Dudeface wrote: Of course they're going to make incorrect or mistaken claims, they're evidently trying to get better at this process and as long as a human is sat at the wheel there will be a mistake. All GW can do it mitigate the risk and impact of the mistake.
I think it's a matter of perspective. To you, they're making incorrect or mistaken claims. To me, they're trying to see just how far they can push.
Good, so you're saying you believe that GW is incapable of making a mistake or incorrectly understanding legal terms, boundaries and conditions. Therefore are 100% competent and capable as a legal team, as no action is being made without intent?
Because that's a lofty claim if so, I mean they really showed people who was boss making 1 guy get a 2 day late payment on 1 video.
No, I'm not saying that, as I didn't, but thank you for putting words in my mouth.
I'm saying that this specific instance, when someone intently (and manually) issued a copyright claim was not done by mistake, basically because it's a multiple-step process where you need to include information, timestamps and the like. If it was done "by mistake" as part of a whole other list of copyright claims... well, that tells you everything you need, right there.
It might be "a mistake" having issued it, but it was not done "by mistake".
Also, try to be a bit less reductionist. Me saying "I think they're trying to see just how far they can push" in no way or form includes the sentence "GW is incapable of making a mistake or incorrectly understanding legal terms".
EDIT: As a last point... GW is a corporation, not some guy. And corporations, by their main motivations, steer towards the evil of the spectrum. Given their motivations are basically "earn as much as absolutely possible, spend as little as absolutely possible, trample any obstacle on the way, do anything for the bottomline and the shareholders"... anything you allow them to do, they'll do.
You can make a mistake in hindsight, re: having a lack of judgement. At the time of issuing the strike, the person doing so judged they had good reason to do so, in hindsight that judgement was a mistake.
What you are arguing is that it was an accident, not one person on here believes it was an accident.
How hard is this for people on here to understand. I want to meet all you perfect people who never make mistakes, and have never realised in hindsight that your actions you thought were totally fine actually were not....
endlesswaltz123 wrote: You can make a mistake in hindsight, re: having a lack of judgement. At the time of issuing the strike, the person doing so judged they had good reason to do so, in hindsight that judgement was a mistake.
What you are arguing is that it was an accident, not one person on here believes it was an accident.
How hard is this for people on here to understand. I want to meet all you perfect people who never make mistakes, and have never realised in hindsight that your actions you thought were totally fine actually were not....
People =/= corps. When a corporation "makes a mistake" of that kind, you need to take a look at the motivations that led to that mistake. Usually, the motivation is greed or control. That's why I think they're trying to see how far they can push. Because it's a corporation, and they do that. All the time. To everything.
No matter how many multicolored flags they put on their logos at Pride month.
Corporations are made up of people though, and people make mistakes.
If I accidentally charge someone for the wrong drink, it's not the company that made the mistake it's me. And it has been pointed out that the YT claim system is not a difficult process and that anyone can do it at any time. If it's the individual's job to look for potential infringement then that's what they'll be doing, and it's very likely a case where the individual goes "I found a thing and flagged it, now it's up to the lawyers to resolve it". The lawyers then looked at it, said no, and rescinded the claim.
Honestly, most of these complaints aren't about GW but capitlist practices in general.
Gert wrote: Corporations are made up of people though, and people make mistakes.
If I accidentally charge someone for the wrong drink, it's not the company that made the mistake it's me. And it has been pointed out that the YT claim system is not a difficult process and that anyone can do it at any time. If it's the individual's job to look for potential infringement then that's what they'll be doing, and it's very likely a case where the individual goes "I found a thing and flagged it, now it's up to the lawyers to resolve it". The lawyers then looked at it, said no, and rescinded the claim.
Honestly, most of these complaints aren't about GW but capitlist practices in general.
You're speaking of automation. This was issued manually. It's not a difficult process, but it's a multi-step one, that you can't really do unless you're doing exactly that, and it was done using GW's accounts.
Do you really believe someone from GW, with GW's account, issued a copyright claim unprompted? Because that's the thing. If someone issued a copyright claim, that's what they were supposed to be doing.
Or, once again, issuing it might have been a mistake, but it was not done by mistake.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: You can make a mistake in hindsight, re: having a lack of judgement. At the time of issuing the strike, the person doing so judged they had good reason to do so, in hindsight that judgement was a mistake.
What you are arguing is that it was an accident, not one person on here believes it was an accident.
How hard is this for people on here to understand. I want to meet all you perfect people who never make mistakes, and have never realised in hindsight that your actions you thought were totally fine actually were not....
People =/= corps. When a corporation "makes a mistake" of that kind, you need to take a look at the motivations that led to that mistake. Usually, the motivation is greed or control. That's why I think they're trying to see how far they can push. Because it's a corporation, and they do that. All the time. To everything.
No matter how many multicolored flags they put on their logos at Pride month.
So, if you take your car to a national garage, some apprentice installs the wrong part, they then replace it 2 days later at the hands of an experienced mechanic at no cost. That to you is the garage as a company ensuring they intentionally fit the wrong a part to your car?
Gert wrote: Corporations are made up of people though, and people make mistakes.
If I accidentally charge someone for the wrong drink, it's not the company that made the mistake it's me. And it has been pointed out that the YT claim system is not a difficult process and that anyone can do it at any time. If it's the individual's job to look for potential infringement then that's what they'll be doing, and it's very likely a case where the individual goes "I found a thing and flagged it, now it's up to the lawyers to resolve it". The lawyers then looked at it, said no, and rescinded the claim.
Honestly, most of these complaints aren't about GW but capitlist practices in general.
You're speaking of automation. This was issued manually. It's not a difficult process, but it's a multi-step one, that you can't really do unless you're doing exactly that, and it was done using GW's accounts.
Do you really believe someone from GW, with GW's account, issued a copyright claim unprompted? Because that's the thing. If someone issued a copyright claim, that's what they were supposed to be doing.
Or, once again, issuing it might have been a mistake, but it was not done by mistake.
Yes, they issued it by mistake. They perhaps considered the evidence incorrectly, they were misinformed what they should claim for etc. But 1 person, not a corporation, made the mistake.
Albertorius wrote: You're speaking of automation. This was issued manually.
The individual may have pressed the button on purpose but it was in error and therefore a mistake.
Do you really believe someone from GW, with GW's account, issued a copyright claim unprompted?
It's my job to sell food and drink, I don't need to be prompted into doing it because it's what I am paid to do.
Because that's the thing. If someone issued a copyright claim, that's what they were supposed to be doing.
Yes, because it will be their job to issue such claims. We know that Infringment Assistants don't need legal background or knowledge so as I said earlier, it's very likely that they act as sniffer dogs and leave the resolution up to the actual lawyers. As the saying goes, it's easier to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission.
Or, once again, issuing it might have been a mistake, but it was not done by mistake.
As the saying goes, it's easier to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission.
We are talking about someone's money here. It's not pouring someone coke instead of coke diet. And again, you have no proof it was a mistake. It could've been, but it also could've been a real claim that GW decided is not worth the stink it kicked up.
Dudeface wrote: So, if you take your car to a national garage, some apprentice installs the wrong part, they then replace it 2 days later at the hands of an experienced mechanic at no cost. That to you is the garage as a company ensuring they intentionally fit the wrong a part to your car?
Bad example, as you're talking about something done by your request, not unprompted. The garage is only touching things because you asked them to. Provided they're not using cheaper parts than stipulated (or used ones) and that they're not doing anything you did not ask them to do, there would be no malice involved, just a transaction.
This is not the case here, as it's a company acting in accordance with their own internal guidelines, and in accordance with their internal principles.
Yes, they issued it by mistake. They perhaps considered the evidence incorrectly, they were misinformed what they should claim for etc. But 1 person, not a corporation, made the mistake.
But that person can't make the mistake unless the corporation has ordered them to do it (in this case, issuing copyright claims).
Plus, the only data we have about it being "an error" is just those two words. We know it was an error, not what kind of error.
Also, ultimately, a corporation is responsible for the mistakes of its workers.
Dudeface wrote: So, if you take your car to a national garage, some apprentice installs the wrong part, they then replace it 2 days later at the hands of an experienced mechanic at no cost. That to you is the garage as a company ensuring they intentionally fit the wrong a part to your car?
Bad example, as you're talking about something done by your request, not unprompted. The garage is only touching things because you asked them to. Provided they're not using cheaper parts than stipulated (or used ones) and that they're not doing anything you did not ask them to do, there would be no malice involved, just a transaction.
This is not the case here, as it's a company acting in accordance with their own internal guidelines, and in accordance with their internal principles.
Yes, they issued it by mistake. They perhaps considered the evidence incorrectly, they were misinformed what they should claim for etc. But 1 person, not a corporation, made the mistake.
But that person can't make the mistake unless the corporation has ordered them to do it (in this case, issuing copyright claims).
Plus, the only data we have about it being "an error" is just those two words. We know it was an error, not what kind of error.
Also, ultimately, a corporation is responsible for the mistakes of its workers.
Yes the company is responsible for the mistakes of its workers. Yes that worker intentionally hit submit on that video, but it doesn't stop it being a mistake.
There is no malicious intent in an honest mistake as long as they apologise and right the error. Which they have.
Honestly I think you just want to assume ignorance of the human element of this process in an attempt to just maintain "corporation bad".
Gert wrote: The individual may have pressed the button on purpose but it was in error and therefore a mistake.
It was "an error". We do not know what kind of error, nor from whom. What we do know, is that the process can't be done by error. So whoever did it, they were supposed to be doing it.
It's my job to sell food and drink, I don't need to be prompted into doing it because it's what I am paid to do.
Only here there are no customers, as they can't choose to refuse until after "having been served".
Yes, because it will be their job to issue such claims. We know that Infringment Assistants don't need legal background or knowledge so as I said earlier, it's very likely that they act as sniffer dogs and leave the resolution up to the actual lawyers. As the saying goes, it's easier to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission.
Well, it's easier for them. If that's what they're doing, it was no mistake. It was wilfully done.
Or, once again, issuing it might have been a mistake, but it was not done by mistake.
So... still a mistake then.
See above. I don't feel there is any point in discussing this further, so... good day.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: Yes the company is responsible for the mistakes of its workers. Yes that worker intentionally hit submit on that video, but it doesn't stop it being a mistake.
There is no malicious intent in an honest mistake as long as they apologise and right the error. Which they have.
Honestly I think you just want to assume ignorance of the human element of this process in an attempt to just maintain "corporation bad".
Thing is, this was not a mistake. Issuing it was (because there was no basis), but the process of issuing it was done wilfully.
The malicious intent is on their policy. And in seeing how far they can push before having to state that it was "an error".
Cronch wrote: We are talking about someone's money here. It's not pouring someone coke instead of coke diet.
I never said I approved, I just said that's likely how the system is run considering the requirements on the job application.
And again, you have no proof it was a mistake. It could've been, but it also could've been a real claim that GW decided is not worth the stink it kicked up.
I'm still waiting for literally anyone who thinks it was some kind of scheme to provide any sort of actual evidence. The onus isn't on me to prove it was a mistake, it's on you to prove it wasn't.
Dudeface wrote: Yes the company is responsible for the mistakes of its workers. Yes that worker intentionally hit submit on that video, but it doesn't stop it being a mistake.
There is no malicious intent in an honest mistake as long as they apologise and right the error. Which they have.
Honestly I think you just want to assume ignorance of the human element of this process in an attempt to just maintain "corporation bad".
Thing is, this was not a mistake. Issuing it was (because there was no basis), but the process of issuing it was done wilfully.
The malicious intent is on their policy. And in seeing how far they can push before having to state that it was "an error".
So here you're stating that enforcing their IP is malicious. Of course it was submitted willingly, it again doesn't prevent it being a mistake for it to have happened.
The pushing the boundaries is an entirely unfounded statement and based on your own subjective feelings.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MaxT wrote: Are we now debating the difference between an error and a mistake?
Nope, they don't make mistakes apparently, an error is a cover up term for "oops, you caught us knowingly trying to incorrectly demonitise a singular youtube video".
Dudeface wrote: Yes the company is responsible for the mistakes of its workers. Yes that worker intentionally hit submit on that video, but it doesn't stop it being a mistake.
There is no malicious intent in an honest mistake as long as they apologise and right the error. Which they have.
Honestly I think you just want to assume ignorance of the human element of this process in an attempt to just maintain "corporation bad".
Thing is, this was not a mistake. Issuing it was (because there was no basis), but the process of issuing it was done wilfully.
The malicious intent is on their policy. And in seeing how far they can push before having to state that it was "an error".
So here you're stating that enforcing their IP is malicious. Of course it was submitted willingly, it again doesn't prevent it being a mistake for it to have happened.
The pushing the boundaries is an entirely unfounded statement and based on your own subjective feelings.
Not subjective or unfounded at all quite the contrary, if you care to look at GW past on this, its a GW typical behaviour.
@ Albertorius I agree its pointless to debate when people are not willing to listen or try to understand the past and present context. Debating in a little bubble of their own makes no sense.
Dudeface wrote: So here you're stating that enforcing their IP is malicious. Of course it was submitted willingly, it again doesn't prevent it being a mistake for it to have happened.
The pushing the boundaries is an entirely unfounded statement and based on your own subjective feelings.
Nope, they don't make mistakes apparently, an error is a cover up term for "oops, you caught us knowingly trying to incorrectly demonitise a singular youtube video".
Seeing as all you seem to want to do is twist my words for them to say whatever you want to... bye.
Dudeface wrote: So here you're stating that enforcing their IP is malicious. Of course it was submitted willingly, it again doesn't prevent it being a mistake for it to have happened.
The pushing the boundaries is an entirely unfounded statement and based on your own subjective feelings.
Nope, they don't make mistakes apparently, an error is a cover up term for "oops, you caught us knowingly trying to incorrectly demonitise a singular youtube video".
Seeing as all you seem to want to do is twist my words for them to say whatever you want to... bye.
I've twisted nothing there sadly, but agree this conversation is done.
So the multimillion professional company that exactly knows what they are doing after 40 years in the business is defended because they are "new" and don't know how this works hence mistakes were made
because it cannot be true that something I said is going to happen (YT strike taking down videos no matter what and this is going to be used to remove unwanted content during the release window) cannot be true
this was no mistake, they knew what they were doing and knew what was going to happen
question is just, did they do it to make a statement, to proof a point or just to point to finger to others so that they stay in line?
or was it just the IP guy who thought "lets try how easy this really is"
GW DID THE RIGHT THING IN THE END, THIS IS PROGRESS, TAKE THE PROGRESS.
Threatening the livelihood of a person who did nothing wrong by wrongfully submitting a false copyright claim isn't "progress." This attitude just floors me - GW does something out of the blue that's completely unjustified resulting in someone losing their income, then backs off after the person involved challenges their action. This isn't "progress," any more than it's "progress" if you are wrongfully arrested because of total incompetence by the police if you are released when they discover their mistake. Rectifying your unilateral mistake that hurts another person is the bare minimum expected of anyone, it doesn't show "progress."
The rock-bottom expectations some people have for GW is just incredible - now GW is actually being praised for filing false copyright claims because it shows "progress" that they abandon their false claims when called on them by the victim.
Yes, they issued it by mistake. They perhaps considered the evidence incorrectly, they were misinformed what they should claim for etc. But 1 person, not a corporation, made the mistake.
1. You have zero actual evidence for this claim. None. It is completely made up out of thin air.
2. It's also simply wrong as a matter of law. A corporation can't act except through the actions of its employees. By definition, GW made the mistake, if its employee made the mistake while acting as GW's agent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gert wrote: Corporations are made up of people though, and people make mistakes.
If I accidentally charge someone for the wrong drink, it's not the company that made the mistake it's me.
Legally incorrect. As long as you're acting in your role as an employee, it's the company's mistake too. A company can't act except through its agents.
And it has been pointed out that the YT claim system is not a difficult process and that anyone can do it at any time. If it's the individual's job to look for potential infringement then that's what they'll be doing, and it's very likely a case where the individual goes "I found a thing and flagged it, now it's up to the lawyers to resolve it". The lawyers then looked at it, said no, and rescinded the claim.
Honestly, most of these complaints aren't about GW but capitlist practices in general.
If this is actually how GW's process works - that they submit copyright claims before having them reviewed by a lawyer, and then rescind those after the fact that the lawyers determine are bogus - that would be grossly negligent, and blatantly in violation of the copyright laws. Submitting one of these claims requires attesting under penalty of perjury that you have a good faith basis for filing the claim and that you have reviewed the claim to make sure there isn't a fair use/dealing defense. What you are describing - filing first, reviewing second - would literally be a criminal act by GW.
MaxT wrote: Are we now debating the difference between an error and a mistake?
Apparently so. The main point is that Games Workshop did something that people swore up and down they wouldn't do, which is incontrovertible.
Even the most ardent defender can't say that didn't happen, so instead we get treated to the spectacle of being told that Games Workshop may have done it - but they really didn't mean to do it.
GW DID THE RIGHT THING IN THE END, THIS IS PROGRESS, TAKE THE PROGRESS.
Threatening the livelihood of a person who did nothing wrong by wrongfully submitting a false copyright claim isn't "progress." This attitude just floors me - GW does something out of the blue that's completely unjustified resulting in someone losing their income, then backs off after the person involved challenges their action. This isn't "progress," any more than it's "progress" if you are wrongfully arrested because of total incompetence by the police if you are released when they discover their mistake. Rectifying your unilateral mistake that hurts another person is the bare minimum expected of anyone, it doesn't show "progress."
The rock-bottom expectations some people have for GW is just incredible - now GW is actually being praised for filing false copyright claims because it shows "progress" that they abandon their false claims when called on them by the victim.
Yes, they issued it by mistake. They perhaps considered the evidence incorrectly, they were misinformed what they should claim for etc. But 1 person, not a corporation, made the mistake.
1. You have zero actual evidence for this claim. None. It is completely made up out of thin air.
2. It's also simply wrong as a matter of law. A corporation can't act except through the actions of its employees. By definition, GW made the mistake, if its employee made the mistake while acting as GW's agent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gert wrote: Corporations are made up of people though, and people make mistakes.
If I accidentally charge someone for the wrong drink, it's not the company that made the mistake it's me.
Legally incorrect. As long as you're acting in your role as an employee, it's the company's mistake too. A company can't act except through its agents.
And it has been pointed out that the YT claim system is not a difficult process and that anyone can do it at any time. If it's the individual's job to look for potential infringement then that's what they'll be doing, and it's very likely a case where the individual goes "I found a thing and flagged it, now it's up to the lawyers to resolve it". The lawyers then looked at it, said no, and rescinded the claim.
