Britain’s largest manufacturer of miniature wargames and fantasy figurines has become embroiled in a running battle with some of its fans that has sent its share price tumbling.
Games Workshop has angered a section of its customers after clamping down on unauthorised websites dedicated to its Warhammer franchise, according to analysts at Jefferies, the US bank.
The FTSE 250 group has faced a wave of negative online reviews, with some fans even calling for a boycott of the dwarf-and-goblin fantasy game, the analysts said.
Shares in Games Workshop tumbled by 7.7 per cent, or 805p, to £96.45 yesterday.
Games Workshop has been one of the stock market’s best performing companies over the past five years.....
Games Workshop, the maker of Warhammer battle figurines, dropped sharply amid signs it could be facing a customer revolt.
The FTSE 250 business and stock market darling saw profits boom during the pandemic as fans stuck in lockdown splashed the cash on its miniatures of goblins and orcs.
Since the onset of Covid-19 last March, the stock price has ballooned by over 160 per cent. However, the company is facing the ire of its legions of fans amid plans to clamp down harder on the use of its intellectual property (IP), according to analysts at Jefferies.
'Having spent time trawling through forums and fan sites, it seems there is a fair bit of discontent in the Warhammer fan base at present,' the broker wrote.
'The catalyst for this seems to have been a much more aggressive approach to protecting IP, particularly around the creation of fan sites and animation.
This change has led to popular fan content creators ceasing their involvement (under pressure from Games Workshop), a lot of negative community feedback, a raft of downvotes to Warhammer video content, and, with other factors also rolled in (price increases, employee pay), calls to boycott the business.'
The impetus for the crackdown appeared to be Warhammer+, Games Workshop's subscription service that provides access to exclusive Warhammer TV shows as well as figurines and apps unavailable elsewhere.
Jefferies said while the current noise seemed to be from a 'vocal minority', they trimmed their target price for the group to 12,250p from 13,200p, saying they would be 'keeping a close eye' on the situation.
Investors also seemed unnerved by the sabre-rattling as the shares dropped 7.7 per cent, or 805p, to 9645p. The FTSE 100 slipped 0.16 per cent, or 11.9 points, to 7237.57, while the FTSE 250 tumbled 0.4 per cent, or 93.26 points, to 23106.61.
I honestly think this just bites fans more, unless it’s a sustained sales drop. GW won’t be hit.
But it’s interesting to read after seeing people speculating about the sales all over the place all day.
The age of sigmar starter is super cheep in Aus, was Sus to me but I didn’t really think much more about it being linked to anything potentially like this.
There was, until GW revealed- well, literally anything new, at which point the fanbase's horrific lack of impulse control kicked in.
Any boycott of people who weren't already not buying GW products would never last longer than the Black Templar reveal.
Indeed, i dont expect this boycott to last long
I know it's fun to act cynical and self-superior about stuff like this (I do it too), but the fact is, any amount of action enough to get legitimate financial websites to talk is an effective amount of action, especially considering this boycott has presumably been going about a month.
As shocking as this may seem, there are enough Warhammer fans who value community creators over new toys to make a difference in this field, and GW are clearly feeling it.
There was, until GW revealed- well, literally anything new, at which point the fanbase's horrific lack of impulse control kicked in.
Any boycott of people who weren't already not buying GW products would never last longer than the Black Templar reveal.
Indeed, i dont expect this boycott to last long
I know it's fun to act cynical and self-superior about stuff like this (I do it too), but the fact is, any amount of action enough to get legitimate financial websites to talk is an effective amount of action, especially considering this boycott has presumably been going about a month.
As shocking as this may seem, there are enough Warhammer fans who value community creators over new toys to make a difference in this field, and GW are clearly feeling it.
I hope you're right, don't get me wrong, but 8th edition showed GW don't need to do much more than click their fingers and people will come running back with open arms.
Yep but its one of those gamer boycotts wherein they only buy half what they planned too...
I've been watching a few places that discussed it and watching the shift to normality has been depressing but kind of amusing.
"I'm not buying GW products anymore!" "I'm only buying GW second hand off Ebay!" "I'm only buying GW from my LFGS to support a small business!" "I'm only buying GW from online discounters because I'm trying to give them as little as possible!" "BY THE EMPEROR, THE BLACK TEMPLAR BOXSET IS GLORIOUS! PURGE MY WALLET, GW!!!"
There was, until GW revealed- well, literally anything new, at which point the fanbase's horrific lack of impulse control kicked in.
Any boycott of people who weren't already not buying GW products would never last longer than the Black Templar reveal.
Indeed, i dont expect this boycott to last long
I know it's fun to act cynical and self-superior about stuff like this (I do it too), but the fact is, any amount of action enough to get legitimate financial websites to talk is an effective amount of action, especially considering this boycott has presumably been going about a month.
As shocking as this may seem, there are enough Warhammer fans who value community creators over new toys to make a difference in this field, and GW are clearly feeling it.
I hope it does make a difference, and that the boycott last long enough to really make gw think about their business practice, but im very doubtful. When gw killed whfb and gave us these insulting joke rules, the call for a boycott was much much louder than i ever saw. But it didn't last very long and pretty much everybody got back to buying in droves once gw released a few minis they liked
There was, until GW revealed- well, literally anything new, at which point the fanbase's horrific lack of impulse control kicked in.
Any boycott of people who weren't already not buying GW products would never last longer than the Black Templar reveal.
Indeed, i dont expect this boycott to last long
I know it's fun to act cynical and self-superior about stuff like this (I do it too), but the fact is, any amount of action enough to get legitimate financial websites to talk is an effective amount of action, especially considering this boycott has presumably been going about a month.
As shocking as this may seem, there are enough Warhammer fans who value community creators over new toys to make a difference in this field, and GW are clearly feeling it.
I hope it does make a difference, and that the boycott last long enough to really make gw think about their business practice, but im very doubtful. When gw killed whfb and gave us these insulting joke rules, the call for a boycott was much much louder than i ever saw. But it didn't last very long and pretty much everybody got back to buying in droves once gw released a few minis they liked
I think the change in rules was big there, it was a response that people did see they could listen and change.
So it did work, but how long and did it change anything internal is probably more the debate.
People still joke about how bad those rules sounded. But it’s more in a thanks they learn something now.
A UK based manufacturer and distributer of goods has a drop in its share price and its down to a half arsed boycott that's more about making noise on social media? Not the global supply chain being bent out of shape due to the ongoing global pandemic and the rolling cluster of Brexit? Sure
streetsamurai wrote: I hope it does make a difference, and that the boycott last long enough to really make gw think about their business practice, but im very doubtful. When gw killed whfb and gave us these insulting joke rules, the call for a boycott was much much louder than i ever saw. But it didn't last very long and pretty much everybody got back to buying in droves once gw released a few minis they liked
With the death of WHFB a lot of people just left and never came back, so you might have heard their voices initially and then eventually new players came in, but many of those old players just stayed away.
It's always challenging to tell with boycotts, maybe the people who boycotted it were weak and came back, or maybe they genuinely did stay away but it wasn't impactful. It also doesn't matter too much if you boycott GW for 6 months when they don't release something you want in that window anyway.
I've never "boycotted" Games Workshop, but there's certainly been time when years have passed without me purchasing anything from them either because I didn't agree with the path they took or they made their games too unpalatable. I've only really come back to GW because of Blood Bowl and Aeronautica Imperialis.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
GoatboyBeta wrote: A UK based manufacturer and distributer of goods has a drop in its share price and its down to a half arsed boycott that's more about making noise on social media? Not the global supply chain being bent out of shape due to the ongoing global pandemic and the rolling cluster of Brexit? Sure
To be fair, a nerd boycott of a nerd product can in many areas be impactful and is perhaps good reason to be concerned. It's just GW specifically it probably doesn't make much difference, but perhaps enough to make stock holders nervous (at least the stock holders that aren't themselves gamers, lol).
