40k, and generally is the final word on everything that the design studio release, not Jervis.
Merret is head of IP, he's not involved with games design.
Azreal13 wrote: Yep, most of the boxes of core troops for 40K aren't terrible, but if you wanted to run a Lascannon in that Tac Sqd of yours you're SOL.
From experience Lascanon it never lands a wound or it's almost always a save...
Not really my point, my point was that while they're not bad value, relatively, they do lack a lot of options, rather than any commentary on the merits of Lascannon.
JohnHwangDD wrote: GW tried "community", and it was a gakshow. Remember the GW forums?
I do, and I remember a lot of good discussion going on there. It was onlywhen people started to voice concerns that GW shut down the forums so they wouldn't have to listen to negativity.
GW tried tournaments, and it was another gakshow, because the FAQs never did what people wanted.
And that IMHO is GW's fault for not properly testing and balancing.
GW's "beautiful game" was being destroyed by mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging ingrates (in their view).
They probably do think this, it doesn't excuse the behavior though. Their "beautiful game" basically works only if the stars align, there's a full moon and you sacrifice exactly the right things in exactly the right order and speak the incantation in exactly the correct tone, by which I mean if you play with a small close-knit group that don't mind creating your own rules and interpreting things in a certain way.
GW decided to let the community do it's own thing, and I'm much happier for the whole situation.
Perhaps but as a result the community fractured into at least two and probably many more splinter groups that want different things and have to try and shoehorn terrible rules into accommodating them.
There's no community. There are, however, quite a few communities out there. Some of which, it sometimes seems, would complain if GW just sent them money every week for no reason.
Nomeny wrote: There's no community. There are, however, quite a few communities out there. Some of which, it sometimes seems, would complain if GW just sent them money every week for no reason.
With all due respect that's not really it at all. People are frustrated at GW's lack of caring to make a good game, constantly charging high prices while reducing value (e.g. 5 guys in a box instead of 10, not giving all available options in a box) and general treating their customers as rubes and plebs who don't know any better and will spend money on anything GW. I have said many times that I would gladly play 40k again if GW didn't act like they were trying to take advantage of me every opportunity and if they made a game worth playing. As it stands I can't in any way, shape or form justify spending as much as GW asks for their product when the game (which would be my primary focus, not just painting figures) is so poor.
Nomeny wrote: There's no community. There are, however, quite a few communities out there. Some of which, it sometimes seems, would complain if GW just sent them money every week for no reason.
This is a straw-man fallacy that does not represent the legitimate concerns people have with 40k. Unless you think that high-speed recycling of rules materials and game bloat are positive attributes of 40k?
Azreal13 wrote:
Well, that paints him either as a corporate puppet, who, unlike his peers, didn't value his creative integrity sufficiently that he needed to move on or that he fundamentally agrees with the direction he endorses.
'Creative integrity' versus a mortgage and putting kids through college? Some things are more important than toy soldiers, and a decent mid level job that pays well is worth putting up with a lot of crap. Gw is a hire and fire company- rocking the boat too much, or at all is more than frowned upon... And it's a niche industry. No telling where he'd get something similar...
In any case, bear in mind the fact that the studio is generally treated as the promotions department of a toy company. Creative freedom isn't really a thing. Deadlines and project briefs are. And as departments go, it doesn't have much clout. I very much doubt jervis gets called in to a lot of meetings beyond his limited remit. Most department heads are a few steps down the ladder from things like the site executive committee or the board that make the real decisions. You're given a job and you do it. Disagree? Well, there's the door, and the have a hundred people who will take your job for half the pay.
Accolade wrote:
This is a straw-man fallacy that does not represent the legitimate concerns people have with 40k. Unless you think that high-speed recycling of rules materials and game bloat are positive attributes of 40k?
And yet, he isright. Some gamers are extraordinarily negative, and there will never be any pleasing for them. Plus there is no one 40k community - everyone wants tsomething different, and lots of groups approach the game in lots of different ways. Denying this is intellectually dishonest, and is its own fallacy.
I'm sure people think they have legitimate concerns with 40k. I don't think they're legitimate though. Which is my point is that different communities have different opinions regarding 40k. I don't think of the current release schedule as 'high-speed recycling of rules materials,' or as 'game bloat' either. I like the expansion to include material like the Adeptus Mechanicus and Harlequins, the quick turn-around of codices so that they're mostly up-to-date with the game, and the increased enthusiasm that I've seen in my community.
So I feel like GW is making a good game, or at least one that's good enough for me and I've played quite a few of them (and continue to play a variety). I don't find their prices to be an obstacle, because I feel like I get a lot more value than the cost, and so as a fan I'm pretty pleased that GW is catering to people like me.
Which goes to prove that the 40K fan base must follow the infinite universe theory, no matter how odd the opinion about the game you can conceive, it must exist somewhere!
Azreal13 wrote: While accepting your point that non-executive staff probably have a friendlier view towards the community, I'd say specifically in the case of Jervis, it would be quite easy to argue he may really dislike it, or at least parts of it.