Honestly, most of these complaints aren't about GW but capitlist practices in general.
If this is actually how GW's process works - that they submit copyright claims before having them reviewed by a lawyer, and then rescind those after the fact that the lawyers determine are bogus - that would be grossly negligent, and blatantly in violation of the copyright laws. Submitting one of these claims requires attesting under penalty of perjury that you have a good faith basis for filing the claim and that you have reviewed the claim to make sure there isn't a fair use/dealing defense. What you are describing - filing first, reviewing second - would literally be a criminal act by GW.
Haha I was just about to post that. We now have people defending GW by saying they are committing violations with either criminal or civil penalties.
Honestly I am a bit surprised at some of the vehemence here. We have people who, it seems to me, are not too far off from buying bathwater from GW as long as its labeled "Isha's Tears".
MaxT wrote: Are we now debating the difference between an error and a mistake?
Even the most ardent defender can't say that didn't happen, so instead we get treated to the spectacle of being told that Games Workshop may have done it - but they really didn't mean to do it.
Some people are going even further than that, and claiming that GW didn't do it at all, it was just some rogue employee whose action cannot be imparted to the company. Never mind that there is zero evidence of that, and that it's legally incorrect...
MaxT wrote: Are we now debating the difference between an error and a mistake?
Apparently so. The main point is that Games Workshop did something that people swore up and down they wouldn't do, which is incontrovertible.
That's kind of a terrible point, to be honest.
What 'people' said GW wouldn't do doesn't matter and isn't binding on GW. It'd be somewhat meaningful if GW said they wouldn't do it, but as is, so what?
People (especially on the internet) make up the craziest things, and this isn't anywhere near the bottom of the barrel.
MaxT wrote: Are we now debating the difference between an error and a mistake?
Apparently so. The main point is that Games Workshop did something that people swore up and down they wouldn't do, which is incontrovertible.
That's kind of a terrible point, to be honest.
What 'people' said GW wouldn't do doesn't matter and isn't binding on GW. It'd be somewhat meaningful if GW said they wouldn't do it, but as is, so what?
People (especially on the internet) make up the craziest things, and this isn't anywhere near the bottom of the barrel.
What people in this thread said GW wouldn't do but turns out actually did, is absolutely relevant to this discussion when evaluating the credibility of those same people.
Haha I was just about to post that. We now have people defending GW by saying they are committing violations with either criminal or civil penalties.
Honestly I am a bit surprised at some of the vehemence here. We have people who, it seems to me, are not too far off from buying bathwater from GW as long as its labeled "Isha's Tears".
In their defense, they don't know that their latest excuse for Games Workshop would be illegal in practice. They just know that under no circumstances can they ever admit that GW may be engaged in exactly the kind of activity that rational people said they would engage in.
Sometimes when you're working long hours on the corporate defense force, you make these kinds of mistakes.
MaxT wrote: Are we now debating the difference between an error and a mistake?
Apparently so. The main point is that Games Workshop did something that people swore up and down they wouldn't do, which is incontrovertible.
That's kind of a terrible point, to be honest.
What 'people' said GW wouldn't do doesn't matter and isn't binding on GW. It'd be somewhat meaningful if GW said they wouldn't do it, but as is, so what?
People (especially on the internet) make up the craziest things, and this isn't anywhere near the bottom of the barrel.
Actually it's a great point, because the point is to show that some people were right, and other people who fought them tooth and nail over the original claim were wrong.
Unless you just woke up from a coma and missed the whole thing about how Games Workshop definitely would never be planning to take more copyright action, in which case it's understandable that you would be missing some context.
GW DID THE RIGHT THING IN THE END, THIS IS PROGRESS, TAKE THE PROGRESS.
Threatening the livelihood of a person who did nothing wrong by wrongfully submitting a false copyright claim isn't "progress." This attitude just floors me - GW does something out of the blue that's completely unjustified resulting in someone losing their income, then backs off after the person involved challenges their action. This isn't "progress," any more than it's "progress" if you are wrongfully arrested because of total incompetence by the police if you are released when they discover their mistake. Rectifying your unilateral mistake that hurts another person is the bare minimum expected of anyone, it doesn't show "progress."
The rock-bottom expectations some people have for GW is just incredible - now GW is actually being praised for filing false copyright claims because it shows "progress" that they abandon their false claims when called on them by the victim.
They were being praised for swiftly correcting the situation, not filing a form.
Yes, they issued it by mistake. They perhaps considered the evidence incorrectly, they were misinformed what they should claim for etc. But 1 person, not a corporation, made the mistake.
1. You have zero actual evidence for this claim. None. It is completely made up out of thin air.
2. It's also simply wrong as a matter of law. A corporation can't act except through the actions of its employees. By definition, GW made the mistake, if its employee made the mistake while acting as GW's agent.
There's also 0 evidence that they're "pushing the boundaries of what they can get away with" or "trying to abuse the reporting mechanism" given it was resolved in a timely manner and with no damages as far as anyone is aware.
It's law in the context that the employer is liable for the error in the context of an action taken whilst under their employment and carrying out their duties. The employees mistake is GW's mistake, but I'm fairly sure it was also GW as a whole responding to Guy and removing the application against his video.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gert wrote: Corporations are made up of people though, and people make mistakes.
If I accidentally charge someone for the wrong drink, it's not the company that made the mistake it's me.
Legally incorrect. As long as you're acting in your role as an employee, it's the company's mistake too. A company can't act except through its agents.
This also is only partially true, staff can be pressured or coerced to act unethically at which point the staff member isn't at fault at all and the company is entirely to blame (in so far as it would become an internal matter), whilst the actions of the employees in the act of their duties do represent the company however.
And it has been pointed out that the YT claim system is not a difficult process and that anyone can do it at any time. If it's the individual's job to look for potential infringement then that's what they'll be doing, and it's very likely a case where the individual goes "I found a thing and flagged it, now it's up to the lawyers to resolve it". The lawyers then looked at it, said no, and rescinded the claim.
Honestly, most of these complaints aren't about GW but capitlist practices in general.
If this is actually how GW's process works - that they submit copyright claims before having them reviewed by a lawyer, and then rescind those after the fact that the lawyers determine are bogus - that would be grossly negligent, and blatantly in violation of the copyright laws. Submitting one of these claims requires attesting under penalty of perjury that you have a good faith basis for filing the claim and that you have reviewed the claim to make sure there isn't a fair use/dealing defense. What you are describing - filing first, reviewing second - would literally be a criminal act by GW.
Again, common for law practices in the UK to file many forms and begin many actions based on the paperwork of an assistant. In most instances these do not need a qualified lawyer/solicitor to sign them off, but often are done this way as to charge for higher legal fees. It's quite possible their superior never looked over the form, authorised it or even looked it over properly if they did sign it.
To draw a line under my involvement in this thread completely:
- They put a copyright claim against the monetisation of a video.
- This was rescinded 2 days later.
- No financial harm was done to our knowledge.
- No other videos have been impacted to our knowledge.
- There is no evidence if this was a genuine mistake, or if it was a targeted malicious attack.
- In my opinion if they had intended malicious harm or thought a genuine case had been raised, they would have seen it through hence is an honest mistake.
Gert makes some valid points. While an individual certainly does work *for* and *on behalf of* a company, if someone makes a mistake, it doesn't mean that their mistake is part of some vast corporate conspiracy against you.
To draw a line under my involvement in this thread completely:
- They put a copyright claim against the monetisation of a video.
- This was rescinded 2 days later.
- No financial harm was done to our knowledge.
- No other videos have been impacted to our knowledge.
- There is no evidence if this was a genuine mistake, or if it was a targeted malicious attack.
- In my opinion if they had intended malicious harm or thought a genuine case had been raised, they would have seen it through hence is an honest mistake.
Submitting a claim that has no legal basis cannot be an "honest mistake." It is by definition at the very least negligent. That doesn't mean it was necessarily malicious - it could have simply been because GW has no understanding of IP law and is totally incompetent organizationally; we know from previous experience that this is not beyond the realm of possibility - but either way it's not an "honest mistake." An "honest mistake" is a mistake that reasonable people can make acting reasonably. Reasonable people don't submit false IP claims when basic due diligence would have shown the claim had no merit.
MJRyder wrote: Gert makes some valid points. While an individual certainly does work *for* and *on behalf of* a company, if someone makes a mistake, it doesn't mean that their mistake is part of some vast corporate conspiracy against you.
To draw a line under my involvement in this thread completely:
- They put a copyright claim against the monetisation of a video.
- This was rescinded 2 days later.
- No financial harm was done to our knowledge.
- No other videos have been impacted to our knowledge.
- There is no evidence if this was a genuine mistake, or if it was a targeted malicious attack.
- In my opinion if they had intended malicious harm or thought a genuine case had been raised, they would have seen it through hence is an honest mistake.
Agreed.
That is sort of the point of this entire thread though. GW is hiring, and presumably has already hired, people to make these sorts of decisions. THAT is a choice GW made. The choices those people then make- are absolutely imputable to the main corporation.
There is no James Workshop copyright striking, or making any of the other decisions GW is being criticized for. It is all individuals. Claiming that GW is not responsible for people they hire doing the EXACT job they were hired for, is yet another way for a subset of our community to avoid holding GW accountable.
MJRyder wrote: Gert makes some valid points. While an individual certainly does work *for* and *on behalf of* a company, if someone makes a mistake, it doesn't mean that their mistake is part of some vast corporate conspiracy against you.
This is a ridiculous straw man. Nobody said that. Please don't waste everyone's time with this sort of thing.
Meanwhile, what Gert said is legally inaccurate - a mistake by an employee is a mistake by the company. That's how the law works. We have no evidence this was the result of the act of a single employee, mind you. But even if it was, GW is still responsible for the error, unless the employee was acting outside the scope of their employment, which has a very high bar legally. Gert also suggested that the situation here was explainable by GW engaging in behavior that would violate both criminal and civil laws, namely submitting claims first under penalty of perjury and only checking them for legal sufficiency after submission. Not even I think that's plausible, but if GW really did do business that way, it would be even more worthy of our criticism.
MaxT wrote:Are we now debating the difference between an error and a mistake?
Pedants gonna pedant.
Semantics gotta semantic.
I'm in the 50% incompetence / 50% arrogance camp
It's really easy to believe that Mgt told peons that nobody is allowed to use anything regarding WH+. The peon is just doing their (presumably) low paying job.
But it is also easy to ascribe incompetence just due to the track record GW has on screwing up; pics, articles, press releases, etc...
GW paints with a wide brush because they can afford to use a hammer when a scalpel would do. It is good legal strategy: if they step on someone unjustly all they have to do is apologise. But the deterrent effect sticks as it does make other creators nervous and anxious, which may make them less likely to produce content. The less content produced, the more likely consumers are to turn their eyeballs to GWs in-house stuff.
MaxT wrote: Are we now debating the difference between an error and a mistake?
Apparently so. The main point is that Games Workshop did something that people swore up and down they wouldn't do, which is incontrovertible.
That's kind of a terrible point, to be honest.
What 'people' said GW wouldn't do doesn't matter and isn't binding on GW. It'd be somewhat meaningful if GW said they wouldn't do it, but as is, so what?
People (especially on the internet) make up the craziest things, and this isn't anywhere near the bottom of the barrel.
What people in this thread said GW wouldn't do but turns out actually did, is absolutely relevant to this discussion when evaluating the credibility of those same people.
Their... credibility to... be on the internet?
phandaal wrote:
Actually it's a great point, because the point is to show that some people were right, and other people who fought them tooth and nail over the original claim were wrong.
Ah. So 'someone' is right, others were wrong about random assertions on the internet, and that's the important thing?
I guess if there's someone keeping score somewhere, for no apparent reason, that might be important.
'What random posters said' seems entirely tangental to what GW is or isn't doing.
MaxT wrote:Are we now debating the difference between an error and a mistake?
Pedants gonna pedant.
Semantics gotta semantic.
I'm in the 50% incompetence / 50% arrogance camp
It's really easy to believe that Mgt told peons that nobody is allowed to use anything regarding WH+. The peon is just doing their (presumably) low paying job.
But it is also easy to ascribe incompetence just due to the track record GW has on screwing up; pics, articles, press releases, etc...
Yeah, I think Management will take note of the response though, this mistake won't be wasted.
I’ve learned a bit about YouTube demonetization from this thread…and a lot about the current gaming culture. I hope this thread stays open until at least the next GW “error”.
right it was not this topic, but a different one were people said that GW will never to such things because "reasons"
problem ist that the topic is discussed in 5 different topics with the updated guideline for fan-films, the topic about 3D files being taken down, this topic, and the 2 WH+ topics
but the post sums up what was said in those, specially that GW will not use the Youtube Strike System unless it is perfectly legal (and that DCMA strikes on YT are not working that way anyway and only illegal videos are taken down before)
MJRyder wrote: Gert makes some valid points. While an individual certainly does work *for* and *on behalf of* a company, if someone makes a mistake, it doesn't mean that their mistake is part of some vast corporate conspiracy against you.
This is a ridiculous straw man. Nobody said that. Please don't waste everyone's time with this sort of thing.
I don't think you quite understand how straw man arguments work. This entire thread has turned into a conversation about a simple mistake that was quickly rectified. My argument that a single incident does not equate to a corporate conspiracy is in no way a straw man -- in fact, quite the opposite.
I would kindly ask you to take your patronising attitude elsewhere.
Membership had nothing to do with the EU, EU member states are signed up individually and not as part of the EU
That is also true of EURATOM, yet our government threw in that we were leaving that as well in their Article 50 letter. Which then required us to negotiate a new Nuclear Cooperation Agreement or risk losing access to nuclear materials, research, safety and regulation enforcement etc.
Not really the same. WIPO has no connection to the EU, and so the UK didn't leave that. EURATOM, whilst separate to the EU is governed by many of its institutions including the European Commission and sits under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice - and so the UK left it.
Don't want to make this a Brexit thread - just trying to put the truth out there. There was a claim that the UK left WIPO, this NEVER happened.
StraightSilver wrote: My understanding is that the UK'S membership of WIPO was based on it being part of EUIPO.
Once UK leaves EUIPO it becomes UKIPO after the transition period which is the end of this month (September).
The UK on its own was never a member of WIPO and has to reapply in October to join.
The Madrid protocols cease to apply to UK from the end of this month.
So UK is still a member state until end of September but after that it's uncertain.
It may well be the case that UKIPO is recognised as a member but it's not, AFAIK, a guarantee which is why UK companies are panicking at the moment.
I'm not an expert, I can only go by what the WIPO say themselves - they say that the UK is a member, and they make no mention of the EUIPO being a member. This article would seem to imply that the EUIPO is NOT a member of the WIPO (otherwise it would be a member meeting and not a bilateral meetings) https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/news/-/action/view/5825285
Now it is true that the UK has/will drop out of EUIPO, and that grants extended protections within the EU over and above what is offered by the WIPO (although the main benefit seems to be the speed at which the EUIPO will grant a trademark), but that's not the same as dropping out of the WIPO
I am waiting for the sci fi fantasy writers’ guild to advertise for cosplay assassins to go after GW corporate henchlegal muscle so as to send a message about coopting someone else’s “IP” e.g. a Fafrd and a Grey Mouser to go after whoever at GW wants to defend Gotrek and Felix as if it belongs to that parasite… man, a hobby is not supposed to leave a bad taste in one’s mouth, unless that hobby involves eating something that tastes bad…
Corporations are always looking to flex their legal muscle or cut corners for profits, that's what they do. Like a bear killing a deer; it's the nature of the beast, there's nothing conspiratorial about it.
Goose LeChance wrote: Corporations are always looking to flex their legal muscle or cut corners for profits, that's what they do. Like a bear killing a deer; it's the nature of the beast, there's nothing conspiratorial about it.
This is not the nature of corporations as originally formed any more than this is the native ethic of capitalism as originally envisioned. Sadly, this is how things are represented by anemic business ethics and economics professors and supporting literature since at least Friedman's work in the early 70s i.e. the only responsibility of a leader in business is to maximize profits, and to do anything else is to do something immoral rather than moral e.g. aim to maximize social benefits to quality of life for the leaat well-off, etc...
It is not as if the truth is difficult to find. Read Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments or study Freeman's value creation stakeholder management, pay attention to the disputed interpretations of Smith's Wealth of Nations (HINT: the neo-classical economists and their screeds taught at maybe 95% of universities get this wrong, but the tide is turning as the 'greed is good' ethos fails at every level in every nation as the hype-wave of contemporary globalism has crested and is falling like a stone on fire) in enlighened philosophical literature, and generally do what Smith would have advised, follow your conscience, do the right thing for the community, and act so as to make the world a better place ... profits follow from this, not the other way around.
Anyways, it is time for people who have no idea about what is going on in the world and less idea of the history of ideas that has led to the contemporary fiasco to stop presuming that this is just the way things are because fact o nature, because it is not only false but dangerous and damaging.
Goose LeChance wrote: Corporations are always looking to flex their legal muscle or cut corners for profits, that's what they do. Like a bear killing a deer; it's the nature of the beast, there's nothing conspiratorial about it.
This is not the nature of corporations as originally formed any more than this is the native ethic of capitalism as originally envisioned. Sadly, this is how things are represented by anemic business ethics and economics professors and supporting literature since at least Friedman's work in the early 70s i.e. the only responsibility of a leader in business is to maximize profits, and to do anything else is to do something immoral rather than moral e.g. aim to maximize social benefits to quality of life for the leaat well-off, etc...
It is not as if the truth is difficult to find. Read Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments or study Freeman's value creation stakeholder management, pay attention to the disputed interpretations of Smith's Wealth of Nations (HINT: the neo-classical economists and their screeds taught at maybe 95% of universities get this wrong, but the tide is turning as the 'greed is good' ethos fails at every level in every nation as the hype-wave of contemporary globalism has crested and is falling like a stone on fire) in enlighened philosophical literature, and generally do what Smith would have advised, follow your conscience, do the right thing for the community, and act so as to make the world a better place ... profits follow from this, not the other way around.
Anyways, it is time for people who have no idea about what is going on in the world and less idea of the history of ideas that has led to the contemporary fiasco to stop presuming that this is just the way things are because fact o nature, because it is not only false but dangerous and damaging.
Are you presuming I'm advocating for it? Possibly because you don't fully grasp that you're as guilty as anyone else of supporting it.
Cancel all Disney services and throw your apple phones in the garbage. My fellow internet larping friends.
Goose LeChance wrote: Corporations are always looking to flex their legal muscle or cut corners for profits, that's what they do. Like a bear killing a deer; it's the nature of the beast, there's nothing conspiratorial about it.