I also think that gw have such an advantage quality wise when it comes to plastic models, that it's nearly impossible for us nerds to boycott them for long.
But now, it seems like things are starting ti change. Im really impressed by Conquest plastic models. Some of them seems to be on par with gw quality
All those rich Dad's on furlough that 'got back into GW' (on BBC articles) because they were stuck in furlough and hoped to get some game time with their kids. They're back at work now, have no time, and the semi-painted stuff will be on a shelf/cupboard somewhere gathering dust.
No doubt a slight drop like that will make the boycotters think they're winning. Lol.
streetsamurai wrote: I also think that gw have such an advantage quality wise when it comes to plastic models, that it's nearly impossible for us nerds to boycott them for long.
But now, it seems like things are starting ti change. Im really impressed by Conquest plastic models. Some of them seems to be on par with gw quality
Huge amount of people outside the GW bubble don’t care about plastic, when people say on par with GW quality it scares me off the product now : )
streetsamurai wrote: I also think that gw have such an advantage quality wise when it comes to plastic models, that it's nearly impossible for us nerds to boycott them for long.
But now, it seems like things are starting ti change. Im really impressed by Conquest plastic models. Some of them seems to be on par with gw quality
Huge amount of people outside the GW bubble don’t care about plastic, when people say on par with GW quality it scares me off the product now : )
Yes for sure, but i would say most gw customers do care about plastic. And if a boycott is too work, it's current customers that have to stop buying
streetsamurai wrote: I also think that gw have such an advantage quality wise when it comes to plastic models, that it's nearly impossible for us nerds to boycott them for long.
But now, it seems like things are starting ti change. Im really impressed by Conquest plastic models. Some of them seems to be on par with gw quality
Huge amount of people outside the GW bubble don’t care about plastic, when people say on par with GW quality it scares me off the product now : )
Yes for sure, but i would say most gw customers do care about plastic. And if a boycott is too work, it's current customers that have to stop buying
Last few years I have seen the plastic is the only way crowd thining and more willing to try. So it may be the perfect time.
But I am debating getting the sigmar box why it’s not stupid expensive lol, just to muck it up and then go back to never buying again.
I dont think people who are encouraging IP infringement for personal profit will have enough leverage to make GW do anything. They have a better chance of inflicting damage to the company by getting employed by GW and pulling off sabotage at the workplace than by crying online.
Sorry but I have zero sympathy for this sort of stuff. WH+ came and took away your free bolter pron, deal with it.
The more likely explanation for the share drop is that GW got pumped, and now they're getting dumped, but I guess standard stock market behaviour doesn't make for a good headline.
It's also the actual sculpting and designs. None of these other companies have a Seb Perbet or Martin Footit working for them just like they never had a Jes Goodwin or Brian Nelson in the past.
I wouldn't really say I'm boycotting anything, TBH. I'm just not enthused by their offerings enough for me to buy their stuff.
Part of it is that I feel I can't really justify what I need to pay for what I get, part of it is already having lots of stuff from lots of manufacturers. Part of it is the rules treadmill, which has simply gotten ridiculous.
And W+, well... I mean, there's basically nothing there, so...
tauist wrote: I dont think people who are encouraging IP infringement for personal profit will have enough leverage to make GW do anything. They have a better chance of inflicting damage to the company by getting employed by GW and pulling off sabotage at the workplace than by crying online.
I would, but sadly i don't want to go to jail.
Also IP and copyright law and the lot were invented by the rich and powerfull to protect the rich and powerful and give them more power.
His Master's Voice wrote: The more likely explanation for the share drop is that GW got pumped, and now they're getting dumped, but I guess standard stock market behaviour doesn't make for a good headline.
And this gives them a narrative they can respond to and "fix" the "problem".
JSG wrote: It's also the actual sculpting and designs. None of these other companies have a Seb Perbet or Martin Footit working for them just like they never had a Jes Goodwin or Brian Nelson in the past.
I’m almost certain Jes is still there btw, unless he left recently.
JSG wrote: It's also the actual sculpting and designs. None of these other companies have a Seb Perbet or Martin Footit working for them just like they never had a Jes Goodwin or Brian Nelson in the past.
I’m almost certain Jes is still there btw, unless he left recently.
Yeah i'm pretty sure he designed like, the Bladeguard Vets and such.
It always boil down to one thing; customers pay their wages.
I can't speak for others but I've been taking my custom elsewhere. I now only purchase the odd thing from GW via an independent with discount, but since the stupidity with the pricing of Kill Team its been GW's loss and Osprey and Modiphus' gain.
My problem with their C&D antics is that they want to be very loud in this regard but have no time for us - their paying customers - when it came to the cancelling of Cursed City. Eager fans providing them heart felt tribute doesn't pay their wages - Warhammer Quest customers do. While I'm all for GW protecting their IP, they need to attend to their paying customers first.
For a stock dummy like me, can somebody explain in easy words why people selling their GW stock at lower prices (isn't that what makes it go down? Less people want to buy at a given, higher price?) got anything to do with a bunch of heated discussions online?
It is hard to believe for me that some suits are looking into the GW community this detailed? Especially when we have seen most releases selling out this year? Surely the stock guys would be aware of that, too?
a_typical_hero wrote: It is hard to believe for me that some suits are looking into the GW community this detailed? Especially when we have seen most releases selling out this year? Surely the stock guys would be aware of that, too?
Stocks can come up and down depending on bloody anything, the surge in Bowsette-themed pornography caused Nintendo stocks to soar and Christiano Ronaldo drinking water when he had a Cola bottle in his view caused their stocks to plummet.
Considering a lot of the complaints are based on misinformation and wild assumptions that ignore or misinterpret what's going on, rather than what GW has actually done recently, It's a bit surprising its gone that far.
Those articles sound more like guessing why there are drops and just blaming it on the social media noise like youtube comments. Because let's face it, the "boycott" and "negative online reviews" are no new story at all for those who really follow GW's history.
Would rather point the brexit and current problems with distribution / production that are severly slowing down GW's release calender in comparison to before, having effects on orders as well.
"Fan boycott threats", heh. At least it made me draw a smirk on my lips.
Easy click videos to make for youtubers in the business of "GW is evil", though.
Sarouan wrote: Those articles sound more like guessing why there are drops and just blaming it on the social media noise like youtube comments. Because let's face it, the "boycott" and "negative online reviews" are no new story at all for those who really follow GW's history.
Would rather point the brexit and current problems with distribution / production that are severly slowing down GW's release calender in comparison to before, having effects on orders as well.
"Fan boycott threats", heh. At least it made me draw a smirk on my lips.
Easy click videos to make for youtubers in the business of "GW is evil", though.
Some of the comments here are wild. The analyst is not guessing at the reason for a downgrade. He is the one who downgraded the stock. He is giving the stock a downgrade and then telling you why he did it. The market is reacting to his downgrade.
You can disagree with the analyst, but acting like he is just grasping at straws borders on insanity when he is the one who downgraded the stock.
Sarouan wrote: Those articles sound more like guessing why there are drops and just blaming it on the social media noise like youtube comments. Because let's face it, the "boycott" and "negative online reviews" are no new story at all for those who really follow GW's history.
Would rather point the brexit and current problems with distribution / production that are severly slowing down GW's release calender in comparison to before, having effects on orders as well.
"Fan boycott threats", heh. At least it made me draw a smirk on my lips.