I've met him, and he was an absolute gentleman. Very polite and friendly and enthusiastic about the hobby and our clubs approach to it. And keys say he dislikes part of the community - so what? I dislike large parts of the community. Gamers as individuals range from some pretty cool guys and girls to some utter morons. 'Gamers' as a brand have large elements that stink of smug self entitlement, as well as being fickle, toxic and unreasonable.
I mean, look at his editorials, he seems to enjoy a lot of the aspects of 40K that are roundly criticised (all the randumb most prominently) and it appears that one can link the rise of that sort of approach with his tenure as head of the studio and custodianship of 40K without what now appears was the balancing influence of Rick et al.
As 40K is now ostensibly his baby, and a lot of people are vocal in their dislike for it, it isn't a leap to consider he may be a bit resentful.
Editorials? PR. where he has to tow the company line. White dwarf etc is a catalogue in order to sell models. And bear in mind - he is a famous face, but has very limited 'real' power. The design studio don't have that much creative freedom, just deadlines and dictates from management.
Well, that paints him either as a corporate puppet, who, unlike his peers, didn't value his creative integrity sufficiently that he needed to move on or that he fundamentally agrees with the direction he endorses.
Alan Merret is in control of 40k, and generally is the final word on everything that the design studio release, not Jervis.
Merret is head of IP, he's not involved with games design.
Alan has the final say in anything that comes out of the studio, games, models and everything else. If he says no, it has to be changed. I never said he was involved in the design process, just that he is in overall control.
@Deadight: I suppose there is a group that will never be happy, just as there is a group who would be happy even if GW sold the rule books at $500 every year. But I think this is a small group of people, and if they are a small group, then why are we talking about them? I feel the only reason this argument comes up is to try to say that those who have issues with 40k are the same group of people as the malcontents. And that idea is very mistaken.
Accolade wrote: @Deadight: I suppose there is a group that will never be happy, just as there is a group who would be happy even if GW sold the rule books at $500 every year. But I think this is a small group of people, and if they are a small group, then why are we talking about them? I feel the only reason this argument comes up is to try to say that those who have issues with 40k are the same group of people. And I think that idea is very mistaken.
I was more commenting on the fact that there is no one community - everyone wants something different...
Right, I agree that there is no one community. But why are we pointing out this one group of 40k malcontents other than to try to make a point that 40k fans who have issues with the game are unreasonable?
Accolade wrote: Right, I agree that there is no one community. But why are we pointing out this one group of 40k malcontents other than to try to make a point that 40k fans who have issues with the game are unreasonable?
You were the one who overreacted, and leapt to conclusions, calling 'straw man fallacy' on a poster who suggested that there is no one community, and thst elements of the community would complain over anything...
I made the point that he had a point.
And you've just backtracked and agreed to the first...
Nomeny wrote: There's no community. There are, however, quite a few communities out there. Some of which, it sometimes seems, would complain if GW just sent them money every week for no reason.
This is a straw-man fallacy that does not represent the legitimate concerns people have with 40k. Unless you think that high-speed recycling of rules materials and game bloat are positive attributes of 40k?
Look, I stand by what I said. The pointing out of this group of malcontents is an attempt to straw-man out those who have issues with 40k. Otherwise, why bring it up at all? Why not bring up the other fringe groups (so-called apologists, etc.)- why does this group get pointed out unless it's trying to make a point- that people's issues with 40k are frivolous.
I feel that there is no reason to add that identifier of "even those vehemently against 40k" onto the statement "there is no one group of 40k fans." It's no different than the white knight comments and does nothing other than to enchance the point
EDIT: I'm not trying to argue he didn't have a point in "there is no one community", but what I did have issues with was that last identifier as an attempt to marginalize those with concerns.
I'm going to point out that if you're arguing over how you are arguing, than the conversation is probably about done.
As always, there will be those that always have a critique of even the finest products, and those that will defend products or companies against any and all attacks. leave those people be, for they are merely playing a part.
Azreal13 wrote: While accepting your point that non-executive staff probably have a friendlier view towards the community, I'd say specifically in the case of Jervis, it would be quite easy to argue he may really dislike it, or at least parts of it.
I've met him, and he was an absolute gentleman. Very polite and friendly and enthusiastic about the hobby and our clubs approach to it. And keys say he dislikes part of the community - so what? I dislike large parts of the community. Gamers as individuals range from some pretty cool guys and girls to some utter morons. 'Gamers' as a brand have large elements that stink of smug self entitlement, as well as being fickle, toxic and unreasonable.
I mean, look at his editorials, he seems to enjoy a lot of the aspects of 40K that are roundly criticised (all the randumb most prominently) and it appears that one can link the rise of that sort of approach with his tenure as head of the studio and custodianship of 40K without what now appears was the balancing influence of Rick et al.
As 40K is now ostensibly his baby, and a lot of people are vocal in their dislike for it, it isn't a leap to consider he may be a bit resentful.
Editorials? PR. where he has to tow the company line. White dwarf etc is a catalogue in order to sell models. And bear in mind - he is a famous face, but has very limited 'real' power. The design studio don't have that much creative freedom, just deadlines and dictates from management.
Well, that paints him either as a corporate puppet, who, unlike his peers, didn't value his creative integrity sufficiently that he needed to move on or that he fundamentally agrees with the direction he endorses.
Alan Merret is in control of 40k, and generally is the final word on everything that the design studio release, not Jervis.