This is not the nature of corporations as originally formed any more than this is the native ethic of capitalism as originally envisioned. Sadly,
Spoiler:
this is how things are represented by anemic business ethics and economics professors and supporting literature since at least Friedman's work in the early 70s i.e. the only responsibility of a leader in business is to maximize profits, and to do anything else is to do something immoral rather than moral e.g. aim to maximize social benefits to quality of life for the leaat well-off, etc...
It is not as if the truth is difficult to find. Read Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments or study Freeman's value creation stakeholder management, pay attention to the disputed interpretations of Smith's Wealth of Nations (HINT: the neo-classical economists and their screeds taught at maybe 95% of universities get this wrong, but the tide is turning as the 'greed is good' ethos fails at every level in every nation as the hype-wave of contemporary globalism has crested and is falling like a stone on fire) in enlighened philosophical literature, and generally do what Smith would have advised, follow your conscience, do the right thing for the community, and act so as to make the world a better place ... profits follow from this, not the other way around.
Anyways, it is time for people who have no idea about what is going on in the world and less idea of the history of ideas that has led to the contemporary fiasco to stop presuming that this is just the way things are because fact o nature, because it is not only false but dangerous and damaging.
Are you presuming I'm advocating for it? Possibly because you don't fully grasp that you're as guilty as anyone else of supporting it.
Cancel all Disney services and throw your apple phones in the garbage. My fellow internet larping friends.
Oh, I more than fully grasp.
Your words, “ nature of the beast” … are those to which I was responding. Advocate or not the understanding is mistaken.
Gregor Samsa wrote: GW paints with a wide brush because they can afford to use a hammer when a scalpel would do. It is good legal strategy: if they step on someone unjustly all they have to do is apologise. But the deterrent effect sticks as it does make other creators nervous and anxious, which may make them less likely to produce content. The less content produced, the more likely consumers are to turn their eyeballs to GWs in-house stuff.
Not so sure on that - the mass of content featuring GW's products on YouTube helps sell the products*. To an extent, I think even the "why I hate GW today" channels feed in to that. It keeps them talked about and relevant. And I'm sure every time someone posts a video about how some new models are massively overpriced, at least one viewer goes "well, he has a point but they are soooo nice I will buy them any way."
If they wanted to go after someone maliciously, why would they go after a fair and even handed review of WH+ that was very positive in places, rather than the videos calling it a rip-off, scam, money-grab, etc?
(*And no, I don't think fan animations help sell the product in the same way. Because they don't feature the actual product.)
Fan created videos, like fan fiction, fan lore, fan sites, conversions and all that might not help sell the products directly. However they do help sell the setting the products are in.
One thing GW has realised is the power of lore and that having lore and artwork and promoting it, ends up with people invested more heavily into your setting. It's one thing they've got really well done and its something a lot of other firms overlook or even totally ignore. Because its not a direct earning element they let it slip by; and yet GW focuses a lot of resources on it.
It also works; the lore helps hook people even when the game, building and painting might be at low spots for them. It also creates interest, hooks and more of a connection to the models and game and, ultimately, the story.
Yes because its a game-bound lore it has limits. We are never going to see the Emperor killed, humanity fall and Eldar rise to rule the Galaxy again whilst Tyranids are wiped out. Or at least if we did see such things it would be like the start of AoS, a wasteland of complaints, hate, drama and more.
But it works.
It's why GW didn't care about fan animations, nor even them earning money until they shifted their company stance on them. Even now we see that GW is keen to foster a good relationship with animators; even if at the same time they are having to issue demonitizing orders to them in order to protect their current and future media interests with their franchise, ip and lore.
Fun fact, that comic consists of 3 panels. The first one? it literally goes:
person A: "we should adress the issues of capitalism"
person B (the one that says yet you live in a society): "yet you have a cellphone".
Trust me, your comment is very reminiscent of that first pannel.
Yeah, you're really addressing the issues of Capitalism by posting memes on reddit and twitter.
And your edgy condescending comments on the state of the world inside a rumours thread for plastic minis made by a company you hate are really much better.
Goose LeChance wrote: I'm not saying anything different from most of the comments in this thread, why single me out? In fact, my entire point is to do less complaining.
That thread of conversation originated from one of your earlier comments that lead to the unfortunate discussion of the socio-economic climate of the world and the relative ability to stereotype people via memes. I do apologise, it's not only you doing this but the bulk of the last page has been you standing ground against various things. So in hindsight, yes everyone needs to stop trying to fix the world and being armchair lawyers/corporate owners/logistics experts etc.
If they wanted to go after someone maliciously, why would they go after a fair and even handed review of WH+ that was very positive in places, rather than the videos calling it a rip-off, scam, money-grab, etc?
Best guess? The employees filing those copyright claims were given broad directions to flag anything displaying Games Workshop's content, and MWM's video reproduced some WH+ footage for discussion.
No I didn't. That comic boils down to: "Don't call me a hypocrite"
Stop buying products from companies you disagree with morally. They aren't going to suddenly behave themselves if all you do is complain on twitter while watching Avengers Endgame in the theatre.
Goose LeChance wrote: No I didn't. That comic boils down to: "Don't call me a hypocrite"
.
No it doesn't. What it's saying is people trying to change things they disagree with shouldn't be criticised for not changing literally everything in their life all at once, and that people who try and rag on those people for not changing everything in their life are condescending dicks.
Or, to TLDR even that, don't criticise people for trying.
I don’t see a positive outcome for GW going forward. Printing technology has improved dramatically in the last 7 years, and prices have gotten down to the level it makes sense to print your own models. GW should find a way to embrace this tech instead of trying to suppress it.
As soon as printers aren't their own hobby. Which they still very much are, you need to be into adjusting your own plates and whatnot, and willing to give up room space for the thing.
3D printing works for the one reason that GW prices are inflated as they are
of a new 2k points 40k army costs you 600-800€, buying a 3D printer despite it is a hobby on its own, is a no brainer for that single army alone
Even the cheapest possible 40k army, Custodes Jetbikes, costs more than a decent Resin Printer, including files and Resin.
Compared to other wargames?
I get a 6 point SAGA Army with options for 40-60€
I need to print 5 such armies to make a printer worth it and having the problem that Files available for that time period are not really available or just bad and no were near the quality of the plastic minis (for the very reason that no one is doing them because you cannot compete with cheap HIPS models)
I can make the Custodes Jetbike Army with 90€ Mantic models, add another 30€ for 3rd party bits to make them WYSIWYG.
It is GW and their price policy alone that keeps 3D printing profitable for everyone because no matter what it is, GW will always be more expensive
They created their own enemy here
kodos wrote: 3D printing works for the one reason that GW prices are inflated as they are
of a new 2k points 40k army costs you 600-800€, buying a 3D printer despite it is a hobby on its own, is a no brainer for that single army alone
Even the cheapest possible 40k army, Custodes Jetbikes, costs more than a decent Resin Printer, including files and Resin.
Compared to other wargames?
I get a 6 point SAGA Army with options for 40-60€
I need to print 5 such armies to make a printer worth it and having the problem that Files available for that time period are not really available or just bad and no were near the quality of the plastic minis (for the very reason that no one is doing them because you cannot compete with cheap HIPS models)
I can make the Custodes Jetbike Army with 90€ Mantic models, add another 30€ for 3rd party bits to make them WYSIWYG.
It is GW and their price policy alone that keeps 3D printing profitable for everyone because no matter what it is, GW will always be more expensive
They created their own enemy here
If they operated on a lower sales and lower cost model, I doubt they'd have the market dominance or be relevant enough to have a need for 3d printing. Success breeds competition, it's just the competition are the consumers now.
of course if customers out-compete the producer, they can now enjoy playing a dead game with no Official Rules, something most 40k players find terrifying.
Dudeface wrote: If they operated on a lower sales and lower cost model, I doubt they'd have the market dominance or be relevant enough to have a need for 3d printing. Success breeds competition, it's just the competition are the consumers now.
I don't know if I understand what you want to say, if GW would not sell 5 Cavalry models in a Boxes for 50€ but than 10 models in a box for 30€, they would not have the market dominance they have?
I mean the need for 3D printing is not there because GW is the dominant wargame, but because that wargame is so expensive
if the standard 40k army would cost 200€, no one would bother to buy a 3D printer for 250€ to print that army, no matter how dominant the game is
Dudeface wrote: If they operated on a lower sales and lower cost model, I doubt they'd have the market dominance or be relevant enough to have a need for 3d printing. Success breeds competition, it's just the competition are the consumers now.
I don't know if I understand what you want to say, if GW would not sell 5 Cavalry models in a Boxes for 50€ but than 10 models in a box for 30€, they would not have the market dominance they have?
I mean the need for 3D printing is not there because GW is the dominant wargame, but because that wargame is so expensive
if the standard 40k army would cost 200€, no one would bother to buy a 3D printer for 250€ to print that army, no matter how dominant the game is
To play devils advocate for a bit:
Producing and selling a miniature involves several people, companies a structure and money, 3d printing has the potential to nuke it all out of existence.
Just because something is cheaper we need to think about the overall picture and the consequences.
Dudeface wrote: If they operated on a lower sales and lower cost model, I doubt they'd have the market dominance or be relevant enough to have a need for 3d printing. Success breeds competition, it's just the competition are the consumers now.
I don't know if I understand what you want to say, if GW would not sell 5 Cavalry models in a Boxes for 50€ but than 10 models in a box for 30€, they would not have the market dominance they have?
I mean the need for 3D printing is not there because GW is the dominant wargame, but because that wargame is so expensive
if the standard 40k army would cost 200€, no one would bother to buy a 3D printer for 250€ to print that army, no matter how dominant the game is
To play devils advocate for a bit:
Producing and selling a miniature involves several people, companies a structure and money, 3d printing has the potential to nuke it all out of existence.
Just because something is cheaper we need to think about the overall picture and the consequences.
Well, that or change the market in much the same way it happened with the music industry, I guess.
I don’t see a positive outcome for GW going forward. Printing technology has improved dramatically in the last 7 years, and prices have gotten down to the level it makes sense to print your own models. GW should find a way to embrace this tech instead of trying to suppress it.
A) GW is not suppressing 3D prints. Far from it. The only two things is that they are are doing is:
1. They very ineffectively try to stop criminals to steal their intellectual property, but this is independent of the production method used, be it recasting, 3D prints or sculpts that are too identical to GW originals.
2. There is a trend that some units lose options that neccessitate the purchase of multiple boxes to field a single unit with a certain configuration.
B) GW is not embracing 3D prints (other than internal prototyping), either. But they have good reasons for it.
1) The technology is not there to mass produce anything cost efficiently, yet. So any attempt to start a print-on-demand service is not viable for the forseeable future.
2) Any attempt to give STL files to the consumers will destroy a sizeable part of the current business model. So this is not viable either.
C) Technology changes, so 3D printing might become an economical viable alternative to plastic injection. But there is no guarantee that it will. SLA printing has a long way to go. Even the 3000 Euro machines cannot effortlessly and safely used by a 12 year old.
D) GW is aware that 3D printing has the potential to disrupt their business. Their reply is to step into the animation business, usimg their IP in different ways than miniature games.
Because it is not cheaper than most of the industry, it is just cheaper than 1 company, although it is the dominant one
More like the German Music Industry thought a pointless war to ban Music Videos on Youtube were everyone else already took advantage of it
Yes and no, because "the whole industry" also encompasses all the boutique mini stores that sell resin minis, the personalized D&D, the regular D&D minis and everything else, not just GW and historicals.
Also, there's just the sheer joy of immediate gratification, where you download a file and print it in a couple hours and you have the mini you wanted, not just the idea of something being cheaper.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vovin wrote: 1. They very ineffectively try to stop criminals to steal their intellectual property, but this is independent of the production method used, be it recasting, 3D prints or sculpts that are too identical to GW originals.
Well... "criminals", "steal" and "intellectual property", at any rate.
1) The technology is not there to mass produce anything cost efficiently, yet. So any attempt to start a print-on-demand service is not viable for the forseeable future.
... hm. Do you know what a printer farm is? Have you taken a look at Etsy lately? Do you know what Shapeways is? Because it's a business model for a lot of people already. Some KS have also fulfilled their pledges with printed miniatures.
Dudeface wrote: If they operated on a lower sales and lower cost model, I doubt they'd have the market dominance or be relevant enough to have a need for 3d printing. Success breeds competition, it's just the competition are the consumers now.
I don't know if I understand what you want to say, if GW would not sell 5 Cavalry models in a Boxes for 50€ but than 10 models in a box for 30€, they would not have the market dominance they have?
I mean the need for 3D printing is not there because GW is the dominant wargame, but because that wargame is so expensive
if the standard 40k army would cost 200€, no one would bother to buy a 3D printer for 250€ to print that army, no matter how dominant the game is
Games workshop have the luxury of being top of the pile because they have a lot of resources (read, money). If they suddenly sell you less items at a lower cost, they have less money. If they have less money they can release less stuff or rather less risky items.
Eventually they'd just be "another wargames company" because they don't have the financial clout to force the marketing, brand recognition and coverage they do now.
If they sold twice the amount at 3/5 of the cost, you're spending 3/10 of what yoube otherwise spent, they likely wouldn't cover the development costs, if they did all it would do is encourage them to make safe units. I.e. space marines.
This is true, but on the other hand they are on the best way to price themselves out of the market which will also result in less money
At the price point were it is easier and cheaper for people to make similar quality at home, the argument that same sales at a lower price result in a loss falls flat, as you are not going to sell the same amount at the high price as well
Albertorius wrote: Well... "criminals", "steal" and "intellectual property", at any rate.
Not even close to what you're implying. Flat out theft. Doesn't matter if you're "sticking it to the man" when you're actively stealing their product and redistributing it.
... hm. Do you know what a printer farm is? Have you taken a look at Etsy lately? Do you know what Shapeways is? Because it's a business model for a lot of people already. Some KS have also fulfilled their pledges with printed miniatures.
Both of those are stores that host creators. How many individual creators are on Etsy or Shapeways? Are they only producing 3d printed models or do they also have multiple other types of products available? Are they producing these models in the UK despite the higher costs or are they a worldwide network of lots of smaller creators making lots of different things? What's the output of these individuals? Are they producing as much product as GW?
Games Workshop wants out of the tabletop wargaming business. That much is clear.
When it comes to the physical product they manufacture, what they want is to sell expensive premium models for gamers to adorn their PC gaming rigs with.
Right now they are casting around for which form of product their IP can be most effectively monetized in as they move into the next phase of their business.
They don't want to be a "wargames company". They want to sell models. They are actively rewriting all of their rules in order to better facilitate the purchase of large and expensive "centrepiece" models (hence the 'hero hammer' shift in game design). Likely that is also in part because current 3d printers cannot compete with them at that level, yet.
Albertorius wrote: Well... "criminals", "steal" and "intellectual property", at any rate.
Not even close to what you're implying. Flat out theft. Doesn't matter if you're "sticking it to the man" when you're actively stealing their product and redistributing it.
Not really, no, unless they're literally stealing files that GW did, or scanning miniatures that GW made. That's not the case in maybe 99.98% of the cases. So the stealing is flat out wrong (also, you know, the usual "downloading is not theft" because it can't be).
So what they're doing is copying at most, and it's not even that in most cases, because what they're actually doing is usually mimicking the style.
And well, about GW's IP, well... it's funny because their IP already did the above, namely copying/mimicking stuff from everywhere else.
So... yeah.
... hm. Do you know what a printer farm is? Have you taken a look at Etsy lately? Do you know what Shapeways is? Because it's a business model for a lot of people already. Some KS have also fulfilled their pledges with printed miniatures.
1) Both of those are stores that host creators.
2) How many individual creators are on Etsy or Shapeways?
3) Are they only producing 3d printed models or do they also have multiple other types of products available?
4) Are they producing these models in the UK despite the higher costs or are they a worldwide network of lots of smaller creators making lots of different things?
5) What's the output of these individuals?
6) Are they producing as much product as GW?
1) Yes. I fail to see your point.
2) Hundreds? Maybe thousands.
3) It depends. Some do their own models and sell stls and prints. Some license out designs and print them. Some do a bit of everything. It feels like something you could investigate.
4) Distributed production. That's what 3d printing brings to the table, you know.
5) Maybe ask them.
6) This last one is an immense red herring... localized production vs distributed will never have the same output individually, only combined. Also, how does it matter at all? For a business model to be viable it doesn't need to fit inside GW's box.
1) The technology is not there to mass produce anything cost efficiently, yet. So any attempt to start a print-on-demand service is not viable for the forseeable future.
... hm. Do you know what a printer farm is? Have you taken a look at Etsy lately? Do you know what Shapeways is? Because it's a business model for a lot of people already. Some KS have also fulfilled their pledges with printed miniatures.
just comparing it, most sales are made on release weekend, so if you need 3 days to print the army that you are going to sell on release, if you get 100 pre-orders you need 20 printers to make those within a reasonable amount of time (the usual 14 day pre-order window)
1000 pre-orders and you are at 200 printers, which is too much to handle them alone so you need to hire people to keep it up
10.000 pre-orders on a world wide sale and you are 2000 printers the get the pre-orders done in 15 days
so lets make longer pre-order period, 2 months and you just need 500 printers, but this also means you cannot do anything else in those 2 months than print the pre-orders for 1 release
yes, this is a business model but not for high demand spike sales but for low demand niche products that are not selling enough to make them with something else
same way as print on demand for books in a copyshop only works as long as the demand is low, with a word-wide release of a bestseller you cannot do that any more
NAVARRO wrote: For the most part the other companies dont have that many minis that can say they hit the 1000's mark.
Its a small industry business outside GW. Not sure If they can cope with the new tech that simply is eroding the traditional production.
Some already closing blaming Brexit or covid etc... but it really is not that simple and 3d has a big part in the reducing sales numbers... IMO.
Like I said cheaper and more convenient to clients now may well prove to be death sentence for many of the current companies and traditional projects.
GW has the money to dodge bullets.
The cheaper and convenient clients already existed, it was never a problem before and isn't now. The problem now are the fact people are making the 1:1 knock off models.
You've been able to buy mantic or w/e for years if you wanted cheaper proxies, yet nobody does.
NAVARRO wrote: For the most part the other companies dont have that many minis that can say they hit the 1000's mark.
Its a small industry business outside GW. Not sure If they can cope with the new tech that simply is eroding the traditional production.
Some already closing blaming Brexit or covid etc... but it really is not that simple and 3d has a big part in the reducing sales numbers... IMO.