Easy click videos to make for youtubers in the business of "GW is evil", though.
Some of the comments here are wild. The analyst is not guessing at the reason for a downgrade. He is the one who downgraded the stock. He is giving the stock a downgrade and then telling you why he did it. The market is reacting to his downgrade.
You can disagree with the analyst, but acting like he is just grasping at straws borders on insanity when he is the one who downgraded the stock.
Yeah, but you have to keep in mind that thses comments are mostly.coming from the "defend gw at all cost" crowd
I choose to not understand the stock market, convinced it’s all smoke and mirrors and just a way for the rich to get richer.
Several studies have shown that ever world renowned fund managers actually don’t do better or worse than a computer programmed to buy and sell stocks at random. So nobody is ever going to convinced me that anyone involved at any level actually knows what they’re talking about.
It’s cool. They’ll raise prices and hire a team to spend 6 hours a day googling and prowling the internet for cease and desists to hand out.
Honestly what made 40k and fantasy amazing was that for a time the setting belonged to the fans. It was our special sand box to do what we wanted, convert what we wanted, even encouraging us to jerry rig minis and providing low cost solutions. The company has taken that away because it’s not as profitable to let us have the setting. I’m glad there’s an attempt to take it back by the fan base. GW was never meant to become Disney.
So triple figure prices for individual models can't motivate people to action against GW's bottom line, but interfere with a youtube channeln that DOESN'T AFFECT THE STATE OF THE GAME OR PRICE OF THE GAME AT ALL gets you galvanized to action?!?!?!?! Speaks SO much about the current player base...
Eh, GW's been on a roll through the pandemic, insane growth can't last forever.
Between 3D printing, 9E, increasing prices and getting back out of the house again, I think its high time that the GW stock had a correction.
Anyways, I've moved on from GW after seeing the gorgeous minis folks are making available for 3D printing - and I mean stuff that has nothing to do with GW's games.
Just Tony wrote: So triple figure prices for individual models can't motivate people to action against GW's bottom line, but interfere with a youtube channeln that DOESN'T AFFECT THE STATE OF THE GAME OR PRICE OF THE GAME AT ALL gets you galvanized to action?!?!?!?! Speaks SO much about the current player base...
I think most people would think overly aggressive IP protection is morally more dubious than setting the price of a product higher than you might think it’s worth.
There was, until GW revealed- well, literally anything new, at which point the fanbase's horrific lack of impulse control kicked in.
Any boycott of people who weren't already not buying GW products would never last longer than the Black Templar reveal.
Indeed, i dont expect this boycott to last long
Factor in how GW prey upon Fear Of Missing Out on the products as well. That I think is the biggest thing that GW can do to undermine any attempt at a boycott.
Boycotting a product that is likely to be around for a while, sure... can always pick it up once the boycott had achieved its aim, but a limited product that scalpers are going to Jack up up price in the second hand market... that just too risky for some folk who need there GW fix.
Just Tony wrote: So triple figure prices for individual models can't motivate people to action against GW's bottom line, but interfere with a youtube channeln that DOESN'T AFFECT THE STATE OF THE GAME OR PRICE OF THE GAME AT ALL gets you galvanized to action?!?!?!?! Speaks SO much about the current player base...
Especially when GWhaven't even done any of that "aggressive IP protection where they'll cease and desist everything" sort of stuff that some keep claiming. The whole appears to be the result of misinformation (seemingly in an attempt to try to find any reason to say GW is bad) or misunderstanding what's actually been going on.
For example the guidelines saying things like animations aren't allowed is something that has been there for the past 5 years at least.
This is all a little out of date. There was a YouTube dislike campaign a couple of months ago, but it quickly finished. Look at today's videos; about 2000 likes each and a hundred or so dislikes. The ork box sold out, Killteam sold out, the black Templar box sold out. There's no boycott at all.
Chikout wrote: This is all a little out of date. There was a YouTube dislike campaign a couple of months ago, but it quickly finished. Look at today's videos; about 2000 likes each and a hundred or so dislikes. The ork box sold out, Killteam sold out, the black Templar box sold out. There's no boycott at all.
You almost had me, then I took five seconds on the website and found the Black Templar box not sold out, because it never was sold out you just made all of that up.
Chikout wrote: This is all a little out of date. There was a YouTube dislike campaign a couple of months ago, but it quickly finished. Look at today's videos; about 2000 likes each and a hundred or so dislikes. The ork box sold out, Killteam sold out, the black Templar box sold out. There's no boycott at all.
You almost had me, then I took five seconds on the website and found the Black Templar box not sold out, because it never was sold out you just made all of that up.
No, that's a very US-centric take. It's sold out in most countries.
Chikout wrote: This is all a little out of date. There was a YouTube dislike campaign a couple of months ago, but it quickly finished. Look at today's videos; about 2000 likes each and a hundred or so dislikes. The ork box sold out, Killteam sold out, the black Templar box sold out. There's no boycott at all.
You almost had me, then I took five seconds on the website and found the Black Templar box not sold out, because it never was sold out you just made all of that up.
Chikout wrote: This is all a little out of date. There was a YouTube dislike campaign a couple of months ago, but it quickly finished. Look at today's videos; about 2000 likes each and a hundred or so dislikes. The ork box sold out, Killteam sold out, the black Templar box sold out. There's no boycott at all.
You almost had me, then I took five seconds on the website and found the Black Templar box not sold out, because it never was sold out you just made all of that up.
It's sold out in Japan (where they are, looking at their flag) and the UK (where I am).
Stormonu wrote: Eh, GW's been on a roll through the pandemic, insane growth can't last forever.
Just for clarity, this dip, and it is a significant dip albeit not of the magnitude of 8 or so years back, has nothing to do with growth, profit or any other aspect of GW's performance. (That last big one was a reaction to their failure to grow for the first time in forever.)
It is months since they published any figures and another set isn't due until 2022.
This is purely based on the stock market's impression of their viability as a stock. This isn't a reaction to GW's material performance, this is a reflection of opinion on their viability as an investment.
Chikout wrote: This is all a little out of date. There was a YouTube dislike campaign a couple of months ago, but it quickly finished. Look at today's videos; about 2000 likes each and a hundred or so dislikes. The ork box sold out, Killteam sold out, the black Templar box sold out. There's no boycott at all.
You almost had me, then I took five seconds on the website and found the Black Templar box not sold out, because it never was sold out you just made all of that up.
No, that's a very US-centric take. It's sold out in most countries.
Well, the us is not some backwater hole. It is the biggest market by far for GW
Stormonu wrote: Eh, GW's been on a roll through the pandemic, insane growth can't last forever.
Between 3D printing, 9E, increasing prices and getting back out of the house again, I think its high time that the GW stock had a correction.
Anyways, I've moved on from GW after seeing the gorgeous minis folks are making available for 3D printing - and I mean stuff that has nothing to do with GW's games.
The heck insane growth can’t last forever. It’s what modern capitalism is built on. Insane growth has to last forever because the moment it doesn’t the economic system stops working.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I choose to not understand the stock market, convinced it’s all smoke and mirrors and just a way for the rich to get richer.
Several studies have shown that ever world renowned fund managers actually don’t do better or worse than a computer programmed to buy and sell stocks at random. So nobody is ever going to convinced me that anyone involved at any level actually knows what they’re talking about.
That’s not true. We had representatives discuss Covid 19 in private, then immediately after that discussion and before the pandemic hit America, sell their stocks off while telling us everything is fine.
Also of note is that hedge funds absolutely understand the stock market and utilize that understanding to use the weight of their enormous capital to engage in market manipulation. They were so used to having all the power with market manipulation that they got our representatives to hold an emergency meeting when common folk on reddit beat them at their own game. But no emergency meetings for our failing healthcare infrastructure, Texas’s cold snap that literally froze people to death in their own homes, the storms hitting the southern coasts, or any other actual disaster...