Merret is head of IP, he's not involved with games design.
Alan has the final say in anything that comes out of the studio, games, models and everything else. If he says no, it has to be changed. I never said he was involved in the design process, just that he is in overall control.
Can I ask how you come by such detailed knowledge? Because no info I've read about his role at GW has suggested this.
Don't think of it as an attempt to marginalize those with concerns. Think of it instead as an attempt to communicate how some other people see those concerns.
Indeed. But I am objective in my defenses of them elsewhere, I am not an ardent fan boy that will accept any decision they make. They are a multi national company, not my big brother, so I don't get angry about the decisions I don't agree with, I just don't buy the product.
Merett came off very badly when called to testify in the Chapterhouse case, and if he's the gatekeeper for what escapes from the studio, it may explain some of the apparently bizarre decisions on what does and doesn't get releases.
One wonders if, in the face of falling revenue, the likes of Ad Mech etc have made it to release because he's been overruled, considering how long the fans have been dying to see them and there's been no sign, then all of a sudden they appear.
Merett came off very badly when called to testify in the Chapterhouse case, and if he's the gatekeeper for what escapes from the studio, it may explain some of the apparently bizarre decisions on what does and doesn't get releases.
One wonders if, in the face of falling revenue, the likes of Ad Mech etc have made it to release because he's been overruled, considering how long the fans have been dying to see them and there's been no sign, then all of a sudden they appear.
As I left on good terms and know that people at HQ read through dakka, I won't say anything about a director. I have a few ex colleague friends who have worked for him directly, and so I have heard many tales of the man's behaviour and actions. Your comment that he came off badly doesn't surprise me.
Edit- He got over ruled on the riptide, so you might be right there.
I recall some of it. You have guys like him, Jes, John, Jervis, Rick Priestly etc who started off in a small, friendly little company, that have found themselves in senior positions in a corporation. Some, like Jes and Jervis have managed to stay relevant to the current business. Some, like Rick were lost on the way. Others are in positions they would never get interviewed for if they applied today.
Azreal13 wrote: It's a matter of public record, there'll be a link buried here on Dakka somewhere, but for the Head Of IP his grasp of IP Law was.. tenuous?
Plus he characterised the GW Hobby as "buying things from GW" which has now ascended into legend somewhat!
He's not wrong. I love buying things from GW. There's something oddly enjoyable about the cycle of rumours, to previews, to getting something in your hands. I'm everyone is familiar with the notion of having a big stash of unassembled, unpainted models in their queue where their enthusiasm for buying a product didn't quite translate into painting and using it.
Azreal13 wrote: It's a matter of public record, there'll be a link buried here on Dakka somewhere, but for the Head Of IP his grasp of IP Law was.. tenuous?
Plus he characterised the GW Hobby as "buying things from GW" which has now ascended into legend somewhat!
He's not wrong. I love buying things from GW. There's something oddly enjoyable about the cycle of rumours, to previews, to getting something in your hands. I'm everyone is familiar with the notion of having a big stash of unassembled, unpainted models in their queue where their enthusiasm for buying a product didn't quite translate into painting and using it.
He's absolutely wrong, unless all you do with the stuff you buy is leave it in a cupboard and never look at it again.
A backlog is one thing, to never do anything with a any models or books except purchase them (which is the inference) is quite another.
You can be a massive fan, that's fine, but if you can't find it in your heart to at least be a little offended by the implication that ALL you do is buy the product unquestioningly and unthinkingly then I don't think you're in a position to have any sort of objective discussion.
Azreal13 wrote: Hey, they recruit for attitude, not skills! I'm sure he would get an interview!
Ha ha ha ha. I think if they could afford to make him a golden farewell offer big enough to make him leave he'd have been booted out years ago.
This is where they're lacking a few professional corporate donkey-caves, somebody to lead him to the edge, and convince him his only option is to jump. Although I suspect that'd be a challenge, key senior figures strike me as dug in deeper than deer ticks.
All gw needs to make it a great company are a few more senior external appointments. They know how to make great models, they have no idea how to retail them. I won't comment on the games as people disagree on that. Fresh blood in positions that can make positive changes could completely turn it around.
Absolutely agree, except the people in a position to affect that change see no need for it, and would likely feel threatened by anyone who disagreed with their way of doing things.
That is exactly the problem, that's why it is senior positions that are needed, people who will make things happen, and remove the blockages that have caused the stagnation.
Azreal13 wrote: It's a matter of public record, there'll be a link buried here on Dakka somewhere, but for the Head Of IP his grasp of IP Law was.. tenuous?
Plus he characterised the GW Hobby as "buying things from GW" which has now ascended into legend somewhat!
He's not wrong. I love buying things from GW. There's something oddly enjoyable about the cycle of rumours, to previews, to getting something in your hands. I'm everyone is familiar with the notion of having a big stash of unassembled, unpainted models in their queue where their enthusiasm for buying a product didn't quite translate into painting and using it.
He's absolutely wrong, unless all you do with the stuff you buy is leave it in a cupboard and never look at it again.
A backlog is one thing, to never do anything with a any models or books except purchase them (which is the inference) is quite another.