Like I said cheaper and more convenient to clients now may well prove to be death sentence for many of the current companies and traditional projects.
GW has the money to dodge bullets.
The cheaper and convenient clients already existed, it was never a problem before and isn't now. The problem now are the fact people are making the 1:1 knock off models.
You've been able to buy mantic or w/e for years if you wanted cheaper proxies, yet nobody does.
Incorrect sorry, the cheaper and more convenient was there as an alternative product produced in the same traditional manner, involving agents like casters, production, distribution etc. The 3d and file distribution is new and rends those agents and companies extinct. See the difference?
It wasn't a problem because if the clients went to alternative competitors the money would still be injected in the industry has we know and thats healthy. With 3d the traditional services are not required anymore and money goes towards the 3d artists and their portals or farms etc. To invest in more of that. Which is fine if thats what people want.
GW knows how hard will be control file distribution since theres no structure to trace anything. Its a file done by 1guy no one knows anything about and given to X number of other guys via email.
NAVARRO wrote: For the most part the other companies dont have that many minis that can say they hit the 1000's mark.
Its a small industry business outside GW. Not sure If they can cope with the new tech that simply is eroding the traditional production.
Some already closing blaming Brexit or covid etc... but it really is not that simple and 3d has a big part in the reducing sales numbers... IMO.
Like I said cheaper and more convenient to clients now may well prove to be death sentence for many of the current companies and traditional projects.
GW has the money to dodge bullets.
The cheaper and convenient clients already existed, it was never a problem before and isn't now. The problem now are the fact people are making the 1:1 knock off models.
You've been able to buy mantic or w/e for years if you wanted cheaper proxies, yet nobody does.
Incorrect sorry, the cheaper and more convenient was there as an alternative product produced in the same traditional manner, involving agents like casters, production, distribution etc. The 3d and file distribution is new and rends those agents and companies extinct. See the difference?
It wasn't a problem because if the clients went to alternative competitors the money would still be injected in the industry has we know and thats healthy. With 3d the traditional services are not required anymore and money goes towards the 3d artists and their portals or farms etc. To invest in more of that. Which is fine if thats what people want.
GW knows how hard will be control file distribution since theres no structure to trace anything. Its a file done by 1guy no one knows anything about and given to X number of other guys via email.
And to the vast majority of hobbyists without 3d printers? Cheaper proxies still exist and aren't used.
NAVARRO wrote: For the most part the other companies dont have that many minis that can say they hit the 1000's mark.
Its a small industry business outside GW. Not sure If they can cope with the new tech that simply is eroding the traditional production.
Some already closing blaming Brexit or covid etc... but it really is not that simple and 3d has a big part in the reducing sales numbers... IMO.
Like I said cheaper and more convenient to clients now may well prove to be death sentence for many of the current companies and traditional projects.
GW has the money to dodge bullets.
The cheaper and convenient clients already existed, it was never a problem before and isn't now. The problem now are the fact people are making the 1:1 knock off models.
You've been able to buy mantic or w/e for years if you wanted cheaper proxies, yet nobody does.
Incorrect sorry, the cheaper and more convenient was there as an alternative product produced in the same traditional manner, involving agents like casters, production, distribution etc. The 3d and file distribution is new and rends those agents and companies extinct. See the difference?
It wasn't a problem because if the clients went to alternative competitors the money would still be injected in the industry has we know and thats healthy. With 3d the traditional services are not required anymore and money goes towards the 3d artists and their portals or farms etc. To invest in more of that. Which is fine if thats what people want.
GW knows how hard will be control file distribution since theres no structure to trace anything. Its a file done by 1guy no one knows anything about and given to X number of other guys via email.
And to the vast majority of hobbyists without 3d printers? Cheaper proxies still exist and aren't used.
I think we have different points here. Im talking about the potential negative impact 3d can have on the Industry as we know it, and you are saying people will not use proxies on GW games?
But the vast majority today may well be the minority tomorrow if the 3d takes over, I mean if the traditional companies close down and you have less of that and more of STL files? Pushing people to go that route.
GW will be fine but imagine they "adapt" and stop producing minis and just sell the files for you to print...
I would like to point out that Im a traditional inclined sculptor & collector so Im biased towards the maintenance of some kind of traditional presence in the future.
NAVARRO wrote: For the most part the other companies dont have that many minis that can say they hit the 1000's mark.
Its a small industry business outside GW. Not sure If they can cope with the new tech that simply is eroding the traditional production.
Some already closing blaming Brexit or covid etc... but it really is not that simple and 3d has a big part in the reducing sales numbers... IMO.
Like I said cheaper and more convenient to clients now may well prove to be death sentence for many of the current companies and traditional projects.
GW has the money to dodge bullets.
The cheaper and convenient clients already existed, it was never a problem before and isn't now. The problem now are the fact people are making the 1:1 knock off models.
You've been able to buy mantic or w/e for years if you wanted cheaper proxies, yet nobody does.
Incorrect sorry, the cheaper and more convenient was there as an alternative product produced in the same traditional manner, involving agents like casters, production, distribution etc. The 3d and file distribution is new and rends those agents and companies extinct. See the difference?
It wasn't a problem because if the clients went to alternative competitors the money would still be injected in the industry has we know and thats healthy. With 3d the traditional services are not required anymore and money goes towards the 3d artists and their portals or farms etc. To invest in more of that. Which is fine if thats what people want.
GW knows how hard will be control file distribution since theres no structure to trace anything. Its a file done by 1guy no one knows anything about and given to X number of other guys via email.
And to the vast majority of hobbyists without 3d printers? Cheaper proxies still exist and aren't used.
I think we have different points here. Im talking about the potential negative impact 3d can have on the Industry as we know it, and you are saying people will not use proxies on GW games?
But the vast majority today may well be the minority tomorrow if the 3d takes over, I mean if the traditional companies close down and you have less of that and more of STL files? Pushing people to go that route.
GW will be fine but imagine they "adapt" and stop producing minis and just sell the files for you to print...
I would like to point out that Im a traditional inclined sculptor & collector so Im biased towards the maintenance of some kind of traditional presence in the future.
Oh I agree the damage potential is there but I think a lot of people over sell and hype up the current 3d printing era whilst not realising - it's not really ready for mass consumption as a normalised household item. It's still a niche of a niche market and even then requires the want to either proxy or be willing to rip off GW for it to impact 40k.
I do think that 3D printing is far more likely to hurt smaller companies than GW. Without sounding too snobby, people who're into non-GW games are typically more 'in the know' on developments within wargaming - as opposed to people exclusively within the GW sphere - which is why you're far more likely to have somebody paint their non-GW stuff with non-Citadel products for example.
To that end, the exposure 3D printing will get among non-GW hobbyists is naturally far greater, coupled with a willingness to buy from companies who are not The Big One. There's no Official Battlefront Stores or Official Para Bellum Stores in which you can't use proxies, prints etc, and any requirements to use their models and theirs alone is going to be a PR hit that they can't afford since people are far, far more likely to go elsewhere compared to GW fans who will almost entirely bite the pillow as they always do.
As said above, GW has the money to dodge bullets. Other companies can't. Those companies won't do well if a good chunk of their customer base get good-enough STLs to use print, coupled with the accessibility/quality of printers on the rise. GW both have their base to bite it - they can just hike prices by 10% or something - and enough people who want the official Warhammer(tm) logo coupled with the convenience. How many people don't pickup an airbrush and continue to buy Chaos Black and Leadbelcher Citadel(tm) sprays for example? Sure there's a genuine minority who lack the space/ventilation accessibility to do so, but most do and choose not to.
I could see a few of the more savvy companies prepping to offer official STLs, probably with a healthy dosage of campaign books - the latter being how a lot of historical wargame companies do things when WW2 miniatures have so many options. GW will probably just keep chugging along like a dinosaur as it always does. If anything, 3D printing might be a strong net positive for them just because if/when those competitors go under, it will make people even more wary of playing anything but GW games for fear they'll go under.
Arbitrator wrote: I do think that 3D printing is far more likely to hurt smaller companies than GW. Without sounding too snobby, people who're into non-GW games are typically more 'in the know' on developments within wargaming - as opposed to people exclusively within the GW sphere - which is why you're far more likely to have somebody paint their non-GW stuff with non-Citadel products for example.
To that end, the exposure 3D printing will get among non-GW hobbyists is naturally far greater, coupled with a willingness to buy from companies who are not The Big One. There's no Official Battlefront Stores or Official Para Bellum Stores in which you can't use proxies, prints etc, and any requirements to use their models and theirs alone is going to be a PR hit that they can't afford since people are far, far more likely to go elsewhere compared to GW fans who will almost entirely bite the pillow as they always do.
As said above, GW has the money to dodge bullets. Other companies can't. Those companies won't do well if a good chunk of their customer base get good-enough STLs. GW both have their base to bite it - they can just hike prices by 10% or something - and enough people who want the official Warhammer(tm) logo.
Moreover and I think people forget this - GW designs and kits generally look good it's not like the printed versions blow them out the water, but the printed versions are compared favourably by virtue of being cheaper and not needing to go to a shop/wait for postage (which a lot of people go to the shops for the games still I'd wager).
Cronch wrote: As soon as printers aren't their own hobby. Which they still very much are, you need to be into adjusting your own plates and whatnot, and willing to give up room space for the thing.
This. I (well, mostly my brother, his wife and our father) spent days setting up and calibrating our printer, getting it to print consistently. One nudge later, and it doesn’t print anything right anymore. And I haven’t used it in at least a year because I just can’t go through (or ask my family to go through) that calibration process again yet.
Oh yes If I could I would attend more events and try to support companies buying on their stores. Even if more expensive. Theres the experience that no virtual can replace.
Its early days for 3d printing at home and yet we are seeing the huge influx of those projects on market, if competitors go under thats not good for anyone believe me, not even for 3d exclusive projects that will multiply like rabbits and will end up eating each other carrots.
GW is trying to find ways to police infractions but that may prove to be almost of an impossible task if the wave is big enough.
I would compare 3D in our industry like 3D VS traditional SFX or 3D VS traditional animations... One almost rendered the other non existent.
On a side note since wargames like 40k are mentioned, what will happen to the games if a company stops producing the game tokens (minis)?
On a side note since wargames like 40k are mentioned, what will happen to the games if a company stops producing the game tokens (minis)?
nothing, as the company making the rules/games being the company that also makes the models is not the common thing for wargames
it is more like unique to GW's business model that everything comes from one company
I will rephrase then.
What would happen to 40k game if GW stop producing the miniatures for it?
What im trying to get at is that theres more to 3D files mass distribution affecting only the miniatures production...IMO it cascades down to the other products from that company. For one if a company only produces games then they will be solely judged by the quality of the games they sell too.
On a side note since wargames like 40k are mentioned, what will happen to the games if a company stops producing the game tokens (minis)?
nothing, as the company making the rules/games being the company that also makes the models is not the common thing for wargames
it is more like unique to GW's business model that everything comes from one company
It would require uptick in 3d printers to facilitate game pieces, or simply use acceptable proxies. But unsupported rules are a real turn off for a lot of people, as are a lack of baikity to walk out and buy supported products. So for a diehard few it might live on but it'll slowly drop off an stagnate without the parent company imo.
On a side note since wargames like 40k are mentioned, what will happen to the games if a company stops producing the game tokens (minis)?
nothing, as the company making the rules/games being the company that also makes the models is not the common thing for wargames
it is more like unique to GW's business model that everything comes from one company
I will rephrase then.
What would happen to 40k game if GW stop producing the miniatures for it?
What im trying to get at is that theres more to 3D files mass distribution affecting only the miniatures production...IMO it cascades down to the other products from that company. For one if a company only produces games then they will be solely judged by the quality of the games they sell too.
Would 40k do good or even exist?
This ^^^^^ GW miniatures and setting are what draws people in, the rules aren't exactly the best out there.
unsupported rules are those that get no updates on the rules for years
unsupported games are not those that get no models from the same company, or regular model updates or regular changes to the rules for the sake of change
if this would be the case I don't know how Frostgrave or SAGA every made it to become popular games
and those are not supported by the 3D printing crowed at all so really need the Community around them getting the things together
and 40k is a different story as this game alone lives from GWs marketing
if GW ever stops pushing it, it people will revert to other Editions of the rules or other games
It is just not good enough to make it as a stand alone game without the constant hype GW creates
and with it, the 3D printing support will vanish, as it is only profitable as long as GW pushes the game forward
so there are those used to the GW type of game which might have trouble with so called "unsupported" games outside the GW bubble
for the wargaming community and industry, this is not a problem at all
so if we are talking about 3D printing and its impact on the wargaming community
we need to be clear if we talk about the GW bubble or the rest is those are very different things
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: This ^^^^^ GW miniatures and setting are what draws people in, the rules aren't exactly the best out there.
if it would the about the models, the market for alternatives would not be that big
Dudeface wrote: This ^^^^^ GW miniatures and setting are what draws people in, the rules aren't exactly the best out there.
if it would the about the models, the market for alternatives would not be that big
It isn't? There's a large volume of 3rd party support for bits or customising components, there isn't a large range of "not 40k" minis/armies outside of 3d print sculptors.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: 3D printing doesn't hurt GW but I really wish it did.
Well, it might hurt them if they decide to reboot BFG with modern GW pricing. 3D printing has made that game much more accessible, and is so common and accepted that GW would never be able to shut it down in favor of $30 cruisers and $50 battleships. So, if you consider GW “hurt” when it can no longer dictate bananas pricing, it would be hurt.
Dudeface wrote: This ^^^^^ GW miniatures and setting are what draws people in, the rules aren't exactly the best out there.
if it would the about the models, the market for alternatives would not be that big
It isn't? There's a large volume of 3rd party support for bits or customising components, there isn't a large range of "not 40k" minis/armies outside of 3d print sculptors.
Huh? There are tons of not-40k minis in resin and plastic. Too many companies to name. You’ve got all kinds of resin orks, resin and plastic IG, sexy resin Necrons, resin space marine heroes/specialists, plastic and resin SOB, plastic Scions and soon Space Marines, resin mechanicus look-alikes, sexy resin Tau, plastic squats from at least 2 companies, and even resin Custodes, Primarchs and Emperor look-alikes. The only factions that haven’t yet been well copied are the Tyranids and the Eldar.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: 3D printing doesn't hurt GW but I really wish it did.
Well, it might hurt them if they decide to reboot BFG with modern GW pricing. 3D printing has made that game much more accessible, and is so common and accepted that GW would never be able to shut it down in favor of $30 cruisers and $50 battleships. So, if you consider GW “hurt” when it can no longer dictate bananas pricing, it would be hurt.
Dudeface wrote: This ^^^^^ GW miniatures and setting are what draws people in, the rules aren't exactly the best out there.
if it would the about the models, the market for alternatives would not be that big
It isn't? There's a large volume of 3rd party support for bits or customising components, there isn't a large range of "not 40k" minis/armies outside of 3d print sculptors.
Huh? There are tons of not-40k minis in resin and plastic. Too many companies to name. You’ve got all kinds of resin orks, resin and plastic IG, sexy resin Necrons, resin space marine heroes/specialists, plastic and resin SOB, plastic Scions and soon Space Marines, resin mechanicus look-alikes, sexy resin Tau, plastic squats from at least 2 companies, and even resin Custodes, Primarchs and Emperor look-alikes. The only factions that haven’t yet been well copied are the Tyranids and the Eldar.
But again a lot of these are hqs or a couple of units, there's few wholesale 3rd party armies you can buy off a shelf and fewer still that cover a full 40k range
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: 3D printing doesn't hurt GW but I really wish it did.
Well, it might hurt them if they decide to reboot BFG with modern GW pricing. 3D printing has made that game much more accessible, and is so common and accepted that GW would never be able to shut it down in favor of $30 cruisers and $50 battleships. So, if you consider GW “hurt” when it can no longer dictate bananas pricing, it would be hurt.
Dudeface wrote: This ^^^^^ GW miniatures and setting are what draws people in, the rules aren't exactly the best out there.
if it would the about the models, the market for alternatives would not be that big
It isn't? There's a large volume of 3rd party support for bits or customising components, there isn't a large range of "not 40k" minis/armies outside of 3d print sculptors.
Huh? There are tons of not-40k minis in resin and plastic. Too many companies to name. You’ve got all kinds of resin orks, resin and plastic IG, sexy resin Necrons, resin space marine heroes/specialists, plastic and resin SOB, plastic Scions and soon Space Marines, resin mechanicus look-alikes, sexy resin Tau, plastic squats from at least 2 companies, and even resin Custodes, Primarchs and Emperor look-alikes. The only factions that haven’t yet been well copied are the Tyranids and the Eldar.
But again a lot of these are hqs or a couple of units, there's few wholesale 3rd party armies you can buy off a shelf and fewer still that cover a full 40k range
You haven’t seen them? Where have you been looking?
People absolutely buy these proxy miniatures. WGA ran out of stock for their Grognards because so many people bought whole armies. When they release plastic Valkir, I’d be surprised if they didn’t sell in huge quantities.
I have seen more full 3rd Party Imperial Guard armies than I have seen original ones
I fact I haven't seen a full GW Guard army in the last 10 years
and yes you can buy those of the shelf, Guard, Marines, SoB, Chaos, Custodes is not a problem to get the full set you need
not talking about 1:1 copies from Russia or China, have seen those as well, but full 3rd party "count as" models in plastic (Resin or HIPS)
in some places you see more of those than original ones, and hardly 1 army that is build with mostly GW models
for the gaming part of the community, the GW models are hardly a driving point
for the modeling/painting/collecting part of the community it is different
but there were "wargaming" is the main part of the hobby, GW models are not important
You haven’t seen them? Where have you been looking?
People absolutely buy these proxy miniatures. WGA ran out of stock for their Grognards because so many people bought whole armies. When they release plastic Valkir, I’d be surprised if they didn’t sell in huge quantities.
In the flesh, in 40k subreddits, on this site. There are few to none full 3rd party 40k armies. You're right that the wga infantry is cheaper and a reasonable proxy. But it's just infantry, that isn't an army. People will still need to go elsewhere for proxy tanks or fall back onto 40k vehicles.
Not saying there aren't options out there, just that unlike 3d printing, I can't buy a cohesive army from a 3rd party at the moment and as such they seem to pretty rare beyond splash in parts/models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: I have seen more full 3rd Party Imperial Guard armies than I have seen original ones
I fact I haven't seen a full GW Guard army in the last 10 years
and yes you can buy those of the shelf, Guard, Marines, SoB, Chaos, Custodes is not a problem to get the full set you need
not talking about 1:1 copies from Russia or China, have seen those as well, but full 3rd party "count as" models in plastic (Resin or HIPS)
in some places you see more of those than original ones, and hardly 1 army that is build with mostly GW models
for the gaming part of the community, the GW models are hardly a driving point
for the modeling/painting/collecting part of the community it is different
but there were "wargaming" is the main part of the hobby, GW models are not important
Can you link me to the off the shelf custodes, sisters and chaos please?