Wealth has grown inexplicably for a very select few despite a lack of production and sales and that is because people that know what they are doing with the stock market are using it to inexplicable multiply their wealth.
GoatboyBeta wrote: A UK based manufacturer and distributer of goods has a drop in its share price and its down to a half arsed boycott that's more about making noise on social media? Not the global supply chain being bent out of shape due to the ongoing global pandemic and the rolling cluster of Brexit? Sure
Here's the deal, stock market isn't real. Like, it's just as much about feefees of capitalists as anything real, so shares dropping a bit based on *potential* of loss of profit because fans are angry is just as plausible as anything else.
Will there really be any noticeable dip in profits? I don't know, we'll see how much the online anger translates to any actual results.
There was, until GW revealed- well, literally anything new, at which point the fanbase's horrific lack of impulse control kicked in.
Any boycott of people who weren't already not buying GW products would never last longer than the Black Templar reveal.
Lol true i remember reading when this came out someone said "I barely bought from GW, so im just going to not anymore and pirate books and 3d print my army from now on" and im like, the fact you knew how to do it so well showed you never bought much before.
the people boycotting and 4chan/reddit memers who never played the game anyway.
Just Tony wrote: So triple figure prices for individual models can't motivate people to action against GW's bottom line, but interfere with a youtube channeln that DOESN'T AFFECT THE STATE OF THE GAME OR PRICE OF THE GAME AT ALL gets you galvanized to action?!?!?!?! Speaks SO much about the current player base...
Especially when GWhaven't even done any of that "aggressive IP protection where they'll cease and desist everything" sort of stuff that some keep claiming. The whole appears to be the result of misinformation (seemingly in an attempt to try to find any reason to say GW is bad) or misunderstanding what's actually been going on.
For example the guidelines saying things like animations aren't allowed is something that has been there for the past 5 years at least.
Is that why GW is flexing its IP muscles right now for the whole world to see? Purposefully redirecting our gaze to their IP policy? Refusing to address the fact that these things and the threat of a possible cease and desist intimidated some of the content creators? Seems like the morally correct thing to do would have been to correct the public that such things are alright, or at least address the pissed off fans and innocent 3rd party content creators.
Just Tony wrote: So triple figure prices for individual models can't motivate people to action against GW's bottom line, but interfere with a youtube channeln that DOESN'T AFFECT THE STATE OF THE GAME OR PRICE OF THE GAME AT ALL gets you galvanized to action?!?!?!?! Speaks SO much about the current player base...
Especially when GWhaven't even done any of that "aggressive IP protection where they'll cease and desist everything" sort of stuff that some keep claiming. The whole appears to be the result of misinformation (seemingly in an attempt to try to find any reason to say GW is bad) or misunderstanding what's actually been going on.
For example the guidelines saying things like animations aren't allowed is something that has been there for the past 5 years at least.
This is not true, and has been proven not true. You can compare the new version to the old version, and probably should before saying this. Additionally, they have without a doubt been enforcing or threatening enforcement far more than the past and have literally posted new jobs for said enforcement.
Maybe the argument you want to make is that the enforcement isn't bad? Plenty of people would disagree with you, but at least that is opinion based and not so obviously false.
There was, until GW revealed- well, literally anything new, at which point the fanbase's horrific lack of impulse control kicked in.
Any boycott of people who weren't already not buying GW products would never last longer than the Black Templar reveal.
Lol true i remember reading when this came out someone said "I barely bought from GW, so im just going to not anymore and pirate books and 3d print my army from now on" and im like, the fact you knew how to do it so well showed you never bought much before.
the people boycotting and 4chan/reddit memers who never played the game anyway.
3D printers appealed to me because of the ability to make bits for conversions was and literally everyone knows how to use BattleScribe and wahapedia to rip the rules off. It’s not much different than deciding to use a 3rd party to supply models, the latter of which I’m sure most imperial guard players and renegade and heretics players are plenty aware of.
Granted, they are launching another space marine chapter that will probably have another game breaking wombo combo that will have space marine players and meta chasers crawling back for more. This did cause negative speculation though and it is a huge hiccup that caused a stir with the shareholders, with whom the execs are solely responsible to. It may at least force GW to talk about giving some agency to the fans to control some part of the IP. The 40k and fantasy that made the IP worth a damn in the first place was largely given to the fans to be their own sand box to play in. Gouging on models in a capitalist system is necessary for the hobby to move forward; there is a finite amount of plastic that we are capable of purchasing and housing. Gouging on the domain that we fans are accustomed to owning and who many joined the hobby because of the freedom we had with the IP is something that is going to push a lot of the old guard out, and gouging on the rules is going to be an active barrier to new players getting in. It’s even pushing those that fit in the middle out as well.
Once they have pillaged the game for every dime it’s worth we’ll likely see them blow the current edition up and start over with a new index edition. I mean that’s what I would; it worked spectacularly for 8th.
Stormonu wrote: Eh, GW's been on a roll through the pandemic, insane growth can't last forever.
Just for clarity, this dip, and it is a significant dip albeit not of the magnitude of 8 or so years back, has nothing to do with growth, profit or any other aspect of GW's performance. (That last big one was a reaction to their failure to grow for the first time in forever.)
It is months since they published any figures and another set isn't due until 2022.
This is purely based on the stock market's impression of their viability as a stock. This isn't a reaction to GW's material performance, this is a reflection of opinion on their viability as an investment.
Pretty much exactly this. While they haven't released figures for a bit, they did release a statement saying that their massive growth over the past couple of years isn't sustainable and investors shouldn't expect it to continue. Predictably, this spooked them.
Just Tony wrote: So triple figure prices for individual models can't motivate people to action against GW's bottom line, but interfere with a youtube channeln that DOESN'T AFFECT THE STATE OF THE GAME OR PRICE OF THE GAME AT ALL gets you galvanized to action?!?!?!?! Speaks SO much about the current player base...
Especially when GWhaven't even done any of that "aggressive IP protection where they'll cease and desist everything" sort of stuff that some keep claiming. The whole appears to be the result of misinformation (seemingly in an attempt to try to find any reason to say GW is bad) or misunderstanding what's actually been going on.
For example the guidelines saying things like animations aren't allowed is something that has been there for the past 5 years at least.
This is not true, and has been proven not true. You can compare the new version to the old version, and probably should before saying this. Additionally, they have without a doubt been enforcing or threatening enforcement far more than the past and have literally posted new jobs for said enforcement.
Maybe the argument you want to make is that the enforcement isn't bad? Plenty of people would disagree with you, but at least that is opinion based and not so obviously false.
I am comparing the new version to the old version. Maybe you should compare the new version to the old version before saying that.
New version
Fan-films and animations – individuals must not create fan films or animations based on our settings and characters. These are only to be created under licence from Games Workshop.
Games and apps – individuals must not create computer games or apps based on our characters and settings. These are only to be created under licence from Games Workshop..
Basically, don't make games, apps, films and animations without a license from GW to do so.
Old version that was there since at least 2016
Licensing
If you think you have a winning idea and want to make a video game, an app, some merchandise, a movie or anything else that you will be distributing (either for free or at a cost) using Games Workshop’s IP then you need permission in the form of a license from Games Workshop.
Don't make games, apps, merchandise, movies or anything else (which therefore includes animations, which aren't excluded anywhere) without a license from GW to do so.
Go on then, how has it been "proven not true" that the guidelines say what they say.