You can be a massive fan, that's fine, but if you can't find it in your heart to at least be a little offended by the implication that ALL you do is buy the product unquestioningly and unthinkingly then I don't think you're in a position to have any sort of objective discussion.
I don't think I could have an objective discussion if all I was discussing were my feelings. I think objective discussions are usually open to differing points of view, myself. It seems impossible, to me, to be objective without acknowledging a plurality of perspectives. Acknowledging them doesn't mean accepting or agreeing, just accepting that the conversation starts from an agreement to be able to disagree.
Now the fact is that I own stuff I have indeed bought and never looked at again. I've sold stuff on, like the WFB armies that I regretted buying. And other stuff I will, in theory, someday use, but I haven't looked at in years and don't expect to in the near future. Buying it, however, was always a good experience. Maybe you're offended by the implication that all you do is buy the product unthinkingly and unquestioningly, but I don't think that's the implication. I mean, I realized this only about a year or so ago when buying something (I think it was more Tyranid Warriors or something) that out of all the things I do in the Hobby, buying is definitely at the forefront, and being so reminded of that comment I couldn't help but have that nonplussed moment where I realized "Hey, my hobby really is buying this stuff!" It's certainly a weird feeling.
I think it's more the implication that they don't care what you do, as long as you are buying more. Which, in fairness, is most companies attitude, they don't just blurt it out in such a thoughtless manner.
I don't think it is offensive myself, but it is tactless. Some people are very emotionally attached to the company and products, so to be told that all they are is a wallet could be taken as a slap in the face.
But back on topic, yes I'm still buying. When Nagash came back and undead was undead again (I didn't like the split), I bought this to rebuild my favourite army (I'm 6'2", btw).
really, Az???
everyone is supossed to share your indignation, or they fail???
the view must be really nice from up on your high horse...
i think JamesY has the right attitude...
it is definitely tactless to blatantly state that customers are basically walking wallets, but i imagine there are plenty of corporations that share that sentiment...
if someone chooses to be offended, that's on them, but acting like everyone HAS to be offended is out of line, as far as i'm concerned...
i collect minis...
that is my hobby...
surfing is my lifestyle, painting is my job, and collecting minis is my hobby...
i am so busy painting other people's minis, that i rarely get a chance to paint my own stuff...
it doesn't stop me from buying the minis that i want...
even dudes need some retail therapy every once in a while...
clipping parts off of sprues, pouring over bits, and imagining the builds and paintjobs that i wish i had time for is a very rewarding hobby to me...
^I thought you said you were leaving this discussion?
In any case, it seems that he wasn't saying they had to be offended, but rather than they needed to understand why others might be. Those are two different things, and the latter is a very reasonable thing to ask for, and he's probably right that you need that understanding to really fully discuss this.
Azreal the tone of many of your posts on this thread have been patronizing, condescending, and at times just plain rude. If your 'joke' was missed, that is probably the reason why.
No, the tone of many of my posts has been misinterpreted, but hey, I'm used to it, they only tend to get misinterpreted that way by people who disagree with me.
Azreal13 wrote: It's a matter of public record, there'll be a link buried here on Dakka somewhere, but for the Head Of IP his grasp of IP Law was.. tenuous?
Plus he characterised the GW Hobby as "buying things from GW" which has now ascended into legend somewhat!
He's not wrong. I love buying things from GW. There's something oddly enjoyable about the cycle of rumours, to previews, to getting something in your hands. I'm everyone is familiar with the notion of having a big stash of unassembled, unpainted models in their queue where their enthusiasm for buying a product didn't quite translate into painting and using it.
Hahaha... This is actually very true. There isn't even another vendor that has managed to fascinate me with the cycle of rumor/preview/release/purchase of more stuff than I can possibly consume in a lifetime.
Also, jah made a good point: clipping bits off spruces and IMAGINING what I could do with it if I had the time is a whole hobby in itself LOL.
I own 2 Fortress of Redemption, 3 Aquilla Shrines, and god knows how many city building kits (like basilica, sanctum, malefactorum) because I imagine that one day, I'm going to build them into a massive, glorious fortress. Yeah, probably won't happen, but planning it out even in my mind and imagining it is pretty fun
JamesY wrote: Azreal the tone of many of your posts on this thread have been patronizing, condescending, and at times just plain rude. If your 'joke' was missed, that is probably the reason why.
QFT.
TBH, this thread is pretty awful, and it's not hard to point at who's making it so...
I can honestly say they are the best company I ever worked for, and before becoming a teacher, the only job I'd had where I genuinely enjoyed going to work everyday.
JamesY wrote: But back on topic, yes I'm still buying. When Nagash came back and undead was undead again (I didn't like the split), I bought this to rebuild my favourite army (I'm 6'2", btw).
Speaking of Nagash, I've been eyeing him and the Empire "War Altar" It's odd, I absolutely love painting minis. I loved playing 40k (can't say the same for WHFB, but I didn't get a large enough sample size to know for sure whether I liked fantasy or not), I however, came to a point where I could no longer justify the expenditure on the rule books to continue playing under current rulesets.
As such, I still buy models, but as I don't have an army to collect or an "end state" (such as an army) I am "free" to buy whatever catches my eye. This also allows me to view miniatures in any game setting I can conceive. Many of my recent purchases have been with DnD in mind. have a box of VC Skeletons and a Lich King model for baddies.