I mean, you can always get cheap proxy tanks, too. Back in the day, one would buy DUST vehicles to go with their Eisenkern or whatever. Now the Meng Toon Tanks and Robogear flyers are the go-to proxies for 40k vehicles. Granted, these are mostly for imperial guard.
Gregor Samsa wrote: Games Workshop wants out of the tabletop wargaming business. That much is clear.
When it comes to the physical product they manufacture, what they want is to sell expensive premium models for gamers to adorn their PC gaming rigs with.
Right now they are casting around for which form of product their IP can be most effectively monetized in as they move into the next phase of their business.
They don't want to be a "wargames company". They want to sell models. They are actively rewriting all of their rules in order to better facilitate the purchase of large and expensive "centrepiece" models (hence the 'hero hammer' shift in game design). Likely that is also in part because current 3d printers cannot compete with them at that level, yet.
GW was always about big centerpieces, certainly compared to other games. They always wanted to make big, shiny, fantasy monsters and their art was full of them, it was just technical limitations limiting them to tiny metal intestine-serpent dragons and GI Joe-sized "giants". It's not a new shift.
For off the shelf examples, the War Store sold me Scibor’s custodes back when the War Store existed.
For Sisters, I’m a fan of Shieldwolf’s designs, which are available from many FLGSes and from Amazon sometimes. I’ve seen Dreamforge’s Panzerjagers converted into Sisters with basic helmet and gun swaps, still an economical option. There’s a resin army from Mad Robot or Anvil that you can usually order from an FLGS, so not quite off the shelf, but adjacent to it in the age of o line purchasing.
Chaos is usually represented by taking IG proxies and swapping helmets or adding Barbarian bits. If you mean chaos marines, those exist in resin and should be pretty easy to convert in plastic once the Valkir drop. (Or use can use Mantic Enforcer Peacekeepers with Mantic Plague bits or the usual resin upgrade bits. I’ve seen those a few times, although I don’t find them very 40k.) It might even be cheaper than GW per mini to buy Reaper Bones anti-paladins or barrow knights or whatever the not-chaos warriors are called and replace their shield arms with bolter arms. There are lots of resin helmets and shoulder pads for converting miniatures to chaos.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: For off the shelf examples, the War Store sold me Scibor’s custodes back when the War Store existed.
For Sisters, I’m a fan of Shieldwolf’s designs, which are available from many FLGSes and from Amazon sometimes. I’ve seen Dreamforge’s Panzerjagers converted into Sisters with basic helmet and gun swaps, still an economical option. There’s a resin army from Mad Robot or Anvil that you can usually order from an FLGS, so not quite off the shelf, but adjacent to it in the age of o line purchasing.
Chaos is usually represented by taking IG proxies and swapping helmets or adding Barbarian bits. If you mean chaos marines, those exist in resin and should be pretty easy to convert in plastic once the Valkir drop. (Or use can use Mantic Enforcer Peacekeepers with Mantic Plague bits or the usual resin upgrade bits. I’ve seen those a few times, although I don’t find them very 40k.) It might even be cheaper than GW per mini to buy Reaper Bones anti-paladins or barrow knights or whatever the not-chaos warriors are called and replace their shield arms with bolter arms. There are lots of resin helmets and shoulder pads for converting miniatures to chaos.
I had to Google the shield wolf ladies and while they have their merits none of them are actively cheaper for me to buy. So they are valid alternatives but the conversation sort of spun from "people buying cheaper alternatives", none of those really quite fit the bill beyond maybe the enforcers, but I agree that aesthetically it's not there for me but that's subjective. Dreamforge again isn't doing for me aesthetically but I hadn't considered them outside of IG if I'm honest.
I'm aware of anvil, mantic, dreamforge, creature caster etc. But by and large it'd cost me more to buy an army of them (although GW keeps narrowing the gap).
Edit: rereading the last page I think the discussion has split and gone crossways, sorry if I misinterpreted any of it. There are definitely alternatives out there for most stuff (albeit not from 1 manufacturer usually), but the best pieces are one off models/units, bits or not as high a quality.
I understand some people don't like the GW models and aesthetic so the alternatives are important but from my experiences few people dislike them enough to go hunting a 3rd party army that costs as much/more.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: The Shieldwolf sisters cost me $35 for 20. How much are they overcharging you for them in order to match GW pricing??
Mantic typically costs $1-$2 per mini if you buy them in bulk armies or during a sale/Kickstarter. Sounds like you are getting absolutely hosed.
Ahhh didn't see they were 20 to a box, thought they were 10. I can't seem to find them outside of ebay or the Shieldwolf’s site, but they're £29 more or less, which is slightly more than a box of sisters from a UK retailer.
Those vehicles made a lot more sense before GW released the new Sisters of Battle range. I doubt they sell many of them these days.
I’d probably buy a cheapo 1/48 or 1/35 kit or a Bronekorpus and then slap a tacky amount of Renedra mausoleum or Pegasus church bits all over it. And, of course, Ravenwing Accessory Sprue.
The one product GW still makes that’s worth its price, sing it all together now: Ravenwing Accessory Spruuuuuuuue!
Cronch wrote: As soon as printers aren't their own hobby. Which they still very much are, you need to be into adjusting your own plates and whatnot, and willing to give up room space for the thing.
This. I (well, mostly my brother, his wife and our father) spent days setting up and calibrating our printer, getting it to print consistently. One nudge later, and it doesn’t print anything right anymore. And I haven’t used it in at least a year because I just can’t go through (or ask my family to go through) that calibration process again yet.
I live in a smallish town, but there's multiple 3D printing services running out of places that make signs and prints, peoples homes for a charge and even a few game stores in the neighbouring cities. All you need to provide are the STLs and enough of a payment to cover the resin/service charge. I could see a lot of that popping up as the devices get cheaper.
That still means paying for the files, the printing, and potentially shipping. And hoping the place prints the files correctly. Basically at that point, what's the convenience of it vs buying a kit?
Depending on the nature of the supports, cleanup for a 3D print can be more difficult than for a regular cast model. Because with a cast model the clean up is all on the mould line - even the gates are typically along that same line around each part. Therefore you can logically work your way around each bit pretty easily.
With 3D printing you don't get that, instead you get little sticks and pock marks all over the place - almost at random. This can make it more challenging and if its a generally supported model it might have a LOT of marks. Meanwhile you can spend time supporting the model yourself with a well tuned printer and settings and get a lot of them reduced, but its a different set of skills and interaction and still takes a long while.
Another aspect is painting practicality. A lot of 3D print designers come from a video game or similar media background, not a model background. And because of how 3D printing works you don't have to part every model, in far by and large many models are not parted. This means everything is 1 part.
That can mean a LOT of very hard to impossible to reach areas on the model when it comes to painting. Even if the model looks super fantastic it can be a very big challenge to paint.
It can also mean models designed without printing in mind. This can mean having really difficult fine (eg spikes or teeth) structures that are all over the place and on a model with zero or limited parting. Suddenly it becomes a very big challenge to actually support the model because you're supporting a lot of very fine detail islands which all then have to link up and also then come off the supports. Sometimes even if it prints fine you can lose really tiny details (eg teeth) because getting them off supports is tricky when the support is as thick as the tooth.
Also, interestingly, there's a LOT of mono-pose. Despite it being something people rage at GW about, 3D printing is broadly the same. Yes sometimes you can mirror a model to get extra poses, but in general there's far more monopose than multipose parted models around.
Granted some of those things can change in time. In theory designers will improve and learn and those that don't will steadily get overtaken by those who do.
Overread wrote: Depending on the nature of the supports, cleanup for a 3D print can be more difficult than for a regular cast model. Because with a cast model the clean up is all on the mould line - even the gates are typically along that same line around each part. Therefore you can logically work your way around each bit pretty easily.
With 3D printing you don't get that, instead you get little sticks and pock marks all over the place - almost at random. This can make it more challenging and if its a generally supported model it might have a LOT of marks. Meanwhile you can spend time supporting the model yourself with a well tuned printer and settings and get a lot of them reduced, but its a different set of skills and interaction and still takes a long while.
Another aspect is painting practicality. A lot of 3D print designers come from a video game or similar media background, not a model background. And because of how 3D printing works you don't have to part every model, in far by and large many models are not parted. This means everything is 1 part.
That can mean a LOT of very hard to impossible to reach areas on the model when it comes to painting. Even if the model looks super fantastic it can be a very big challenge to paint.
It can also mean models designed without printing in mind. This can mean having really difficult fine (eg spikes or teeth) structures that are all over the place and on a model with zero or limited parting. Suddenly it becomes a very big challenge to actually support the model because you're supporting a lot of very fine detail islands which all then have to link up and also then come off the supports. Sometimes even if it prints fine you can lose really tiny details (eg teeth) because getting them off supports is tricky when the support is as thick as the tooth.
Also, interestingly, there's a LOT of mono-pose. Despite it being something people rage at GW about, 3D printing is broadly the same. Yes sometimes you can mirror a model to get extra poses, but in general there's far more monopose than multipose parted models around.
Granted some of those things can change in time. In theory designers will improve and learn and those that don't will steadily get overtaken by those who do.
It depends on the sculpts. Some are multi part kits that blow GW ones away and most of them come pre-supported. It's literally plug-and-print at this point.
Example:
Spoiler:
And if you don't like that, you can always assemble the parts digitally (Autodesk Meshmixer is free an incredibly easy to use) and print the whole thing together.
I have to say tank makers do seem to be better at parting than infantry
Granted I think tanks and mechs are also a LOT easier to part because the connection points are often more easily hidden as part of the model.
Same reason tyranids are easier to do multi part for because they've got those big ball and socket joints.
edit - also Pipermakes is really really good at those mechs. I thought some of the early designs were a touch too close to GW styles, but they've really started branching out more with their own ideas.
Also just saw that at least one mech (and likely more) now has some visual thruster parts being made and sold by Deadly Print studios for them!
Overread wrote: Depending on the nature of the supports, cleanup for a 3D print can be more difficult than for a regular cast model. Because with a cast model the clean up is all on the mould line - even the gates are typically along that same line around each part. Therefore you can logically work your way around each bit pretty easily.
With 3D printing you don't get that, instead you get little sticks and pock marks all over the place - almost at random. This can make it more challenging and if its a generally supported model it might have a LOT of marks. Meanwhile you can spend time supporting the model yourself with a well tuned printer and settings and get a lot of them reduced, but its a different set of skills and interaction and still takes a long while.
Another aspect is painting practicality. A lot of 3D print designers come from a video game or similar media background, not a model background. And because of how 3D printing works you don't have to part every model, in far by and large many models are not parted. This means everything is 1 part.
That can mean a LOT of very hard to impossible to reach areas on the model when it comes to painting. Even if the model looks super fantastic it can be a very big challenge to paint.
It can also mean models designed without printing in mind. This can mean having really difficult fine (eg spikes or teeth) structures that are all over the place and on a model with zero or limited parting. Suddenly it becomes a very big challenge to actually support the model because you're supporting a lot of very fine detail islands which all then have to link up and also then come off the supports. Sometimes even if it prints fine you can lose really tiny details (eg teeth) because getting them off supports is tricky when the support is as thick as the tooth.
Also, interestingly, there's a LOT of mono-pose. Despite it being something people rage at GW about, 3D printing is broadly the same. Yes sometimes you can mirror a model to get extra poses, but in general there's far more monopose than multipose parted models around.
Granted some of those things can change in time. In theory designers will improve and learn and those that don't will steadily get overtaken by those who do.
It depends on the sculpts. Some are multi part kits that blow GW ones away and most of them come pre-supported. It's literally plug-and-print at this point.
Example:
Spoiler:
And if you don't like that, you can always assemble the parts digitally (Autodesk Meshmixer is free an incredibly easy to use) and print the whole thing together.
As much as those look amazing I can't help but feel they're under the "GW gonna get me" category of too close to their ip.
As much as those look amazing I can't help but feel they're under the "GW gonna get me" category of too close to their ip.
I feel like it is only a matter of time before someone challenges GW on their interpretation of intellectual property with 3D sculpts, as we previously saw happen with the bits market.
As much as those look amazing I can't help but feel they're under the "GW gonna get me" category of too close to their ip.
I feel like it is only a matter of time before someone challenges GW on their interpretation of intellectual property with 3D sculpts, as we previously saw happen with the bits market.
And then spend the rest of their life under a bridge
Cronch wrote: That still means paying for the files, the printing, and potentially shipping. And hoping the place prints the files correctly. Basically at that point, what's the convenience of it vs buying a kit?
Right, but it's mostly for the 'exception' who won't be able to afford/place a 3D printer. Plus the cost is still likely to be cheaper than buying a kit as they come now.
You haven’t seen them? Where have you been looking?
People absolutely buy these proxy miniatures. WGA ran out of stock for their Grognards because so many people bought whole armies. When they release plastic Valkir, I’d be surprised if they didn’t sell in huge quantities.
In the flesh, in 40k subreddits, on this site. There are few to none full 3rd party 40k armies. You're right that the wga infantry is cheaper and a reasonable proxy. But it's just infantry, that isn't an army. People will still need to go elsewhere for proxy tanks or fall back onto 40k vehicles.
Not saying there aren't options out there, just that unlike 3d printing, I can't buy a cohesive army from a 3rd party at the moment and as such they seem to pretty rare beyond splash in parts/models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: I have seen more full 3rd Party Imperial Guard armies than I have seen original ones
I fact I haven't seen a full GW Guard army in the last 10 years
and yes you can buy those of the shelf, Guard, Marines, SoB, Chaos, Custodes is not a problem to get the full set you need
not talking about 1:1 copies from Russia or China, have seen those as well, but full 3rd party "count as" models in plastic (Resin or HIPS)
in some places you see more of those than original ones, and hardly 1 army that is build with mostly GW models
for the gaming part of the community, the GW models are hardly a driving point
for the modeling/painting/collecting part of the community it is different
but there were "wargaming" is the main part of the hobby, GW models are not important
Can you link me to the off the shelf custodes, sisters and chaos please?
Technically it wasn't just troops with the Grognards from WGA. They also released a combination Heavy Weapons and Command box. That's enough to make a full army with just no vehicles, which is easy to do with Guard.
Assuming 3d printers are as convenient as normal printers, I can see that happening. Though I also feel it will actually kill all but hobbyist-in-shed gaming companies because one STL file pack is in no way equal to constant sales of new models.
Cronch wrote: Assuming 3d printers are as convenient as normal printers, I can see that happening. Though I also feel it will actually kill all but hobbyist-in-shed gaming companies because one STL file pack is in no way equal to constant sales of new models.
Cronch wrote: Assuming 3d printers are as convenient as normal printers, I can see that happening. Though I also feel it will actually kill all but hobbyist-in-shed gaming companies because one STL file pack is in no way equal to constant sales of new models.
Unless you create a subscription fee.
That would end up GW's most predatory pricing scheme yet. They'd likely have to "rent" you the files at a hefty cost for an army so you don't sign up for 1 month and spam print 7 armies then never subscribe again.
I could see "access to kataphron destroyers 48 hrs £6" or something from a hosted platform so they can cut access after the timer, so the buyer can only print a reasonable volume in the time they have the file.
As much as those look amazing I can't help but feel they're under the "GW gonna get me" category of too close to their ip.
I feel like it is only a matter of time before someone challenges GW on their interpretation of intellectual property with 3D sculpts, as we previously saw happen with the bits market.
And then spend the rest of their life under a bridge
A rough back of the envelope calculation shows that one of the largest goups of not-40K scupltors (The Makers Cult) rakes in $32k per month just from Patreon subscriptions. Add all the individual sales for older STL files (not those being given to patrons of the current month) and you can imagine them having the financial means to fight any lawsuit in court.
These are not small enterprises, at least not anymore.
And the Chapterhouse debacle showed GW how (not) far they can reach with regards to IP protection. 1:1 copies are one thing, similar mecha/tank/monster models are a different one.
All these scupltors are well aware of GW IP and tread carefully by 1) not copying anything and 2) avoiding any symbols or icons or words part of GW IP.
The moment you are dealing with files downloads then someone will find ways to distribute them for free.
Like I said I dont see this shift from Companies investing in producing and distributing to you a quality controlled object (mini) to something exclusivly virtual done by god knows who, any good. But hey good luck.
As long as I can support what we have now I will, including buying GW minis.
Just a few years ago you had a good amount of companies posting their actually produced things and a good number of sculptors... Kick-starts came and made hostage many projects and took down some companies with it, the renders started to invade the market never to see the light of day... and so on.
Today you have unregulated 3d files for sale with little to no guarantee it was done in a way it could be printed in the first place, the traditional sculptors and the companies that shared and produced things are a shadow of what they were and called old hammer? And this when printers are still a pain to set up at home...
Its a sign of times to come? Great. Please do fill your libraries with plenty files if thats what floats your boat.
Just imagine what this will do to the medium ones like , PP, Corvus, FOW, etc because the small ones just will have the hardest hit and probably do something else.
Sorry if I sound like ranting though. But your cheap and convenient STL file may well be the final nail to many products you currently enjoy. No wonder GW is lawering up.
There's already a "$30 join my telegram for thousands of STLs" guy who does the rounds on the Facebook groups - even so bold as to join groups for 3D creators and advertise it right in their face.
I do wonder what will happen in the future regarding gaming and 3D STL provision. My gut feeling is that right now we are in a boom period. Where fewer creators and a big influx of new users steadily over time means that there's healthy demand and healthy competition for all without huge investments in marketing.
However at some stage I figure that will start to ease up; both as the market expands to a point of limit (which is bound directly to technology and price of buying into it); and as people within the market start to hit a practical limit of owning enough STLs. When they don't need to buy everything every month and when their social interaction and joy of supporting artists just to create has worn thin.
Basically a point at which people say "so what the heck do I actually DO with this stuff". At that point I think GW will continue to win because they've got stores, they've got representatives; they've got loads of gamers; they've got school programs etc....
Other companies will have to really up their marketing game and local influences to help generate interest.
Now what we might also see is that with the market growing, we might well see a future where wargaming is more common than it is now - where there's interest in it outside of totally geeky group. This is something that, right now, only GW is really investing heavily in. And with good reason because almost the entire rest of the market (barring DnD gamers) is leaching right off GW's market. At least for Fantasy and sci fi (Historical seems to just sort of "grow" fans as they hit their 50-70s! ).