If you don't think the rules are meant to be different, and support a different set of actions by GW, then why did they bother spending the time to edit and change them?
caladancid wrote: If you don't think the rules are meant to be different, and support a different set of actions by GW, then why did they bother spending the time to edit and change them?
Because they wanted to re-word the entire document - both the friendlier guidelines section, and the infringement section - to use more succinct, shorter wording rather than the paragraphs and unnecessary length of the original? That much should be pretty obvious by just looking at the two versions and how the newer one is more briefly and somewhat more clearly worded. You've said it's "proven not true" that animations weren't allowed before, so please go ahead and prove how that doesn't say what it says, like you claimed?
One set of guidelines says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and animations, the other says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and "anything else", I'm curious to see just what you think the "different rules" are there that means somehow the former doesn't allow animations but the latter does.
caladancid wrote: If you don't think the rules are meant to be different, and support a different set of actions by GW, then why did they bother spending the time to edit and change them?
Because they wanted to re-word the entire document - both the friendlier guidelines section, and the infringement section - to use more succinct, shorter wording rather than the paragraphs and unnecessary length of the original? That much should be pretty obvious by just looking at the two versions and how more briefly worded. You've said it's "proven not true" though, so please go ahead and prove how that doesn't say what it says, like you claimed?
One set of guidelines says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and animations, the other says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and "anything else", I'm curious to see just what you think the "different rules" are there that means somehow the former doesn't allow animations but the latter does.
I honestly for a moment could not tell if you were just trolling. The quotes you have quite literally do not say the word animations. You can argue that they meant it, but they did not SAY it, until the revisions. And I am not an IP lawyer so I don't know how strictly courts interpret those notices, but apparently GW felt they needed to clarify. And, after the clarification, they began enforcement.
So claiming that it has always said what it said now, and means the same thing, and that GW isn't enforcing this stuff is verifiably not true.
caladancid wrote: If you don't think the rules are meant to be different, and support a different set of actions by GW, then why did they bother spending the time to edit and change them?
Because they wanted to re-word the entire document - both the friendlier guidelines section, and the infringement section - to use more succinct, shorter wording rather than the paragraphs and unnecessary length of the original? That much should be pretty obvious by just looking at the two versions and how more briefly worded. You've said it's "proven not true" though, so please go ahead and prove how that doesn't say what it says, like you claimed?
One set of guidelines says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and animations, the other says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and "anything else", I'm curious to see just what you think the "different rules" are there that means somehow the former doesn't allow animations but the latter does.
I honestly for a moment could not tell if you were just trolling. The quotes you have quite literally do not say the word animations. You can argue that they meant it, but they did not SAY it, until the revisions. And I am not an IP lawyer so I don't know how strictly courts interpret those notices, but apparently GW felt they needed to clarify. And, after the clarification, they began enforcement.
So claiming that it has always said what it said now, and means the same thing, and that GW isn't enforcing this stuff is verifiably not true.
Animations were not allowed before. The only way you could think they were allowed is if you, for some strange reason, think that they don't count as "anything else that you will be distributing using Games Workshop’s IP ". The new version outright saying "animation" rather than "anything else" doesn't change that they'd be covered under that term.
caladancid wrote: If you don't think the rules are meant to be different, and support a different set of actions by GW, then why did they bother spending the time to edit and change them?
Because they wanted to re-word the entire document - both the friendlier guidelines section, and the infringement section - to use more succinct, shorter wording rather than the paragraphs and unnecessary length of the original? That much should be pretty obvious by just looking at the two versions and how more briefly worded. You've said it's "proven not true" though, so please go ahead and prove how that doesn't say what it says, like you claimed?
One set of guidelines says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and animations, the other says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and "anything else", I'm curious to see just what you think the "different rules" are there that means somehow the former doesn't allow animations but the latter does.
I honestly for a moment could not tell if you were just trolling. The quotes you have quite literally do not say the word animations. You can argue that they meant it, but they did not SAY it, until the revisions. And I am not an IP lawyer so I don't know how strictly courts interpret those notices, but apparently GW felt they needed to clarify. And, after the clarification, they began enforcement.
So claiming that it has always said what it said now, and means the same thing, and that GW isn't enforcing this stuff is verifiably not true.
Animations were not allowed before. The only way you could think they were allowed is if you, for some strange reason, think that they don't count as "anything else that you will be distributing using Games Workshop’s IP ". The new version outright saying "animation" rather than "anything else" doesn't change that they'd be covered under that term.
GWHQ Circa Summer 2021---
Exec- "Hey James, with COVID shipping and Brexit going so great, can we finally start working on those to-do items that have been hanging around?"
James Workshop- "Now that is a great idea. We do have the extra manpower just hanging around."
Exec- "I was thinking maybe this small little document we have had in place for the better part of a decade. I keep meaning to get around to it, but its so meaningless that it keeps getting forgotten."
James- "Let's do it. What is it, the font on the webpage or what?"
Exec- "No its the IP section, we don't intend to ever use it, but why not just change the wording on everything?"
James- "Yes excellent idea. It isn't like IP law is an extremely complicated section of the law that has its own separate bar exam. This is such a low priority, get the intern on it. Anything they add will be meaningless anyway!"
caladancid wrote: If you don't think the rules are meant to be different, and support a different set of actions by GW, then why did they bother spending the time to edit and change them?
Because they wanted to re-word the entire document - both the friendlier guidelines section, and the infringement section - to use more succinct, shorter wording rather than the paragraphs and unnecessary length of the original? That much should be pretty obvious by just looking at the two versions and how more briefly worded. You've said it's "proven not true" though, so please go ahead and prove how that doesn't say what it says, like you claimed?
One set of guidelines says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and animations, the other says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and "anything else", I'm curious to see just what you think the "different rules" are there that means somehow the former doesn't allow animations but the latter does.
I honestly for a moment could not tell if you were just trolling. The quotes you have quite literally do not say the word animations. You can argue that they meant it, but they did not SAY it, until the revisions. And I am not an IP lawyer so I don't know how strictly courts interpret those notices, but apparently GW felt they needed to clarify. And, after the clarification, they began enforcement.
So claiming that it has always said what it said now, and means the same thing, and that GW isn't enforcing this stuff is verifiably not true.
Animations were not allowed before. The only way you could think they were allowed is if you, for some strange reason, think that they don't count as "anything else that you will be distributing using Games Workshop’s IP ". The new version outright saying "animation" rather than "anything else" doesn't change that they'd be covered under that term.
GWHQ Circa Summer 2021---
Exec- "Hey James, with COVID shipping and Brexit going so great, can we finally start working on those to-do items that have been hanging around?"
James Workshop- "Now that is a great idea. We do have the extra manpower just hanging around."
Exec- "I was thinking maybe this small little document we have had in place for the better part of a decade. I keep meaning to get around to it, but its so meaningless that it keeps getting forgotten."
James- "Let's do it. What is it, the font on the webpage or what?"
Exec- "No its the IP section, we don't intend to ever use it, but why not just change the wording on everything?"
James- "Yes excellent idea. It isn't like IP law is an extremely complicated section of the law that has its own separate bar exam. This is such a low priority, get the intern on it. Anything they add will be meaningless anyway!"
Exec- "What could go wrong?"
As it turns out, nothing went wrong as the shills kept-a shilling.
caladancid wrote: If you don't think the rules are meant to be different, and support a different set of actions by GW, then why did they bother spending the time to edit and change them?
Because they wanted to re-word the entire document - both the friendlier guidelines section, and the infringement section - to use more succinct, shorter wording rather than the paragraphs and unnecessary length of the original? That much should be pretty obvious by just looking at the two versions and how more briefly worded. You've said it's "proven not true" though, so please go ahead and prove how that doesn't say what it says, like you claimed?