I also picked up a box of Empire Greatswords for my next character as well. Then, just a week ago, picked up Karl Franz on Deathclaw, because it looked cool.
So, I guess you could say I still buy models, but that comes and goes. Before this recent "splurge" of models, I hadn't bought a GW mini in well over 2 years.
JamesY wrote: But back on topic, yes I'm still buying. When Nagash came back and undead was undead again (I didn't like the split), I bought this to rebuild my favourite army (I'm 6'2", btw).
Speaking of Nagash, I've been eyeing him and the Empire "War Altar" It's odd, I absolutely love painting minis. I loved playing 40k (can't say the same for WHFB, but I didn't get a large enough sample size to know for sure whether I liked fantasy or not), I however, came to a point where I could no longer justify the expenditure on the rule books to continue playing under current rulesets.
As such, I still buy models, but as I don't have an army to collect or an "end state" (such as an army) I am "free" to buy whatever catches my eye. This also allows me to view miniatures in any game setting I can conceive. Many of my recent purchases have been with DnD in mind. have a box of VC Skeletons and a Lich King model for baddies.
I also picked up a box of Empire Greatswords for my next character as well. Then, just a week ago, picked up Karl Franz on Deathclaw, because it looked cool.
So, I guess you could say I still buy models, but that comes and goes. Before this recent "splurge" of models, I hadn't bought a GW mini in well over 2 years.
You'll probably find the recent decision to include rules in the box will suit you then in the next edition, it looks like it is going to suit/accommodate that style of army composition.
I'm the same, I use my gw minis for other games, and I'll probably use my old grenadier barbarian mob in 9th ed as they are based on 2p pieces.
JamesY wrote: Azreal the tone of many of your posts on this thread have been patronizing, condescending, and at times just plain rude. If your 'joke' was missed, that is probably the reason why.
QFT.
TBH, this thread is pretty awful, and it's not hard to point at who's making it so...
Bored again are we John?
I'm pretty sure piling on a user to say how awful their posts are must at least be flirting with Rule 1.
Either way, I won't be reviewing my posts objectively, I write what I write, feel free to disagree with my points, if you feel I've breached forum rules feel free to report it.
Considering how I was explaining how what you said WASN'T a problem...
Even then, regardless of the original intent of your post.the point remains: Demanding someone be offended or upset by what you're offended or upset by is bad, but saying that they need to understand WHY they might feel that way is reasonable, more an issue of empathy and the proper knowledge to progress the discussion.
Independent retailers get these things at much lower cost. Then they sell them at discounts online or via mail order.
GW, knowing this, simply scales up the price accordingly.
Even if no one ever bought an item through their site again, they are still going to do just fine.
If you scale back all of their prices by the average online retailer's discount (~20-35% depending how brave they are), you'll notice they feel a bit more realistic.
Azreal13 wrote: ...but hey, I'm used to it, they only tend to get misinterpreted that way by people who disagree with me.
That's kind of the point, though. If you're actually interested in discussion, making an effort to post in a way that isn't going to be misinterpreted is far more likely to facilitate that. Lacking visual clues and tone, humour is very easily misconstrued unless it is really obvious.
JohnHwangDD wrote: GW tried "community", and it was a gakshow. Remember the GW forums?
That wasn't GW trying 'community'. They had practically no involvement in their own forums, aside from the devs wandering into the Games Development section every couple of weeks to cherry-pick a few threads to respond to and just ignore everything else.
The lack of actual involvement with the community they were supposedly fostering, coupled with insufficient moderation, just resulted in more and more people getting disillusioned with the whole place and getting progressively more strident with their complaints about that.
The GW forums were ultimately just one of the earlier examples of GW not understanding this whole 'internet' thing.
GW tried tournaments, and it was another gakshow, because the FAQs never did what people wanted.
The main thing that people wanted from FAQs was for them to be complete, and promptly issued.
But you're right, far easier to just stop running tournaments...
JamesY wrote: I can honestly say they are the best company I ever worked for, and before becoming a teacher, the only job I'd had where I genuinely enjoyed going to work everyday.
Thanks for sharing that, and your other posts regarding your experiences at GW Interesting to hear.
JamesY wrote: I can honestly say they are the best company I ever worked for, and before becoming a teacher, the only job I'd had where I genuinely enjoyed going to work everyday.
I'm sorry if I missed it, but could I ask what you did for them? I'm curious, its not often we get ex-GW employees posting here.
The lack of actual involvement with the community they were supposedly fostering, coupled with insufficient moderation, just resulted in more and more people getting disillusioned with the whole place and getting progressively more strident with their complaints about that.
The GW forums were ultimately just one of the earlier examples of GW not understanding this whole 'internet' thing.
Wasn't it the White Dwarf Giant Issue that final finished the place off as people went ballistic at GW for an appallingly bad issue?
I was only on the retail side, but as I'm in Nottingham, I helped out quite regularly at HQ, refereeing at events, helping at fw open days etc so got to know a lot of people. As I am a very experienced retail manager, it was quite interesting see how they did things, it was a little like stepping back in time.