Local social reps and programs will become the battlefield of the future. Internet marketing, cheap prices, quality - all those things are becoming more and more commonplace.
I do also worry that there's a bit of a "Race to the bottom" With STLs at present. If you want PAtreons and backers the best way is to be cheap. Some are working themselves nuts (and quality does suffer as a result) to have as much as they can to offer the best model to $ ratio. And yeah that works for a time, but the burn-out on a creator is harsh. Plus its feeding this whole idea that the onyl reason to do 3D printing is to get cheap models. That's allowing and encouraging growth right now ,but its, in my view, a VERY unhealthy position to grow the market on.
Race to the bottom is a big risk because it means an early impression of value of an STL is very very low. That means its harder and harder to sell competitive pricing in the future
The other big hammer that has yet to fall, is copyright. Sure GW are hot on it now; but there are a lot of other franchise being infringed upon. Video games, Films, books, artwork. I can foresee that at some point some big players are going to wake up and notice 3D printing and then its going to hit some hard. GW might be playing ball right now ,but this is 100% their market to start with. The likes of video game or movie companies won't have any reason to pull punches; and some of them employ legal teams that are experienced, professional and fully on retainer.
If anything GW could perhaps appear to be one of the more benevolent parties. Far as I know takedowns are as far as they ever go today. They've never requested loss of earnings or profits generated without sale or back-dated licence fees or such.
Cronch wrote: That still means paying for the files, the printing, and potentially shipping. And hoping the place prints the files correctly. Basically at that point, what's the convenience of it vs buying a kit?
When I was building my BFG fleet and couldn’t be bothered with my printer, I found that purchasing printed ships was pretty simple, with most sellers having already downloaded a range of files for the consumer to choose from. Bad prints were quickly replaced if they weren’t spotted before shipping. All for a fraction of the cost an eventual official retail release would cost. It was quick, easy and cheap.
I imagine this would work for any specific game group: the guy with the printer farm buys a bunch of files and factors them into the pricing, making the shopping experience as conventional as possible for the consumer.
I'll be honest, I don't know a single person IRL that has a 3D printer, so I couldn't tell you. They're still incredibly niche thing as far as (seemingly) general public is concerned.
Whereas I know or know of at least three other people aside from myself who have both resin and filament printers ostensibly mainly for tabletop gaming in one of the least populated corners of the UK with a pretty small gaming community.
Azreal13 wrote: Whereas I know or know of at least three other people aside from myself who have both resin and filament printers ostensibly mainly for tabletop gaming in one of the least populated corners of the UK with a pretty small gaming community.
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.
Even with my limited social awareness I reckon we can bump that to at least 5, 6 if you include the not quite local store
Yeah, it will very much depend on where you are: myself, I'm on the capital county, and I literally know dozens of people with printers, but I'm sure that will be different in other parts of the country.
Azreal13 wrote: Ok, so in that case, and I'm genuinely asking, what was your point?
That I think there is a general misconception that every other person has one and is willing to print you 50 armies with a smile, when in reality not everyone has direct access to a friendly printerer.
That's a just a truism though. There's people who don't have access to a game store. There's people who don't have internet access, or an address they can have stuff reliably shipped to, or a means of electronic payment.
Different people have all sorts of different barriers to conducting commerce all over the world, people and corporations don't just stop what would otherwise be a profitable enterprise just because Dave down the road isn't able to participate.
The reality is that most people in a position to wargame, especially with GW models and titles, will have both the space and income to buy a 3D printer once they themselves see the value in it, whether that's for alt sculpts, OOP proxies, bits and modifications or whatever, and that number of people seems to be expanding rapidly.
The reality is that most people in a position to wargame, especially with GW models and titles, will have both the space and income to buy a 3D printer
You are coming at it from a very privileged position, that's all I'm going to say.
Azreal13 wrote: That's a just a truism though. There's people who don't have access to a game store. There's people who don't have internet access, or an address they can have stuff reliably shipped to, or a means of electronic payment.
Different people have all sorts of different barriers to conducting commerce all over the world, people and corporations don't just stop what would otherwise be a profitable enterprise just because Dave down the road isn't able to participate.
The reality is that most people in a position to wargame, especially with GW models and titles, will have both the space and income to buy a 3D printer once they themselves see the value in it, whether that's for alt sculpts, OOP proxies, bits and modifications or whatever, and that number of people seems to be expanding rapidly.
I don't think the commercial viability of investing in the platform was being questioned, simply that its not as accessible as is often portrayed.
I still don't think they're going to be owned by the majority for a long time, however they are becoming more common for sure.
The reality is that most people in a position to wargame, especially with GW models and titles, will have both the space and income to buy a 3D printer
You are coming at it from a very privileged position, that's all I'm going to say.
I understand, I have gw models, I have gaming mats, terrain etc I can store away, but what I don't have is a space to leave a printer set up. Even if I had the inclination to learn how to use one my other half doesn't like anything being left on overnight if it's a big print etc. I have a toddler who would probably attack it and possibly do himself harm via the resin etc. So simply not worth it for me.
One big problem that I have with 3D printers is that, like many people in my age group around here, I don't have the space to set up a resin printer with the right ventilation and everything. And in an apartment, that's just not so easy to set up. And, of course, quite some people like assembling models and the like, and with printed stuff that's a fair bit harder.
The reality is that most people in a position to wargame, especially with GW models and titles, will have both the space and income to buy a 3D printer
You are coming at it from a very privileged position, that's all I'm going to say.
I'm acknowledging that most wargamers are, relatively speaking, in a privileged position, and that market forces being what they are, they'll follow that trend.
The reality is that most people in a position to wargame, especially with GW models and titles, will have both the space and income to buy a 3D printer
You are coming at it from a very privileged position, that's all I'm going to say.
If you have the money to buy any two GW kits or any of the big ones, you have the money to buy a printer. In two months if you want a specially fancy one.
Other considerations are, of course, other considerations.
I had a 3D printer and sold it on as I hated using it and didn’t like the minis that came out of it, finding them awful to paint. Even if I pick up 3D prints on eBay it will only really be if the alternatives are too expensive, for example I snagged some tomb kings chariots that were ok (replaced the crew with WGA skellies though).
I had the money and space to get into 3D printing, and tried it out, but am glad I got out of it. I don’t think 3D printing is a done deal as much as folks make out, many people aren’t interested in it and will always prefer to pick up plastic kits.
One thing my dabble with printing did give me was an appreciation of building the kits and kit bashing again, which was always my least favourite part of the process. Washing a resin model and having the spindly weapon snap off for the umpteenth time made me miss the clippers and glue!
If you live in Australia, a decent quality 3D printer costs as much as 5-6 Primaris Lieutenants or one-and-a-half of a Repulsor Executioner, or a single Space Marine Combat Patrol.
The reality is that most people in a position to wargame, especially with GW models and titles, will have both the space and income to buy a 3D printer
You are coming at it from a very privileged position, that's all I'm going to say.
I'm acknowledging that most wargamers are, relatively speaking, in a privileged position, and that market forces being what they are, they'll follow that trend.
Again, that may be your perception. I rather imagine that like in video gaming, you have a small group of wealthy people who buy a lot, and a lot of younger or less serious people who just buy a few kits or one army and that's it. The whales generate the most wealth to companies, but without the minnows, they'd have much smaller choice of players. What you describe is someone with a house to store all those models, terrain, and still have space to set up the 3d printer, cause you can't really just plop it in a 2-room apartment without making it inconvenient. So essentially you're looking at older, richer audience that already has no problem affording GW kits in any quantity they want.
Luke82 wrote: I had a 3D printer and sold it on as I hated using it and didn’t like the minis that came out of it, finding them awful to paint.
Washing a resin model and having the spindly weapon snap off for the umpteenth time made me miss the clippers and glue!
Ah, so they're like better quality, more readily avalible Forgeworld/Failcast models you can get for a fraction of the price? Terrible, I don't see how anyone could bother with them.
The reality is that most people in a position to wargame, especially with GW models and titles, will have both the space and income to buy a 3D printer
You are coming at it from a very privileged position, that's all I'm going to say.
I'm acknowledging that most wargamers are, relatively speaking, in a privileged position, and that market forces being what they are, they'll follow that trend.
Again, that may be your perception. I rather imagine that like in video gaming, you have a small group of wealthy people who buy a lot, and a lot of younger or less serious people who just buy a few kits or one army and that's it.
...a 3D printer is several magnitudes cheaper than any 40k army.
The kind that doesn't have print lines and same quality as cast miniatures? Cause I saw those for ~1500pln last I checked, the cheap ones were basically good for printing a polymer soap box.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: If you live in Australia, a decent quality 3D printer costs as much as 5-6 Primaris Lieutenants or one-and-a-half of a Repulsor Executioner, or a single Space Marine Combat Patrol.
That might explain why, at two separate points, two of my friends each owned two 3D printers.
Cronch wrote: The kind that doesn't have print lines and same quality as cast miniatures? Cause I saw those for ~1500pln last I checked, the cheap ones were basically good for printing a polymer soap box.
Cronch wrote: The kind that doesn't have print lines and same quality as cast miniatures? Cause I saw those for ~1500pln last I checked, the cheap ones were basically good for printing a polymer soap box.
The same GW uses, by the look of it and going from my own experience.
This is a FW model obviously cast from a 3d printed model:
Spoiler:
This are minis I just printed yesterday, at the same size:
Cronch wrote: The kind that doesn't have print lines and same quality as cast miniatures? Cause I saw those for ~1500pln last I checked, the cheap ones were basically good for printing a polymer soap box.
What?
You’re a generation or two behind on what 3D printers are capable of. Currently, the affordable resin printers produce minis that can pass for resin casts once primed.
Instead of hiring people to enforce this or that the easiest way would be simply to lower prices. The reason why there is such a demand for alternative models or china/ russian knock offs is because GW prices are rediculous.
angel of death 007 wrote: Instead of hiring people to enforce this or that the easiest way would be simply to lower prices. The reason why there is such a demand for alternative models or china/ russian knock offs is because GW prices are rediculous.
Given how their profits are record high, it seems that's not exactly impacting them.
angel of death 007 wrote: Instead of hiring people to enforce this or that the easiest way would be simply to lower prices. The reason why there is such a demand for alternative models or china/ russian knock offs is because GW prices are rediculous.
Nah, rather than "buy a 3d printer it costs the same as 2 knight castellans" it'd be "buy a 3d printer it costs the same as 3 knight castellans". Or "buy a 3d printer it's cheaper than buying 1 army" becomes "buy a 3d printer, it's cheaper to have multiple armies".
Financially it makes no difference and it wouldn't be smart for gw to drop prices too heavily.
Cronch wrote: The kind that doesn't have print lines and same quality as cast miniatures? Cause I saw those for ~1500pln last I checked, the cheap ones were basically good for printing a polymer soap box.
When did you last check? 2012?
Last year? We come down to the same issue- I don't want 3d printing as a hobby. I don't care about the details of 3d printing. I can go buy an ink printer right now, and even the jankiest, cheapest trash will print just fine, it might break in a year, but it will generally work. To buy a 3d printer you need to check all the details, you need to know what details to check in the first place. To buy a good 3d printer you either need to know someone with one already or be into 3d printers
Currently, the affordable resin printers produce minis that can pass for resin casts once primed.
What is affordable. To me, $200 is the max that I would count as affordable, anything over that is "serious" purchase I need a real incentive to spend. As someone who does not collect multiple 2k armies, I really don't have one.
GoldenHorde wrote: In Australia, on Amazon you can get an Nova3D Elfin3 for $209 shipped or a Voxelab Proxima $199 shipped
You can also grab 1L of resin for $40, which is cheaper than any of the 1kg matte SLA I could find
To compare, a Monolith is 280$ and a Battlewagon 165$.
Not to mention GW's idiotic "Sold out online" on core units and F... the consumer FOMO tactics
Well its not "idiotic" the whole "sold out online" issue is a rest of GW not having the production capacity to keep up with consumer demand. Lets not forget at the end of 2019 GW were building a new factory and setting up a massive new international warehouse in the UK to better cope with production shortfalls. Letting them produce more stock and store up more for bigger shipments overseas. Not to mention their issues with the local power grid which means at least one factory the have can't work at full capacity.
Then in 2020 their sales rate pretty much doubled; at the same time they had to impose covid work-safe measures. So staff now have one-way systems in warehouses and factories; and social distancing. So whatever huge leap their production and storing capacity took; that was eaten into heavily by customers wanting more and productoin being cut short. Not to mention a 2 month shutdown of their factory system (during which time almost the entire 3rd party stock was sold).
Oh and even now there's a shipping container shortage and a nightmare of global and national delivery systems; a shortage of lorry drivers and all. Basically we went from a highstreet and online to almost fully online consumers in a year. These are huge changes, which when compounded with covid mean that there's huge adaptation issues. GW are by far and away not alone; a lot of other firms and markets have had the same impacts. I've known several other model makers shut down because they needed time to catch up with a backlog of orders. Some have managed to expand; others have folded because they couldn't keep up with increasing shortages of raw materials and other issues.
No, this shortage is exclusive to the UK, as you have to deal with several different ones at the same time were the rest of the world only gets 1-2.
Like there is a general low on heavy goods vehicle drivers for years now, but most other countries are able to compensate by foreign workes
UK got the unique situation that people from an industry were you have a chronic shortage of workers, moved out because of Corona Lockdowns, and are now not allowed to move back in because of Brexit
Others in the world have problems, but no one faces the problems that are present in the UK at the moment (eben Northern Ireland is different because of the protocol in place)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cronch wrote: What is affordable. To me, $200 is the max that I would count as affordable, anything over that is "serious" purchase I need a real incentive to spend. As someone who does not collect multiple 2k armies, I really don't have one.
Well with 200 you don't even get the cheapest 40k army without rules
Starting 40k now would be already way over your price point were a printer is on the edge and would be already worth it for a single army
Cronch wrote: What is affordable. To me, $200 is the max that I would count as affordable, anything over that is "serious" purchase I need a real incentive to spend. As someone who does not collect multiple 2k armies, I really don't have one.
Well with 200 you don't even get the cheapest 40k army without rules
Starting 40k now would be already way over your price point were a printer is on the edge and would be already worth it for a single army
Yeah, but you don't buy your whole army in 1 spend normally, you can space it out over time and is significantly easier to consume. Just because it's cheaper long run on paper, it doesn't mean it's the obvious choice for everyone.
Well with 200 you don't even get the cheapest 40k army without rules
Sure, but I can buy 1 unit per month or hell, one unit every half a year and still have a 1k army eventually.
The whole argument about 3d printers being cheap hinges on being a middle-class person in the 1st world. They're not cheap, you're just well-off. Hell, I know people in the USA that can't just drop $400 in a one-time purchase on a electronic toy like that.
Well its not "idiotic" the whole "sold out online" issue is a rest of GW not having the production capacity to keep up with consumer demand.
It has nothing to do with consumer demand and everything to do with an inept company that simply cannot communicate to its customers with a basic level of courtesy.
Is it too hard to script statuses that give you an estimated lead time instead of "Out of stock online" or "Temporarily out of stock online"
Is it that hard to implement a back ordering system so your company can at least gauge consumer demand to meet consumer demand?
"No longer available online" reads like, you can't order this ever again. BUY WHAT IS AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE NOW OR YOU WILL REGRET IT SON
That's idiotic to the core. It's the hunger games FOMO strategy. They need to cut the crap, and the apologists need to as well.
Explain, really why, GW has put it so I cannot recieve communication about when Stormboyz, Trukks, Killa Kans, Kustom Boosta Blastas, MegaTrakk Scrapjets, Deffkilla Wartrikes, or the Mekboy Workshop come back in stock?
Allow me to cackle madly at this self-inflicted shot in the foot for british industry.
Cease thy cackle, our glorious and fruitful leader has already solved the issue by massively reducing the requirements to qualify as a driver, I think its now down to three runs of Truck simulator and a pinky swear not to drive over smaller road users...
As for daddy dubs they can huff and puff all they like as both they and we know if anything will do them proper harm its them doing something really stupid
Allow me to cackle madly at this self-inflicted shot in the foot for british industry.
Cease thy cackle, our glorious and fruitful leader has already solved the issue by massively reducing the requirements to qualify as a driver, I think its now down to three runs of Truck simulator and a pinky swear not to drive over smaller road users...
UK in a nutshell!
Oh man dont worry they will blame covid for everything since the B word is only good things. Right? Once that 85 year old driver flats more than 5 pedestrians in row he will be the one to blame... he took back control after all
Cronch wrote: What is affordable. To me, $200 is the max that I would count as affordable, anything over that is "serious" purchase I need a real incentive to spend. As someone who does not collect multiple 2k armies, I really don't have one.
Well with 200 you don't even get the cheapest 40k army without rules
Starting 40k now would be already way over your price point were a printer is on the edge and would be already worth it for a single army
Yeah, but you don't buy your whole army in 1 spend normally, you can space it out over time and is significantly easier to consume. Just because it's cheaper long run on paper, it doesn't mean it's the obvious choice for everyone.
what long run?
buying stuff until you are able to play is not the long run
it does not matter if you buy it in one go or over 1 year for the initial investment to play
specially if there is the chance to enter a new Edition before you were able to play at all if you just take you time to buy in small steps
Allow me to cackle madly at this self-inflicted shot in the foot for british industry.
Cease thy cackle, our glorious and fruitful leader has already solved the issue by massively reducing the requirements to qualify as a driver, I think its now down to three runs of Truck simulator and a pinky swear not to drive over smaller road users...
UK in a nutshell!
Oh man dont worry they will blame covid for everything since the B word is only good things. Right? Once that 85 year old driver flats more than 5 pedestrians in row he will be the one to blame... he took back control after all
Damn, you couldn't exploit countries for labour markets and cause shortages in their country instead of yours
Not sure of the point you're trying to make as the article you've posted specifically states that Brexit is contributing to the UKs supply chain issues.
You're under the assumption I wouldn't light a match under the dumpster fire poo-land is in a second? England is much funnier tho cause it's 100% self-inflicted, like someone trying to do a pizza cutter circumcision.
It's always so weird when people try to defend whatever leopard is eating their face by pointing at my country like...I know? It's a failed state, it's been since 1600s you dingus.