One set of guidelines says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and animations, the other says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and "anything else", I'm curious to see just what you think the "different rules" are there that means somehow the former doesn't allow animations but the latter does.
I honestly for a moment could not tell if you were just trolling. The quotes you have quite literally do not say the word animations. You can argue that they meant it, but they did not SAY it, until the revisions. And I am not an IP lawyer so I don't know how strictly courts interpret those notices, but apparently GW felt they needed to clarify. And, after the clarification, they began enforcement.
So claiming that it has always said what it said now, and means the same thing, and that GW isn't enforcing this stuff is verifiably not true.
Animations were not allowed before. The only way you could think they were allowed is if you, for some strange reason, think that they don't count as "anything else that you will be distributing using Games Workshop’s IP ". The new version outright saying "animation" rather than "anything else" doesn't change that they'd be covered under that term.
GWHQ Circa Summer 2021---
Exec- "Hey James, with COVID shipping and Brexit going so great, can we finally start working on those to-do items that have been hanging around?"
James Workshop- "Now that is a great idea. We do have the extra manpower just hanging around."
Exec- "I was thinking maybe this small little document we have had in place for the better part of a decade. I keep meaning to get around to it, but its so meaningless that it keeps getting forgotten."
James- "Let's do it. What is it, the font on the webpage or what?"
Exec- "No its the IP section, we don't intend to ever use it, but why not just change the wording on everything?"
James- "Yes excellent idea. It isn't like IP law is an extremely complicated section of the law that has its own separate bar exam. This is such a low priority, get the intern on it. Anything they add will be meaningless anyway!"
Exec- "What could go wrong?"
Quite absurd that you're now having to resort to making up your own imaginary stories rather than trying to actually argue why animations were allowed under those guidelines before and for some strange reason don't come under "anything else that you will be distributing using Games Workshop’s IP ", you'd think that wouldn't be too difficult if it's been "proven".
I'd say the sloppy introduction of 9th edition, the failed 40K App, returning to steep price hikes, increasing prices on starters, aggressive DLC style books, brexit and delivery problems hit them more than the IP issues, but they add to the list.
All seriousness, we just need to look at the prices people were putting on Gamestop or AMC theaters stock not all that long ago because of "reading the internet" to know that it's all bunk anywho.
Chikout wrote: This is all a little out of date. There was a YouTube dislike campaign a couple of months ago, but it quickly finished. Look at today's videos; about 2000 likes each and a hundred or so dislikes. The ork box sold out, Killteam sold out, the black Templar box sold out. There's no boycott at all.
You almost had me, then I took five seconds on the website and found the Black Templar box not sold out, because it never was sold out you just made all of that up.
No, that's a very US-centric take. It's sold out in most countries.
Well, the us is not some backwater hole. It is the biggest market by far for GW
There are several reasons why US is their biggest market. The fact of their upcharge to USA of around 30% and the fact they don't let US online sales advertise at more then a 15% discount. There are stores in Europe that sell product at above 15% off discount off of the European prices but these stores are forbidden from shipping to the USA by their contract.
If USA did boycott these practices it would be great as their stock holders would lose their mind. Problem is in the USA people have no self control. They are to use to the I want I get it. Most USA consumers have no clue what is going on and don't really care enough to attempt to force a change. Luckily we have been seeing a lot of content providers on social media telling people to vote with their hobby dollars. I still am not sure the consumer understands the impact they could have by simply boycotting GW and insisting on a change.
There was a video title from Arch about this 3 or so weeks ago (obviously didn't watch the video, cause well... it's Arch, it just popped up on my suggestion) and I thought he was chatting bubbles over-reacting... No doubt his cult are part of a boycott.
Getting away from that point though, I think it is interesting, also, I wouldn't put it past just a sales slow down because people are back at work, and so don't have as much time to hobby, my spending on GW has vastly decreased again due to not having time to work on stuff.
I dunno anything about a boycott, but I can say that Killteam and BT didn't sell out, in fact the BT box was briefly up on the GW sale page yesterday. Octarius still available everywhere. I dunno about the Ork release but I'm going to assume that didn't sell out either since the rest of the statement is false.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: There was a video title from Arch about this 3 or so weeks ago (obviously didn't watch the video, cause well... it's Arch, it just popped up on my suggestion) and I thought he was chatting bubbles over-reacting... No doubt his cult are part of a boycott.
Never thought i'd see Arch and Sigmarxism agree on something.
JWBS wrote: I dunno anything about a boycott, but I can say that Killteam and BT didn't sell out, in fact the BT box was briefly up on the GW sale page yesterday. Octarius still available everywhere. I dunno about the Ork release but I'm going to assume that didn't sell out either since the rest of the statement is false.
It's actually a little interesting that Octarius isn't up on the sales page as we know there is a mini Octarius coming out as the Kill Team starter set - I suppose that whilst it may not have sold out, they must not have a large amount.
Dominion really hasn't sold well though has it... GW have really really pushed AoS but it just isn't 40k or a derivative of it that sells so well. Great models in Dominion as well, but maybe the Sigmarines are not the hot item GW wants them to be so badly.
If only they would have over ordered Cursed City.
In regards to the BT box, there have been third parties selling it as low as £85 this week... Low model 'army' boxes where every model is not new is also a problem. There's been plenty of redemptors on the UK buy, sell and trade pages on fb this week... They should have done the box set without the dreadnought for £75 and I think it would have sold out no problem.
JWBS wrote: I dunno anything about a boycott, but I can say that Killteam and BT didn't sell out, in fact the BT box was briefly up on the GW sale page yesterday. Octarius still available everywhere. I dunno about the Ork release but I'm going to assume that didn't sell out either since the rest of the statement is false.
It's actually a little interesting that Octarius isn't up on the sales page as we know there is a mini Octarius coming out as the Kill Team starter set.
Dominion really hasn't sold well though has it... GW have really really pushed AoS but it just isn't 40k or a derivative of it that sells so well. Great models in Dominion as well, but maybe the Sigmarines are not the hot item GW wants them to be so badly.
If only they would have over ordered Cursed City...
Yeah Dominion took like, actual weeks to sell out.
And given the fact GW designs the things to sell out as fast as possible and makes as few of them as possible...
caladancid wrote: If you don't think the rules are meant to be different, and support a different set of actions by GW, then why did they bother spending the time to edit and change them?
Because they wanted to re-word the entire document - both the friendlier guidelines section, and the infringement section - to use more succinct, shorter wording rather than the paragraphs and unnecessary length of the original? That much should be pretty obvious by just looking at the two versions and how more briefly worded. You've said it's "proven not true" though, so please go ahead and prove how that doesn't say what it says, like you claimed?
One set of guidelines says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and animations, the other says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and "anything else", I'm curious to see just what you think the "different rules" are there that means somehow the former doesn't allow animations but the latter does.
I honestly for a moment could not tell if you were just trolling. The quotes you have quite literally do not say the word animations. You can argue that they meant it, but they did not SAY it, until the revisions. And I am not an IP lawyer so I don't know how strictly courts interpret those notices, but apparently GW felt they needed to clarify. And, after the clarification, they began enforcement.
So claiming that it has always said what it said now, and means the same thing, and that GW isn't enforcing this stuff is verifiably not true.
Animations were not allowed before. The only way you could think they were allowed is if you, for some strange reason, think that they don't count as "anything else that you will be distributing using Games Workshop’s IP ". The new version outright saying "animation" rather than "anything else" doesn't change that they'd be covered under that term.
GWHQ Circa Summer 2021---
Exec- "Hey James, with COVID shipping and Brexit going so great, can we finally start working on those to-do items that have been hanging around?"