I'll share some things from my time that won't get me in trouble;
Aly Morrison is the nicest guy there. John Blanche got a bit annoyed at me when I didn't recognize him and tried to sell him a ticket to warhammer fest. Next time you buy a plastic kit, count the number of round protrusions on the frame, times by £1000. That's about the cost of tooling that mold. The landraider mold cost nearly £250,000 to tool.
JamesY wrote: I'll share some things from my time that won't get me in trouble;
Aly Morrison is the nicest guy there. John Blanche got a bit annoyed at me when I didn't recognize him and tried to sell him a ticket to warhammer fest. Next time you buy a plastic kit, count the number of round protrusions on the frame, times by £1000. That's about the cost of tooling that mold. The landraider mold cost nearly £250,000 to tool.
Holy smokes. That's insane! I had no idea a Land Raider mold cost that much O.O
No wonder they keep making stuff to fit the Rhino chassis hahahaha! I suppose, this is also why so few other companies make plastic scifi vehicle kits. Now, if only they would let people who can't physically go to the UK buy a command tank set, they'd recover some of those tooling costs
Yeah they are expensive to make at that level of detail. Perhaps I should pick up a couple of command tanks and eBay them overseas. I'm sure someone is doing it...
JamesY wrote: I was only on the retail side, but as I'm in Nottingham, I helped out quite regularly at HQ, refereeing at events, helping at fw open days etc so got to know a lot of people. As I am a very experienced retail manager, it was quite interesting see how they did things, it was a little like stepping back in time.
I'll share some things from my time that won't get me in trouble;
Aly Morrison is the nicest guy there. John Blanche got a bit annoyed at me when I didn't recognize him and tried to sell him a ticket to warhammer fest. Next time you buy a plastic kit, count the number of round protrusions on the frame, times by £1000. That's about the cost of tooling that mold. The landraider mold cost nearly £250,000 to tool.
Ah.. I was told Ronnie Renton was the most liked man in GW towers?
JamesY wrote: I was only on the retail side, but as I'm in Nottingham, I helped out quite regularly at HQ, refereeing at events, helping at fw open days etc so got to know a lot of people. As I am a very experienced retail manager, it was quite interesting see how they did things, it was a little like stepping back in time.
I'll share some things from my time that won't get me in trouble;
Aly Morrison is the nicest guy there. John Blanche got a bit annoyed at me when I didn't recognize him and tried to sell him a ticket to warhammer fest. Next time you buy a plastic kit, count the number of round protrusions on the frame, times by £1000. That's about the cost of tooling that mold. The landraider mold cost nearly £250,000 to tool.
Ah.. I was told Ronnie Renton was the most liked man in GW towers?
Never met the man, I was only meaning in my opinion on the people I met/chatted/had a beer with.
filbert wrote:Alan Merrett strikes me as the very definition of the Peter Principle at work.
JamesY wrote: Yeah they are expensive to make at that level of detail. Perhaps I should pick up a couple of command tanks and eBay them overseas. I'm sure someone is doing it...
I'm sure more than a couple of people have done that. I remember seeing a set on eBay for some jaw-dropping amount and thinking, "craziness!!"
JamesY wrote: I'll share some things from my time that won't get me in trouble;
Aly Morrison is the nicest guy there. John Blanche got a bit annoyed at me when I didn't recognize him and tried to sell him a ticket to warhammer fest. Next time you buy a plastic kit, count the number of round protrusions on the frame, times by £1000. That's about the cost of tooling that mold. The landraider mold cost nearly £250,000 to tool.
Holy smokes. That's insane! I had no idea a Land Raider mold cost that much O.O
No wonder they keep making stuff to fit the Rhino chassis hahahaha! I suppose, this is also why so few other companies make plastic scifi vehicle kits. Now, if only they would let people who can't physically go to the UK buy a command tank set, they'd recover some of those tooling costs
It doesn't cost that much, not even close.
DreamForge Games raised $200k USD on KS. Assuming all of it went into the Leviathan, $50k would have been shipping & production, leaving $150k for tooling. The sheer amount of plastic in that kit suggests that a Land Raider would cost less than $50k USD to tool today.
It's an exceptionally good kit with excellent detail and precision, standing head and shoulders over the current $160 USD Imperial Knight.
JamesY wrote: I'll share some things from my time that won't get me in trouble;
Aly Morrison is the nicest guy there. John Blanche got a bit annoyed at me when I didn't recognize him and tried to sell him a ticket to warhammer fest. Next time you buy a plastic kit, count the number of round protrusions on the frame, times by £1000. That's about the cost of tooling that mold. The landraider mold cost nearly £250,000 to tool.
Holy smokes. That's insane! I had no idea a Land Raider mold cost that much O.O
No wonder they keep making stuff to fit the Rhino chassis hahahaha! I suppose, this is also why so few other companies make plastic scifi vehicle kits. Now, if only they would let people who can't physically go to the UK buy a command tank set, they'd recover some of those tooling costs
It doesn't cost that much, not even close.
DreamForge Games raised $200k USD on KS. Assuming all of it went into the Leviathan, $50k would have been shipping & production, leaving $150k for tooling. The sheer amount of plastic in that kit suggests that a Land Raider would cost less than $50k USD to tool today.