Explain, really why, GW has put it so I cannot recieve communication about when Stormboyz, Trukks, Killa Kans, Kustom Boosta Blastas, MegaTrakk Scrapjets, Deffkilla Wartrikes, or the Mekboy Workshop come back in stock?
for the very simple reason that you don't save your money for something that is availbale again in 2 weeks but spend it on something else now because you don't know if the other stuff ever comes back (and than buy the things you wanted in 2 weeks anyway)
Gregor Samsa wrote: Not sure of the point you're trying to make as the article you've posted specifically states that Brexit is contributing to the UKs supply chain issues.
You couldn't read any of the data about EU shortages?
Couldn't see the inequitable vacuum job done on poland and ukraine?
Selective reading matey!
Its simple, you need to train new drivers as the driver shortage is not directly related to brexit (which is why the EU has a shortage of drivers)
Damn UK couldn't hoover up and vacuum eastern european drivers....training locals is the worst national outcome evar!!!!
Also fun fact despite driver shortages, all my online orders get delivered on time, and all the supermarkets nearby have groceries on the shelves. Something Britain has been struggling with recently apparently. Maybe they should train those drivers faster?
Couldn't see the inequitable vacuum job done on poland and ukraine?
Oh no, polish citizens get paid in western money and literally drive that money back home to put back into polish economy, why would I begrudge them their better earnings?
Well with 200 you don't even get the cheapest 40k army without rules
Starting 40k now would be already way over your price point were a printer is on the edge and would be already worth it for a single army
£85 on a Combat Patrol and roughly £25 on a Codex and I can start playing 40k. There seems to be this persisting requirement for a 2k army to be able to play 40k when that hasn't been the case ever in my experience. Local Beginners group was 2 Troops, an HQ, and a Something Else, most of my games from 5th to 7th were 1-1.5k points, it was only when the group started playing 30k that we regularly started doing 2-2.5k games so people could use Primarchs all the time. For 8th it was about 50-ish power unless it was just me and a friend then we'd do 100 power.
Also, the irony of an Australian telling European's they don't know anything about current European economic and political issues.
Cronch wrote: What is affordable. To me, $200 is the max that I would count as affordable, anything over that is "serious" purchase I need a real incentive to spend. As someone who does not collect multiple 2k armies, I really don't have one.
Well with 200 you don't even get the cheapest 40k army without rules
Starting 40k now would be already way over your price point were a printer is on the edge and would be already worth it for a single army
Yeah, but you don't buy your whole army in 1 spend normally, you can space it out over time and is significantly easier to consume. Just because it's cheaper long run on paper, it doesn't mean it's the obvious choice for everyone.
what long run?
buying stuff until you are able to play is not the long run
it does not matter if you buy it in one go or over 1 year for the initial investment to play
specially if there is the chance to enter a new Edition before you were able to play at all if you just take you time to buy in small steps
Say I budget £30 a month on hobby stuff, in 11 months I can buy a printer, curing chamber, resin and stls (because the printer isn't the only cost). Or I could have £330 of a GW product already built, painted and ready to go.
Also, the irony of an Australian telling European's they don't know anything about current European economic and political issues.
The irony of losing a democratic vote and being hysterical, salty and irrational about it years later
Facts don't care about your feelings, The data is there. EU also has a shortage despite it's labour market mobility.
If you had a rebuttal you'd post it.
Damn looks like EU runs low on cheaper eastern europeans to exploit.
back in 5th, the standard game size here was 1000-1500 points as well, hard to compare it to 9th were everyone is playing 2k and outside of dedicated beginner groups/events it is impossible to even play 1500 points, not talking about 500 points
so if I would start 40k here and now, a 3D printer is the cheaper option, even for the initial buy in
Drivers from eastern Europe generally take home a lot less than those from western Europe - for instance, a Bulgarian driver could earn around €300 euros per month, while an Italian might take home €1,500 per month.
Employers take advantage of Europe's east-west wage divide in order to boost profit margins. It’s a practice known as social dumping, which has led to job losses in western Europe and worker exploitation in eastern Europe.
kodos wrote: back in 5th, the standard game size here was 1000-1500 points as well, hard to compare it to 9th were everyone is playing 2k and outside of dedicated beginner groups/events it is impossible to even play 1500 points, not talking about 500 points
so if I would start 40k here and now, a 3D printer is the cheaper option, even for the initial buy in
I don't have any data to refute your argument and I also doubt you have any data to back it up. So the best we have is what? YouTube BatReps? People saying they played X game at 2k points on the Internet? We could say that those who post on Forums maybe only play 2k games but that can't and shouldn't be applied to the entirety of the hobby because it's not representative of the wider hobby base.
It doesn't matter because you're still not starting 40k with a 2k army, which means your buy-in cost 9/10 times will absolutely be under £200.
I have only the local scene, it does not help if everyone outside is doing it differently if the local scene is doing it that way
and those that are open to other point levels are also open to other games so no need to play 40k with them
same as the local scene prefers Kings of War with 1500 points, does not matter that 2300 points is the tournament standard, most games here will be 1500.
GoldenHorde wrote: Lots of drivers left UK due to law changes not related to brexit which affected agency workers (read: social dumping agencies)
Looks like the industry will start having to pay equitable wages. Violins incoming
kodos wrote: back in 5th, the standard game size here was 1000-1500 points as well, hard to compare it to 9th were everyone is playing 2k and outside of dedicated beginner groups/events it is impossible to even play 1500 points, not talking about 500 points
so if I would start 40k here and now, a 3D printer is the cheaper option, even for the initial buy in
Coming from a university city I can tell you that a very large number of our gamers would not be able to afford the initial outlay on a 3d printer but can afford a unit or two a month without too much of a problem. They definitely wouldn't have anywhere to print even if they could afford a printer. As a fairly comfortable middle-class gamer I can also tell you that there are a lot of other costs in my life right now that makes justifying the outlay on a 3d printer very difficult even though I could go and order one right now if I felt like it. That's not taking into account the time needed to set it up or the space needed to have one continuously running away from small children, significant others etc.
The biggest thing that needs to happen with 3d printing to make it more accessible at home is to somehow reduce or remove the space/ventilation requirements so it literally is just like using a regular paper printer. I think until that happens the best way for 3d printing to prosper for gamers is with the expansion of the current business model of print-on-demand.
kodos wrote: I have only the local scene, it does not help if everyone outside is doing it differently if the local scene is doing it that way
and those that are open to other point levels are also open to other games so no need to play 40k with them
same as the local scene prefers Kings of War with 1500 points, does not matter that 2300 points is the tournament standard, most games here will be 1500.
GoldenHorde wrote: Lots of drivers left UK due to law changes not related to brexit which affected agency workers (read: social dumping agencies)
Looks like the industry will start having to pay equitable wages. Violins incoming
kodos wrote: I have only the local scene, it does not help if everyone outside is doing it differently if the local scene is doing it that way
and those that are open to other point levels are also open to other games so no need to play 40k with them
same as the local scene prefers Kings of War with 1500 points, does not matter that 2300 points is the tournament standard, most games here will be 1500.
So again, not everyone, just your local players.
You've taken your specific situation and applied it to the whole hobby without actually saying "this is my local scene".
For you, someone who is established in the hobby with a specific local scene of 2k point games only it may well be cheaper and better for you in the long and short term. But that's not a universal experience and its certainly not a beginner-friendly one.
streetsamurai wrote: Ive said it before and I'll say it again, but i dont think 3d printing will ever became the main way to get minis. Its rather complicated and slow.
Agreed. I think there is a tendency amongst 3D printing enthusiasts to assume that everyone would be sold on it if they would only give it a try, but a lot of folks out there either know up front they won’t be into it, or try it and give up on it, and these voices aren’t often heard from so it becomes a bit of an echo chamber.
Mass produced plastic kits aren’t going anywhere, GWs pricing policing may get them into shtuck (and hopefully it does as they are becoming insane) but there will always be a market for off the shelf boxes of dudes.
I'm 100% sold on 3D printing as a means toward owning more "arty" models and big models of things that I'd like to own but would cost £2-300 each on average if resin cast.
In fact I think it will do a LOT for the more arty side of the hobby, ergo the pure "let me get something to paint for the shelf" side. Things like busts and 75mm models become a lot less expensive and intimidating when you can just "print another" if you muck up the painting. And furthermore they become something more easily sold by a designer when they are price competing in the £5-20-30 region instead of in the low hundreds per model.
Sure resin cast models will still have a place and most 3D print shops, at least in the UK, are not vastly off what it would cost to get a cast model over a 3D printed. That said I think it opens the market up a lot more for those kind of things.
Overread wrote: I'm 100% sold on 3D printing as a means toward owning more "arty" models and big models of things that I'd like to own but would cost £2-300 each on average if resin cast.
In fact I think it will do a LOT for the more arty side of the hobby, ergo the pure "let me get something to paint for the shelf" side. Things like busts and 75mm models become a lot less expensive and intimidating when you can just "print another" if you muck up the painting. And furthermore they become something more easily sold by a designer when they are price competing in the £5-20-30 region instead of in the low hundreds per model.
Sure resin cast models will still have a place and most 3D print shops, at least in the UK, are not vastly off what it would cost to get a cast model over a 3D printed. That said I think it opens the market up a lot more for those kind of things.
I've been wondering if this is a UK issue as well tbh, I can't seem to find these super cheap 3d printed bits and alternates people find. Etsy and shape ways etc usually come out about the same if not more once you factor in extortionate postage.
I think some of the super-cheap are people running stores who are doing it as a hobby and aren't actually paying attention to their finances - so chances are they are losing money to print, but feel like they are earning. OF course such stores tend to rank low so aren't often seen.
Another is people printing locally for friends, again at cost or at such low margins that its not really earning anything.
the other low cost is doing it yourself at home and that really only comes into play once you've paid out the initial outlay.
Again yes 3D printing has some great advantages, but its not the wonderous be-all and end-all right now that people sometimes argue. That said the industry is moving fast with development and things are changing all the time. So there's a lot of scope for growth and its already at a pretty high spot right now.
angel of death 007 wrote: Instead of hiring people to enforce this or that the easiest way would be simply to lower prices. The reason why there is such a demand for alternative models or china/ russian knock offs is because GW prices are rediculous.
Given how their profits are record high, it seems that's not exactly impacting them.
Last time they showed their customers their hubris, GW was doing fantastic until suddenly they weren’t.
Cronch wrote: The kind that doesn't have print lines and same quality as cast miniatures? Cause I saw those for ~1500pln last I checked, the cheap ones were basically good for printing a polymer soap box.
When did you last check? 2012?
Last year? We come down to the same issue- I don't want 3d printing as a hobby. I don't care about the details of 3d printing. I can go buy an ink printer right now, and even the jankiest, cheapest trash will print just fine, it might break in a year, but it will generally work. To buy a 3d printer you need to check all the details, you need to know what details to check in the first place. To buy a good 3d printer you either need to know someone with one already or be into 3d printers
Currently, the affordable resin printers produce minis that can pass for resin casts once primed.
What is affordable. To me, $200 is the max that I would count as affordable, anything over that is "serious" purchase I need a real incentive to spend. As someone who does not collect multiple 2k armies, I really don't have one.
Pretty sure they get under $200 during their frequent sales. If they aren’t starting that low now. Ask Highlord Tamburlaine about his.
Mine was a gift* and a filament printer, but worked well for tanks, ships and terrain. If it weren’t a gift, I’d be more invested in making it run again.
* “Merry Christmas. Now you don’t ever need to buy models again.”
Hashtag stillbuyingmodels
Yeah, some people are adverse to printing models about as much as I am adverse to painting models.
There will still be a large segment of the population that will prefer just to drop money on a box of models they can pick up in 5 minutes.
But I do foresee in the near future a revolution similar to what has occurred in the music industry and book industry where 3D printing overtakes conventional output methods and companies like GW go through a shrinking/restructuring phase.
It will be interesting to see how GW rails against the change and whether they survive it or go the way of Radio Shack, Sears, and Kodak.
I'm not convinced the revolution will happen any time soon without some new technology.
I have a bit of cash, and a dedicated craft room in the house, but I won't be buying a resin printer unless I can solve the toxic fumes issue. Even then, ya know, I look at it and I look at my heaps of unpainted minis and I'm not convinced I need a new miniatures-related hobby that takes up time and space and results in a bigger heap of unpainted minis.
Again, as ever, just one anecdote, but I know a fair few people in a similar boat, and a fair few with 3D printers already, and a fair few who don't have the time/space/money/technical skills to really be considering it at all.
As I mentioned earlier, I think the real competition will come from other HIPS manufacturers providing affordable alternatives with close enough aesthetics. 3D printing is a great supplement to that, for characters, terrain, and minis that don’t exist in HIPS or affordable cast resin.
I also see printed miniatures possibly leading to more HIPS sales the same way recast minis sometimes led to more troops sales: providing an accessible showstopper centerpiece mini motivating customers to build an army around it.
A bit thing for GW has been plastics, most other firms in the past just couldn't afford to buy into the machines and overseas production in China has a whole rafter of issues that can destroy firms because of quality control problems; shipping delays; lack of ability to react to market shifts quickly etc....
There's this new plastic tech that Creature Caster and Infinity are working with that looks like it could be a huge game changer. Silicon moulds, cheaper machines, fast plastic casting. Sure its not injection moulding fast, but it could certainly bridge the expansion gap many firms experience when they need a faster output than resin/metal can give and yet can't afford the full jump into overseas plastics.
Isn't Prodos already using a different kind of plastic casting?
And I agree, GW is not in the position any more that they can screw up but still being the only one on the market
Plastic Models in good quality for SciFi are not unique to GW any more
and some games already grow momentum to take the place
Well with 200 you don't even get the cheapest 40k army without rules
Sure, but I can buy 1 unit per month or hell, one unit every half a year and still have a 1k army eventually
You could also put the money (that buys one unit per month) aside until you can buy a 3D printer. Even one that costs a bit more than 200€, if you really wanted. If you can buy a 500€ army over a few months then you can also save 500€ over the same few months and spend it once you have saved up enough. The difference is only when you spend it. Neither is some insurmountable problem if you are already willing to spend 500€ on the hobby over a certain time frame.
In that case the choice is about what you want to spend that money on, not if you can or can't spend it. That is, if you are interested in buying a 3D printer, resin, and whatever else one needs.
Cronch wrote: What is affordable. To me, $200 is the max that I would count as affordable, anything over that is "serious" purchase I need a real incentive to spend. As someone who does not collect multiple 2k armies, I really don't have one.
Mine (Anycubic Photon, basic model) costed $170 (€140) last January. Last time I checked, price dropped to $140. With $200 you can get a printer, some resin and some materials (IPA to clean, ...).
At max resolution you can print models with no visible print lines, at 1/40th of a mm (0.25 um). It's a bit slower than mono printers but it still prints way faster than I can paint.
kodos wrote: Isn't Prodos already using a different kind of plastic casting?
And I agree, GW is not in the position any more that they can screw up but still being the only one on the market
Plastic Models in good quality for SciFi are not unique to GW any more
and some games already grow momentum to take the place
Prodos was (probably something like siocast), but they seem to have dropped it and moved on to HIPS like GW etc, not clear why but I think the suggestion may have been to many failed casts but i'm not certain)
Cronch wrote: What is affordable. To me, $200 is the max that I would count as affordable, anything over that is "serious" purchase I need a real incentive to spend. As someone who does not collect multiple 2k armies, I really don't have one.
Mine (Anycubic Photon, basic model) costed $170 (€140) last January. Last time I checked, price dropped to $140. With $200 you can get a printer, some resin and some materials (IPA to clean, ...).
At max resolution you can print models with no visible print lines, at 1/40th of a mm (0.25 um). It's a bit slower than mono printers but it still prints way faster than I can paint.
Currently on special offer on amazon for £200, definitely seems to be cheaper in the US for access to the printers.
Well with 200 you don't even get the cheapest 40k army without rules
Sure, but I can buy 1 unit per month or hell, one unit every half a year and still have a 1k army eventually
You could also put the money (that buys one unit per month) aside until you can buy a 3D printer. Even one that costs a bit more than 200€, if you really wanted. If you can buy a 500€ army over a few months then you can also save 500€ over the same few months and spend it once you have saved up enough. The difference is only when you spend it. Neither is some insurmountable problem if you are already willing to spend 500€ on the hobby over a certain time frame.
In that case the choice is about what you want to spend that money on, not if you can or can't spend it. That is, if you are interested in buying a 3D printer, resin, and whatever else one needs.
Which is the whole point- the 3d printer ONLY makes sense if you want to print mutiple armies and terrain, and have space to deal with the side-effects of it running. it's not a plug and play device for someone who just wants a single army. And of course if you're into the actual hobby part of the hobby, having the model printed whole takes away half the fun. It's a toy that will make sense only for the house-owning person that is into creating and storing a pile of miniatures for ten different projects. If you're just someone that pops into their LGS for a saturday game of 40k/AoS once a week, it'll be a collosal waste of time and money.
(that is of course ignoring the whole issue of wanting THIS specific army/look. If I want to collect say, PanOceania from infinity, or stormcast from AoS, i may or may not be willing to go for Generic Sci-Fi soldiers and Not-Quite Golden Boys someone sculpted. That seems to be another big difference- if I want a specific look, I want that specific thing, not a close-enough equivalent)
And I agree, GW is not in the position any more that they can screw up but still being the only one on the market
Plastic Models in good quality for SciFi are not unique to GW any more
GW still has one big trump card - stores. GW has its own stores on the highstreet that only sell GW products. That's a huge bonus for them in constantly being able to recruit and retain fresh blood into the hobby. GW can lose all their old-guard customers and still likely make a healthy profit and survive and retain a major influence. Sure in some countries their influence is less than others, but they've clearly a means to making the highstreet work for them - and that's no small feat when most other firms are leaving the highstreet in droves right now.
It also means that they've a big advantage over other game companies in the wargame market. Other wargames rely on either community driven initiatives and/or store owners of 3rd parties hwo like and market their game. And many of those stores are under pressure and wargames are a slow earner compared to something like Yugio or Magic the Gathering; which can turn over easier and faster sales and have a less buy-in costs to keep up with (at least I'd assume the cost to get them stocked is far less than Warhammer, at least for getting started).
Even if other firms can undercut GW and make better models and better rules; GW has the marketing edge by far. It means constantly getting new people who won't be online in the wargame world to get pulled away.
Heck we can directly see that when GW is on a low other firms do well and when GW is on a high the other firms do less well - the vast majority are poaching/sharing customers with GW directly. I think until that relationship changes, GW will retain the top dog position for a long while yet.
If other wargames can develop effective social networking systems; local reps; better 3rd party store marketing material and options and in general find ways to get new people into gaming thorugh them not through GW; then there's every chance they could start to compete with GW.