James Workshop- "Now that is a great idea. We do have the extra manpower just hanging around."
Exec- "I was thinking maybe this small little document we have had in place for the better part of a decade. I keep meaning to get around to it, but its so meaningless that it keeps getting forgotten."
James- "Let's do it. What is it, the font on the webpage or what?"
Exec- "No its the IP section, we don't intend to ever use it, but why not just change the wording on everything?"
James- "Yes excellent idea. It isn't like IP law is an extremely complicated section of the law that has its own separate bar exam. This is such a low priority, get the intern on it. Anything they add will be meaningless anyway!"
Exec- "What could go wrong?"
Quite absurd that you're now having to resort to making up your own imaginary stories rather than trying to actually argue why animations were allowed under those guidelines before and for some strange reason don't come under "anything else that you will be distributing using Games Workshop’s IP ", you'd think that wouldn't be too difficult if it's been "proven".
The argument isn’t that they were allowed but that they were loosely enforced. GW intimidated content creators that have been producing content that the fan base cherished because they thought it would cut their bottom line and some that didn’t understand where they fell in all of this (like if the emp had a talk to text device) assumed that GW would come after them. It was likely not a priority despite the noticeable fan lash back and instead played the victim proclaiming that such indie content developers might kill 40k in a PSA... the big bad billionaires might get hurt by some dude launching 40k content independently and demonetized on YouTube in flash animations... there was a wave of crack downs as some of these indie developers got a wave of cease and desists...
Automatically Appended Next Post: I keep going back to it but the magical thing about the IP that GW purchased was that it was allowed to be owned by the fans. And they keep gutting that, progressively chipping away and proclaiming “only GW owns this universe and you will play within the confines of what GW says is OK.”
caladancid wrote: If you don't think the rules are meant to be different, and support a different set of actions by GW, then why did they bother spending the time to edit and change them?
Because they wanted to re-word the entire document - both the friendlier guidelines section, and the infringement section - to use more succinct, shorter wording rather than the paragraphs and unnecessary length of the original? That much should be pretty obvious by just looking at the two versions and how more briefly worded. You've said it's "proven not true" though, so please go ahead and prove how that doesn't say what it says, like you claimed?
One set of guidelines says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and animations, the other says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and "anything else", I'm curious to see just what you think the "different rules" are there that means somehow the former doesn't allow animations but the latter does.
I honestly for a moment could not tell if you were just trolling. The quotes you have quite literally do not say the word animations. You can argue that they meant it, but they did not SAY it, until the revisions. And I am not an IP lawyer so I don't know how strictly courts interpret those notices, but apparently GW felt they needed to clarify. And, after the clarification, they began enforcement.
So claiming that it has always said what it said now, and means the same thing, and that GW isn't enforcing this stuff is verifiably not true.
Animations were not allowed before. The only way you could think they were allowed is if you, for some strange reason, think that they don't count as "anything else that you will be distributing using Games Workshop’s IP ". The new version outright saying "animation" rather than "anything else" doesn't change that they'd be covered under that term.
GWHQ Circa Summer 2021---
Exec- "Hey James, with COVID shipping and Brexit going so great, can we finally start working on those to-do items that have been hanging around?"
James Workshop- "Now that is a great idea. We do have the extra manpower just hanging around."
Exec- "I was thinking maybe this small little document we have had in place for the better part of a decade. I keep meaning to get around to it, but its so meaningless that it keeps getting forgotten."
James- "Let's do it. What is it, the font on the webpage or what?"
Exec- "No its the IP section, we don't intend to ever use it, but why not just change the wording on everything?"
James- "Yes excellent idea. It isn't like IP law is an extremely complicated section of the law that has its own separate bar exam. This is such a low priority, get the intern on it. Anything they add will be meaningless anyway!"
Exec- "What could go wrong?"
Quite absurd that you're now having to resort to making up your own imaginary stories rather than trying to actually argue why animations were allowed under those guidelines before and for some strange reason don't come under "anything else that you will be distributing using Games Workshop’s IP ", you'd think that wouldn't be too difficult if it's been "proven".
The argument isn’t that they were allowed but that they were loosely enforced. GW intimidated content creators that have been producing content that the fan base cherished because they thought it would cut their bottom line and some that didn’t understand where they fell in all of this (like if the emp had a talk to text device) assumed that GW would come after them. It was likely not a priority despite the noticeable fan lash back and instead played the victim proclaiming that such indie content developers might kill 40k in a PSA... the big bad billionaires might get hurt by some dude launching 40k content independently and demonetized on YouTube in flash animations... there was a wave of crack downs as some of these indie developers got a wave of cease and desists...
Automatically Appended Next Post: I keep going back to it but the magical thing about the IP that GW purchased was that it was allowed to be owned by the fans. And they keep gutting that, progressively chipping away and proclaiming “only GW owns this universe and you will play within the confines of what GW says is OK.”
I don't remember anyone who got a cease and desist recently, who was that? And what do you mean by "IP that GW purchased"?
You can't just use someone elses IP to do whatever you like without their permission.
First the reports say that Gw has had considerable growth over the last five years.
This has likely been a result of
a) no fething Kirby
b) Covid lockdown and people collecting armies as something to do.
This would raise GW from an underperformer to a more competent performer, but in doing so caused a bubble in its own market.
Now Covid lockdown is mostly over, and around the same time Warhammer + appeared alongside some rather predatory practices. GW is retuning to old form, so might share value regress also? it makes sense for an investment bank to allocate analyst staff to finding out.
Business analysts might not be interested if marines are OP or Tau are unplayable. They might however take interest in a predatory T&C that they can read for themselves and see as a sign of management inflexibility.
Also the boycott has not hit stores it has hit Warhammer +, which itself has been a financial failure and has hit market interest via YouTube.
It should also be noted that Jeffries claimns in the articles to have sent its analysts around the fan forums. It is likely whoever researched their view of Games Workshop for them came here amongst other places. We have not been silent and a fair few or us are intelligent and eloquent enough to string together an opinion. Many here have pledged to reduce spending on GW products, and some stated where else their hobby money would go. Some vocalised an intention to carry on as normal. Normally this would not reach the ears of market analysts, but Jeffries decided to quietly canvass online opinions for market stability data.
Yes some people will talk boycott then fold and buy Black Templars, but others won't. Increased interest in non-GW product and 3d printing will likely not have been overlooked and the share price has fallen due to lost sales. Jeffries wanted to know why so they could better inform their investors. Disgruntled clientelle is something business analysts look for, and these people are professional likely to do their job. I strongly suspect the analysts spent time here and on Warseer and other major GW based websites and read not only recent commentary and counted likes and hits but also went back a few months na years to get the zeitgeist of changing opinions.
I think it is highly plausible for Jeffries to issue warnings, citing loss of customer confidence and loss of fan based support via content creators being shut down. The latter is a direct shot to own foot with regards to market reach and traditional third party advertising, which are phenomena that analysts would look for.
Remember that comments that players will come crawling back are no less vacous than comments of players claiming they have given up on GW for good. Give these analysts some credit, they can read between the lines on angry forums posts, and they will also read the fluent input from grown ups inbetween the triggered txtspeak.. in is certainly arguable GW has lost some customer confidence recently, lost market goodwill and reduced their own online footprint for accessing new potential customers with their content creator policies. Plausible conclusions can be gleaned from this data and the bank may wish provide investors with information to help them speculate on investments in GW stock.
We shouldn't use the availability of the KT starter as a deciding factor on sales here. Remember, they promised everyone who preordered would get one, that's very different than other limited sets that disappear and never return.
caladancid wrote: If you don't think the rules are meant to be different, and support a different set of actions by GW, then why did they bother spending the time to edit and change them?