It's an exceptionally good kit with excellent detail and precision, standing head and shoulders over the current $160 USD Imperial Knight.
It can be done much cheaper, models like the space wolf lord and ork warboss from stormclaw set were made using a rubber/plastic mould that costs far less. However, if volume is your game, as it is for gw, and you need a to produce models by the 100,000, then much more durable materials (I.e. etched steel) have to be used.
As I know people who work at Nottingham where GW manufacture their kits.
I can say that since the development of the latest cad systems and CNC milling machines making the plastic injection moulds is much cheaper than it was 15years ago!
The most expensive part of the box of plastic you buy from GW plc just from cost of manufacture point of view.(Including all overheads apart from sales and logistics.)
Is the box the product is packed in!
However, while I am on the subject of plastic manufacture...
Most companies that move to plastic manufacture do so to maximize the profit from volume of scale.
Eg the higher volume of sales from the high volume of production mean you make more money because you can charge less per product.
So for a production method geared to high volume production , GW plc seem to have it completely backwards.
'Overcharging the customer' for plastic product just drops volumes of sales.(As backed up by the financial reports for the last decade.)
So this means that the method of manufacture looses efficiency.
EG if you spend £30K on tooling up for plastic manufacture. and your sales volumes could be met by £2K worth of rubber moulds for metal or resin production.
You have now wasted £28K on tooling and added another interruption to the through put of high volume product ,
Chasing higher margins on lower volume of sales is fine for products that are 'high quality hand made with expensive costs of manufacture.'
Eg a top end luxury car that costs over £100,000 to manufacture each one .
It is ridiculously short sighted for a company '..in the business of selling toy soldiers..'
No, actually it did. Maybe we're they to design a land raider now,it would be a lot cheaper, but bear in mind this was done over ten or fifteen years ago...
I've seen that 250k figure put out before. It's legit.
That does seem rather high though. How, in that case, do you explain the multitude of plastic kit producers (Tamiya, Airfix, Italiari, Dragon.. I could go on with dozens more) who are able to release several new kits a year, for presumably a smaller market?
And, I don't know if it makes a difference in the process, but some of those kits have hundreds of pieces being modelling kits, and will contain 4 or 5 sprues in one set.
Genuinely interested to know as I have no idea about the finances involved !
^From the sounds of it, those people are using better tech nowadays to do it cheaper. Or they're working on a smaller scale and can thus use cheaper methods.
JamesY wrote: I'll share some things from my time that won't get me in trouble;
Aly Morrison is the nicest guy there. John Blanche got a bit annoyed at me when I didn't recognize him and tried to sell him a ticket to warhammer fest. Next time you buy a plastic kit, count the number of round protrusions on the frame, times by £1000. That's about the cost of tooling that mold. The landraider mold cost nearly £250,000 to tool.
Holy smokes. That's insane! I had no idea a Land Raider mold cost that much O.O
No wonder they keep making stuff to fit the Rhino chassis hahahaha! I suppose, this is also why so few other companies make plastic scifi vehicle kits. Now, if only they would let people who can't physically go to the UK buy a command tank set, they'd recover some of those tooling costs
It doesn't cost that much, not even close.
DreamForge Games raised $200k USD on KS. Assuming all of it went into the Leviathan, $50k would have been shipping & production, leaving $150k for tooling. The sheer amount of plastic in that kit suggests that a Land Raider would cost less than $50k USD to tool today.
It's an exceptionally good kit with excellent detail and precision, standing head and shoulders over the current $160 USD Imperial Knight.
It is actually cheaper to make the molds now than it was then - part of why Dreamforge is able to make such wonderful kits.
Mind you, GW isn't passing that savings down the line, just increasing the profit margin.
The material used for the molds can also affect the price - by a large amount.
That said... you are dead right that Dreamforge's Leviathans beat GW's Knights hands down.
I am just waiting for a good rules set to use them in.
Pacific wrote: That does seem rather high though. How, in that case, do you explain the multitude of plastic kit producers (Tamiya, Airfix, Italiari, Dragon.. I could go on with dozens more) who are able to release several new kits a year, for presumably a smaller market?
And, I don't know if it makes a difference in the process, but some of those kits have hundreds of pieces being modelling kits, and will contain 4 or 5 sprues in one set.
Genuinely interested to know as I have no idea about the finances involved !
Pacific wrote: That does seem rather high though. How, in that case, do you explain the multitude of plastic kit producers (Tamiya, Airfix, Italiari, Dragon.. I could go on with dozens more) who are able to release several new kits a year, for presumably a smaller market?
Tamiya kits are actually ludicrously expensive to produce. If you go to a local hobby shop that carries Tamiya, look at their price tag. The cheap sets are usually around $45. Part of this is due to Tamiya having the expense of paying licensing fees and royalties to whatever airplane, car, tank, etc. manufacturer the model represents. There is a theory among the guys at the hobby shop I buy my historic scale model stuff from (I typically only build Tamiya, as it happens, lol) is that these fees are the main reason why we're not seeing very many newer vehicles in their GP or Sports Car racing lines (IMO, their best model kids are of Le Mans race cars and rally cars, but the rally cars are the only ones that really get to anywhere around 2010 at a "normal" price point).