The prices are not that bad all things considered. It's all about paying attention to what's going on in the market, same as always.
I've seen my Phrozen Sonic Mini that I paid about $300 for when I got him, dip under $150 US this summer on Amazon, on quite a few occasions.
I've seen older Photons going for less than 100US directly from the manufacturer even in just the past few weeks.
I've gotten good results cleaning with LA Totally Awesome, a dollar store cleaner instead of using alcohol, all for a buck.
The larger 1000g bottles of resin regularly hit the 30 dollar mark on Amazon too, including the pricier eco types or water washables.
Just need to keep an eye on things. Like that 400 Mono X that I should've got and dawdled about over rather than just pulling the trigger.
GoldenHorde wrote: Explain, really why, GW has put it so I cannot recieve communication about when Stormboyz, Trukks, Killa Kans, Kustom Boosta Blastas, MegaTrakk Scrapjets, Deffkilla Wartrikes, or the Mekboy Workshop come back in stock?
Just to touch back on this, for a second - for stuff that is listed as temporarily out of stock, there should be an "Email me" option, as I can see on the UK site for the Deff Dread at the moment.
I do think they could do a better job with flagging when an item is being removed to be repackaged, though. While I expect the "Sold out online" to be correct for the Ork SC or the special edition Codex, I'd guess the Kustom Boosta-Blasta, Shokkjump Dragsta and Deffkilla Wartrike are just going into 9th edition packaging with a new SKU for the 2021 vintage. I'd guess that it is a limitation of the Kirby's Wife-era store that there can't be a different message presented for these two, possibly with an "Email me" option for things which are going to be repackaged.
I should note that if 3D printing ever became a threat to GW you'd start to see a lot more legal attention paid to places that go STL files for 40k. right around the same time CGL started their battletech kickstarter they went and shut down a lotta people making Mech STL files, in this case a lot of the STLs where literally image rips from the HBS Battletech and MWO though. and they CLAIM topps told them to go after but well.. it was right around the time they launched a kickstarter for their own line of plastic minis
Well with 200 you don't even get the cheapest 40k army without rules
Sure, but I can buy 1 unit per month or hell, one unit every half a year and still have a 1k army eventually
You could also put the money (that buys one unit per month) aside until you can buy a 3D printer. Even one that costs a bit more than 200€, if you really wanted. If you can buy a 500€ army over a few months then you can also save 500€ over the same few months and spend it once you have saved up enough. The difference is only when you spend it. Neither is some insurmountable problem if you are already willing to spend 500€ on the hobby over a certain time frame.
In that case the choice is about what you want to spend that money on, not if you can or can't spend it. That is, if you are interested in buying a 3D printer, resin, and whatever else one needs.
While that's true, it's not really how hobbies work. People don't save up for a year to then go and start a new hobby. There has to be a lower cost entry point. And GW do well at providing that by literally giving you a free model to paint in store, and selling all their various starter boxes. Now once you've done that, decided the hobby is for you, then maybe you start saving for a printer instead of buying a few minis every month and painting them up, but that's also a tough ask of someone: they've now started the hobby, they don't want to put it on hold for a year when they could pick things up as they go along. And of course, they'll be thinking "well I'll never want more than one 2000 point army anyway". And by the time they get excited by a starter box which has a faction in it they've not used before, it's twelve months later and they never did save for that printer.
GW's current system is fairly robust against this sort of thing. I'm sure we'll get to the point eventually where 3D printers are so easy to operate that everyone has one in the home, but that's a long way off still. And that'll revolutionise a whole lot more than wargaming minis.
Well with 200 you don't even get the cheapest 40k army without rules
Sure, but I can buy 1 unit per month or hell, one unit every half a year and still have a 1k army eventually
You could also put the money (that buys one unit per month) aside until you can buy a 3D printer. Even one that costs a bit more than 200€, if you really wanted. If you can buy a 500€ army over a few months then you can also save 500€ over the same few months and spend it once you have saved up enough. The difference is only when you spend it. Neither is some insurmountable problem if you are already willing to spend 500€ on the hobby over a certain time frame.
In that case the choice is about what you want to spend that money on, not if you can or can't spend it. That is, if you are interested in buying a 3D printer, resin, and whatever else one needs.
Which is the whole point- the 3d printer ONLY makes sense if you want to print mutiple armies and terrain, and have space to deal with the side-effects of it running. it's not a plug and play device for someone who just wants a single army. And of course if you're into the actual hobby part of the hobby, having the model printed whole takes away half the fun. It's a toy that will make sense only for the house-owning person that is into creating and storing a pile of miniatures for ten different projects. If you're just someone that pops into their LGS for a saturday game of 40k/AoS once a week, it'll be a collosal waste of time and money.
(that is of course ignoring the whole issue of wanting THIS specific army/look. If I want to collect say, PanOceania from infinity, or stormcast from AoS, i may or may not be willing to go for Generic Sci-Fi soldiers and Not-Quite Golden Boys someone sculpted. That seems to be another big difference- if I want a specific look, I want that specific thing, not a close-enough equivalent)
I was addressing the cost point. If somebody's invested in the hobby and wants to save money then at some point a 3D printer might make sense (and it's not like GW is in a habit of dropping prices while 3D printers, on the other hand, are getting cheaper and easier to use every few years). Of course if somebody wants a specific miniature then buying it is probably easier/faster (except if somebody were to really manage to copy all of GW's miniature lines and it became a haven for 3D model pirates). But that wasn't what I was addressing, it was a simple question of cost and how to pay for it. And if somebody is even just buying one/two boxes of GW minis each month then they should be able save up enough for some of the mentioned cheaper 3D printers in a rather short time. It's not like the sums are hugely different.
When it comes to the hobby then 3D prints might remove the hassle of mould lines while also allowing for more dynamic poses and/or more variations in details (pouches, different helmets or heads, weapons, all kinds of personalisation,…). And one can still take printed miniatures, cut them up, and have fun kitbashing something new, and/or print all kinds of weapons, accessories, and other stuff to glue on printed miniatures or traditionally made miniatures. Nobody's being forced to only use printed miniatures exactly like they come out of the printer. I'd say that's more of an expansion of the hobby than a reduction of fun.
To me 3D printers feel like airbrushes. A tool that's useful to some but in contrast to airbrushes also one that may grow in utility and usability in time and become more useful to more people. Or only a handful of people in a group of friends might buy a printer but make it available to many more people. Not everybody needs to buy one to actually have access to one.
Well with 200 you don't even get the cheapest 40k army without rules
Sure, but I can buy 1 unit per month or hell, one unit every half a year and still have a 1k army eventually
You could also put the money (that buys one unit per month) aside until you can buy a 3D printer. Even one that costs a bit more than 200€, if you really wanted. If you can buy a 500€ army over a few months then you can also save 500€ over the same few months and spend it once you have saved up enough. The difference is only when you spend it. Neither is some insurmountable problem if you are already willing to spend 500€ on the hobby over a certain time frame.
In that case the choice is about what you want to spend that money on, not if you can or can't spend it. That is, if you are interested in buying a 3D printer, resin, and whatever else one needs.
While that's true, it's not really how hobbies work. People don't save up for a year to then go and start a new hobby. There has to be a lower cost entry point. And GW do well at providing that by literally giving you a free model to paint in store, and selling all their various starter boxes. Now once you've done that, decided the hobby is for you, then maybe you start saving for a printer instead of buying a few minis every month and painting them up, but that's also a tough ask of someone: they've now started the hobby, they don't want to put it on hold for a year when they could pick things up as they go along. And of course, they'll be thinking "well I'll never want more than one 2000 point army anyway". And by the time they get excited by a starter box which has a faction in it they've not used before, it's twelve months later and they never did save for that printer.
GW's current system is fairly robust against this sort of thing. I'm sure we'll get to the point eventually where 3D printers are so easy to operate that everyone has one in the home, but that's a long way off still. And that'll revolutionise a whole lot more than wargaming minis.
I don't ever see 3D printers as the entry to the wargaming hobby. Maybe for the random few who get into the miniature painting hobby first and want to branch out to wargaming but overall 3D printers seem more like something that can come later. And like I mention in the reply above. Maybe you don't even need to buy a 3D printer if somebody in your group has one. People might start by supplementing some armies with personalised details, move on to personalising whole units, to finally wanting their own printer and not wanting to queue for the group's "community printer".
Each step in isolation wouldn't hurt any company much but in aggregate they might have a bigger effect that miniature companies might have to accept as "a thing" that's creating some sort of issue for them.
To me 3D printers feel like airbrushes. A tool that's useful to some but in contrast to airbrushes also one that may grow in utility and usability in time and become more useful to more people. Or only a handful of people in a group of friends might buy a printer but make it available to many more people. Not everybody needs to buy one to actually have access to one.
That's how it works in my area. Most people don't have 3D printers, but enough people do have 3D printers that it is easy enough to get something printed from "a guy who knows a guy."
BobtheInquisitor wrote: The Shieldwolf sisters cost me $35 for 20. How much are they overcharging you for them in order to match GW pricing?? [...]
Ahhh didn't see they were 20 to a box, thought they were 10. I can't seem to find them outside of ebay or the Shieldwolf’s site, but they're £29 more or less, which is slightly more than a box of sisters from a UK retailer.
Those tanks though ain't cheap, €58 is a lot.
We appreciate the feedback, it means a lot to us. Our plastic Sisters made history and have received an awesome welcome from the community and naturally are made available via numerous vendors in the world (below are the first links that came up via a quick Google search, we sell to distributors who then supply even more vendors, some of which we don't even know are carrying our range!).
The tanks on the other hand were kickstarted and would have been $40 in hard plastic, with a stretch goal if the project went very well to double the number (i.e. that would have given 2 tanks instead of one, making the cost drop down to $20/each).
Unfortunately the backing wasn't enough and that never happened. So, the production material ended in resin and rest assured it's a very competitive price (sales and back orders prove that) which will shortly see a rise since 58 euros for this massive resin construct is still on the very cheap.
Edit: Forgot to mention in the price you must take into account that these almost always ship for free worldwide, as a 60euro order is eligible for free P&P. That too must be taken into account
BobtheInquisitor wrote: The Shieldwolf sisters cost me $35 for 20. How much are they overcharging you for them in order to match GW pricing?? [...]
Ahhh didn't see they were 20 to a box, thought they were 10. I can't seem to find them outside of ebay or the Shieldwolf’s site, but they're £29 more or less, which is slightly more than a box of sisters from a UK retailer.
Those tanks though ain't cheap, €58 is a lot.
We appreciate the feedback, it means a lot to us. Our plastic Sisters made history and have received an awesome welcome from the community and naturally are made available via numerous vendors in the world (below are the first links that came up via a quick Google search, we sell to distributors who then supply even more vendors, some of which we don't even know are carrying our range!).
The tanks on the other hand were kickstarted and would have been $40 in hard plastic, with a stretch goal if the project went very well to double the number (i.e. that would have given 2 tanks instead of one, making the cost drop down to $20/each).
Unfortunately the backing wasn't enough and that never happened. So, the production material ended in resin and rest assured it's a very competitive price (sales and back orders prove that) which will shortly see a rise since 58 euros for this massive resin construct is still on the very cheap.
Edit: Forgot to mention in the price you must take into account that these almost always ship for free worldwide, as a 60euro order is eligible for free P&P. That too must be taken into account
Thank you very much for the information and well done guys, you make some cool minis!
Always good to see this sort of helpful post from a creator on here
Turnip Jedi wrote: But, as someone else told me, aren't a lot of the recasters kind of out of reach in parts of the world with a fluid take on IP
So it'll just be swinging at the low hanging fruit with the odd overstep lest the record profits become less recordy
This.
Neither russia nor Chinacast will care.
this will just target 3d Printing community and artists in there for either Infringement or imagined infringement.
Frankly this is just more of the most recent trend of GW further targetting community goodwill for no other reason then to look good to investors.
Turnip Jedi wrote: But, as someone else told me, aren't a lot of the recasters kind of out of reach in parts of the world with a fluid take on IP
So it'll just be swinging at the low hanging fruit with the odd overstep lest the record profits become less recordy
This.
Neither russia nor Chinacast will care.
this will just target 3d Printing community and artists in there for either Infringement or imagined infringement.
Frankly this is just more of the most recent trend of GW further targetting community goodwill for no other reason then to look good to investors.
Not seen any mention of this sort of thing happening anywhere else, so I'll take it with a pinch of salt until people start to provide first hand evidence places.
The video citers three different sources. I am not seeing anything on any of Doctor Faust's channels ( I cannot check Facebook as I have nor want any Facebook account). However I cant blame Doctor Faust, he is a sole trader and cannot afford any beef with GW in case they get spiteful with him.
Orlanth wrote: I am not seeing anything on any of Doctor Faust's channels ( I cannot check Facebook as I have nor want any Facebook account).
It's on FB - below is a copy from another site:
Spoiler:
So advertising a 3D print as an AoS Mancrusher Gargant gets it taken down.
Yes, which is also the same for cast models as well, which is why they all have different names. If the name is unique enough and GW can copyright/trademark/IP protect it then they will. It's annoying, but at the same time expected. It's why there are slowly developing a few alternate name lists out there which are commonly "used" to describe things and like as not as things grow most GW models will have an "alternate 3rd party name" that is commonly used between designers enough that it will be generally known in the community and searched for.
it's also against ebay rules as keyword spamming since it's not the aforementioned item
(and how much stuff does get pulled on ebay for just that reason it's shouldn't surprise sellers if it happens to them, call it a Giant for Tabletop Wargaming and most folk will be able to find it and it shouldn't get pulled)
If anything, i expect said letter to be filled with Antrax.
Okay. Google isn’t being helpful. Who is that/they? Thank you
It's a refrence to 2001 Anthrax attacks, where letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and to Democratic Senators. Five of them died of it.
If anything, i expect said letter to be filled with Antrax.
Okay. Google isn’t being helpful. Who is that/they? Thank you
It's a refrence to 2001 Anthrax attacks, where letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and to Democratic Senators. Five of them died of it.
so you're hyperbolicly comparing GW to terrorists now?
For their rules, never
For the models, it looks like GW has a list and is sending letters one by one, maybe soon, maybe never
So we have a couple of claims of ebay items falsely keywords with warhammer being pulled. Where is the evidence of this list of sculptors being shut down?
For their rules, never
For the models, it looks like GW has a list and is sending letters one by one, maybe soon, maybe never
So we have a couple of claims of ebay items falsely keywords with warhammer being pulled. Where is the evidence of this list of sculptors being shut down?
you mean like the other 16 pages of this topic and the other topic talking about GW going after patreons that were a little bit too similar?
For their rules, never
For the models, it looks like GW has a list and is sending letters one by one, maybe soon, maybe never
So we have a couple of claims of ebay items falsely keywords with warhammer being pulled. Where is the evidence of this list of sculptors being shut down?
you mean like the other 16 pages of this topic and the other topic talking about GW going after patreons that were a little bit too similar?
No, there was 1 mistaken cease of monetisation on MWM discussed in here, that's literally it. Nobody can provide a solid list of people that GW have "shut down" because thus far, there isn't anyone that's been targeted that heavily.
privateer4hire wrote:How long before one page rules gets a letter?
A C&D letter being longer than the "compressed" rules would actually be really funny. I know that those letter are usually rather terse but one can dream.
Oh man the cycle has begun again! First we deny it happens, then we claim its good/justified that it is happening!
Can't wait, keep up the good work!
Or people don't want to look through 16 pages of hyperbole, overreaction, and general nerd rage. If you are so sure of your position, then you should be glad to provide evidence for someone who asks, rather than dismissing them.
kodos wrote: who was talking about people being shut down?
it was about getting a letter from GW, and there were more than 1
Can you provide a brief list of the people contacted & in what capacity? It's good to have a solid frame of reference going forwards.
Oh man the cycle has begun again! First we deny it happens, then we claim its good/justified that it is happening!
Can't wait, keep up the good work!
Just asking for the evidence that anything is happening because unsubstantiated generic evil GW statements and bs sarcastic responses like yours don't help.
If you want them to be held accountable for their actions, collate data and present it. Better yet after all this time a rounding up of impacted people is required.
How is linking a 7-page thread helpful when a list was asked for?
Also lol, the first post has 3 "Patreons" listed, they aren't even named. Strong start I must say.
Flicked through it and at a glance it seems the majority of those affected were done so with a degree of truth to the claim. The first post is 3 people stopping voluntarily, some kickstarters that mimic gw armies closely and some creators that admit they took down "sculpts that resemble space marines".
Orlanth wrote: I am not seeing anything on any of Doctor Faust's channels ( I cannot check Facebook as I have nor want any Facebook account).
It's on FB - below is a copy from another site:
Spoiler:
So advertising a 3D print as an AoS Mancrusher Gargant gets it taken down.
Yes, which is also the same for cast models as well, which is why they all have different names. If the name is unique enough and GW can copyright/trademark/IP protect it then they will. It's annoying, but at the same time expected. It's why there are slowly developing a few alternate name lists out there which are commonly "used" to describe things and like as not as things grow most GW models will have an "alternate 3rd party name" that is commonly used between designers enough that it will be generally known in the community and searched for.
I’d be curious to see the exact wording he used.
Not an IP lawyer, but isn’t it fine to use keywords that might be trademarked when selling your goods, so long as it’s absolutely clear you’re not actually the official product and there’s no brand confusion?
Like, you can make a part to replace a Ford part and use the word Ford when advertising it. If Ford decide to name their timing belt a camshaft synchronator, then I imagine you’d also be able to use that term when selling a Ford timing belt so long as it’s absolutely clear you aren’t pretending to be Ford to confuse customers.
I don’t really see how this is different, as long as it’s very clear that it’s a 3D printed part with non-GW origins and is artistically distinct from GW designs, why not make it clear that it is scaled and based appropriately to be used in Warhammer as a Mega-whatever-hell-it-is?
The exact wording is important, yes. As is the reasoning for the removal. You can absolutely use trademarked words in a listing and that was one of the very clear rulings in the Chapterhouse case - saying something is "compatible with GW's Storm Raven" is absolutely fine, mainly because it's a statement of fact. However, if you're using trademarked terms in a way that may imply your product is made by the same company, or it could be interpreted that way, you're on shakier ground. I believe eBay also has rules around spamming key words and phrases in descriptions.
As with a lot of IP law, there are a lot of grey areas and the specifics matter. The big companies like YouTube, eBay etc tend to err on the side of caution when a potential infringement is brought to their attention. There are ways to challenge claims against you but the onus is on the alleged infringer to prove they're not at fault, which is a big weakness of the current system.