Also, it's been a practice in the past, though I don't know if this is the case any more, one brand would build a mold, make some successful runs of model kit with it, and then turn around and sell it to another company. As in, Airfix makes a Spitfire Mk. I, makes 50,000 units, sells them off, and sells that particular mold to, say, Italieri, who will do the same thing. This is why many older hobbyists in that area will kit bash like crazy, because the plastic used in one kit is different than another, so Revell's clear plastic canopy for a fighter may look better on a Dragon chassis, but Italieri really got the wing proportions down correctly so theyll use those wings.
Pacific wrote: That does seem rather high though. How, in that case, do you explain the multitude of plastic kit producers (Tamiya, Airfix, Italiari, Dragon.. I could go on with dozens more) who are able to release several new kits a year, for presumably a smaller market?
Tamiya kits are actually ludicrously expensive to produce. If you go to a local hobby shop that carries Tamiya, look at their price tag. The cheap sets are usually around $45. Part of this is due to Tamiya having the expense of paying licensing fees and royalties to whatever airplane, car, tank, etc. manufacturer the model represents. There is a theory among the guys at the hobby shop I buy my historic scale model stuff from (I typically only build Tamiya, as it happens, lol) is that these fees are the main reason why we're not seeing very many newer vehicles in their GP or Sports Car racing lines (IMO, their best model kids are of Le Mans race cars and rally cars, but the rally cars are the only ones that really get to anywhere around 2010 at a "normal" price point).
Also, it's been a practice in the past, though I don't know if this is the case any more, one brand would build a mold, make some successful runs of model kit with it, and then turn around and sell it to another company. As in, Airfix makes a Spitfire Mk. I, makes 50,000 units, sells them off, and sells that particular mold to, say, Italieri, who will do the same thing. This is why many older hobbyists in that area will kit bash like crazy, because the plastic used in one kit is different than another, so Revell's clear plastic canopy for a fighter may look better on a Dragon chassis, but Italieri really got the wing proportions down correctly so theyll use those wings.
You beat me to it. I was gonna say, Tamiya kits can be pretty expensive, and frankly, I don't think they have a smaller audience than the wargaming crowd. There are a lot of hobbyists who are into that stuff -- one of my hobby shops sells a pretty decent volume of them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheAuldGrump wrote: That said... you are dead right that Dreamforge's Leviathans beat GW's Knights hands down.
I think this is a matter of opinion rather than fact -- I personally prefer the Imperial Knight, though neither model is an ideal aesthetic for me. I don't think it's disputable that the Imperial Knight has more parts and is detailed, but whether that's a plus or not is entirely preference, IMO.
Personally, the more little details a model has, the more I like it. For example, I will prefer a blood angel or space wolves power-armored model over a vanilla space marine model because there's more intricate stuff for me to work on and paint -- as my freehand is not really good enough for me to get excited
DreamForge Games raised $200k USD on KS. Assuming all of it went into the Leviathan, $50k would have been shipping & production, leaving $150k for tooling. The sheer amount of plastic in that kit suggests that a Land Raider would cost less than $50k USD to tool today.
Just because Dreamforge raised 200K on KS you shouldn't assume that it was the actual cost. The 200K fell quite a bit short of covering the costs, WGF wanted a top end kit they could use to promote their production abilities and carried a large portion of those costs, so in effect DF got a deeply discounted rate. Based on the number of frames involved If you want to make a similar kit it'd easily run you in the ballpark of 400-450k to do it and the weapon options. It's less than what it would have run 10-15 years ago but it's still incredibly costly to do models in that size which is why nobody else is doing it. DF's leviathans are combination of timing and being connected with the right people at just the right time, and Mark putting a tremendous effort into doing the CAD work. You aren't going to see another project like that happen anytime soon, so it shouldn't be cited as a perfect example of "what can be done", it was more of a perfect storm event and isn't really an apt yardstick for measuring the industry.
It's an example of what's possible, but also highly unlikely to be repeated by anyone else.
MWHistorian wrote: It's not about asthetics.
The DF Leviathan has more movable parts, better posability, options is better engineered.
Edit:
Neither hold a candle to Gundam models in terms of posability, construction and especially price.
Agreed on both counts - though I am not a big fan of the Gundam models, they are amazingly poseable. (Not particularly durable - but then they were not intended for wargaming.)
Mind you, the Gundam models likely see a circulation that dwarfs the knights and the Leviathans together.
JamesY wrote: Yeah they are expensive to make at that level of detail. Perhaps I should pick up a couple of command tanks and eBay them overseas. I'm sure someone is doing it...
I'm sure more than a couple of people have done that. I remember seeing a set on eBay for some jaw-dropping amount and thinking, "craziness!!"
Well I go down for a gaming day every couple of months and will go regularly over the summer break. I don't mind picking up the occasional set and dropping by the post office on my way home for the price of a pint and a lunch in bugmans, as long as I get asked nicely.
I should just point out that if I ever get anything published by the GW, you've all got to buy it, in hardback. The price won't make you weep because you'll be supporting a fellow Dakker, and whatever I write will most likely be a saga for the ages
Seriously, at fifteen quid, would a newbie sell anything next to Abnett and McNeill?
...