Because they wanted to re-word the entire document - both the friendlier guidelines section, and the infringement section - to use more succinct, shorter wording rather than the paragraphs and unnecessary length of the original? That much should be pretty obvious by just looking at the two versions and how more briefly worded. You've said it's "proven not true" though, so please go ahead and prove how that doesn't say what it says, like you claimed?
One set of guidelines says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and animations, the other says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and "anything else", I'm curious to see just what you think the "different rules" are there that means somehow the former doesn't allow animations but the latter does.
I honestly for a moment could not tell if you were just trolling. The quotes you have quite literally do not say the word animations. You can argue that they meant it, but they did not SAY it, until the revisions. And I am not an IP lawyer so I don't know how strictly courts interpret those notices, but apparently GW felt they needed to clarify. And, after the clarification, they began enforcement.
So claiming that it has always said what it said now, and means the same thing, and that GW isn't enforcing this stuff is verifiably not true.
Animations were not allowed before. The only way you could think they were allowed is if you, for some strange reason, think that they don't count as "anything else that you will be distributing using Games Workshop’s IP ". The new version outright saying "animation" rather than "anything else" doesn't change that they'd be covered under that term.
GWHQ Circa Summer 2021---
Exec- "Hey James, with COVID shipping and Brexit going so great, can we finally start working on those to-do items that have been hanging around?"
James Workshop- "Now that is a great idea. We do have the extra manpower just hanging around."
Exec- "I was thinking maybe this small little document we have had in place for the better part of a decade. I keep meaning to get around to it, but its so meaningless that it keeps getting forgotten."
James- "Let's do it. What is it, the font on the webpage or what?"
Exec- "No its the IP section, we don't intend to ever use it, but why not just change the wording on everything?"
James- "Yes excellent idea. It isn't like IP law is an extremely complicated section of the law that has its own separate bar exam. This is such a low priority, get the intern on it. Anything they add will be meaningless anyway!"
Exec- "What could go wrong?"
Quite absurd that you're now having to resort to making up your own imaginary stories rather than trying to actually argue why animations were allowed under those guidelines before and for some strange reason don't come under "anything else that you will be distributing using Games Workshop’s IP ", you'd think that wouldn't be too difficult if it's been "proven".
The argument isn’t that they were allowed but that they were loosely enforced. GW intimidated content creators that have been producing content that the fan base cherished because they thought it would cut their bottom line and some that didn’t understand where they fell in all of this (like if the emp had a talk to text device) assumed that GW would come after them. It was likely not a priority despite the noticeable fan lash back and instead played the victim proclaiming that such indie content developers might kill 40k in a PSA... the big bad billionaires might get hurt by some dude launching 40k content independently and demonetized on YouTube in flash animations... there was a wave of crack downs as some of these indie developers got a wave of cease and desists...
Automatically Appended Next Post: I keep going back to it but the magical thing about the IP that GW purchased was that it was allowed to be owned by the fans. And they keep gutting that, progressively chipping away and proclaiming “only GW owns this universe and you will play within the confines of what GW says is OK.”
I don't remember anyone who got a cease and desist recently, who was that? And what do you mean by "IP that GW purchased"?
You can't just use someone elses IP to do whatever you like without their permission.
Actually that is a fair point; no cease and desists actually have been served. The IP guidelines also isn’t really a legal document as much as it is advice for staying out of GW’s legal team’s crosshairs. However, updating them to include a niche occupied by the fans was enough to scare such content creators as the creators of If the Emperor had a text to speech device off, which is a parody and thus protected under fair use. Which doesn’t really mean anything when frivolous suits can economically ruin anyone that can’t afford costly court and lawyer fees regardless of exactly how right or wrong they are...
Anyways, the right thing to do would have been to explain that at least in that instance fair use applies because it was a parody. It also would have been nice to get a wink wink nudge nudge “by the way we aren’t interested in prosecuting demonetized usage of our IP and fan productions as long as you explain that it is unofficial and give us credit but technically we can.” If they choose not to encourage fair use of their IP then they absolutely deserve to suffer whatever losses are incurred.
caladancid wrote: If you don't think the rules are meant to be different, and support a different set of actions by GW, then why did they bother spending the time to edit and change them?
Because they wanted to re-word the entire document - both the friendlier guidelines section, and the infringement section - to use more succinct, shorter wording rather than the paragraphs and unnecessary length of the original? That much should be pretty obvious by just looking at the two versions and how more briefly worded. You've said it's "proven not true" though, so please go ahead and prove how that doesn't say what it says, like you claimed?
One set of guidelines says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and animations, the other says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and "anything else", I'm curious to see just what you think the "different rules" are there that means somehow the former doesn't allow animations but the latter does.
I honestly for a moment could not tell if you were just trolling. The quotes you have quite literally do not say the word animations. You can argue that they meant it, but they did not SAY it, until the revisions. And I am not an IP lawyer so I don't know how strictly courts interpret those notices, but apparently GW felt they needed to clarify. And, after the clarification, they began enforcement.
So claiming that it has always said what it said now, and means the same thing, and that GW isn't enforcing this stuff is verifiably not true.
Animations were not allowed before. The only way you could think they were allowed is if you, for some strange reason, think that they don't count as "anything else that you will be distributing using Games Workshop’s IP ". The new version outright saying "animation" rather than "anything else" doesn't change that they'd be covered under that term.
GWHQ Circa Summer 2021---
Exec- "Hey James, with COVID shipping and Brexit going so great, can we finally start working on those to-do items that have been hanging around?"
James Workshop- "Now that is a great idea. We do have the extra manpower just hanging around."
Exec- "I was thinking maybe this small little document we have had in place for the better part of a decade. I keep meaning to get around to it, but its so meaningless that it keeps getting forgotten."
James- "Let's do it. What is it, the font on the webpage or what?"
Exec- "No its the IP section, we don't intend to ever use it, but why not just change the wording on everything?"
James- "Yes excellent idea. It isn't like IP law is an extremely complicated section of the law that has its own separate bar exam. This is such a low priority, get the intern on it. Anything they add will be meaningless anyway!"
Exec- "What could go wrong?"
Quite absurd that you're now having to resort to making up your own imaginary stories rather than trying to actually argue why animations were allowed under those guidelines before and for some strange reason don't come under "anything else that you will be distributing using Games Workshop’s IP ", you'd think that wouldn't be too difficult if it's been "proven".
The argument isn’t that they were allowed but that they were loosely enforced. GW intimidated content creators that have been producing content that the fan base cherished because they thought it would cut their bottom line and some that didn’t understand where they fell in all of this (like if the emp had a talk to text device) assumed that GW would come after them. It was likely not a priority despite the noticeable fan lash back and instead played the victim proclaiming that such indie content developers might kill 40k in a PSA... the big bad billionaires might get hurt by some dude launching 40k content independently and demonetized on YouTube in flash animations... there was a wave of crack downs as some of these indie developers got a wave of cease and desists...
Automatically Appended Next Post: I keep going back to it but the magical thing about the IP that GW purchased was that it was allowed to be owned by the fans. And they keep gutting that, progressively chipping away and proclaiming “only GW owns this universe and you will play within the confines of what GW says is OK.”
I don't remember anyone who got a cease and desist recently, who was that? And what do you mean by "IP that GW purchased"?
You can't just use someone elses IP to do whatever you like without their permission.
Actually that is a fair point; no cease and desists actually have been served. The IP guidelines also isn’t really a legal document as much as it is advice for staying out of GW’s legal team’s crosshairs. However, updating them to include a niche occupied by the fans was enough to scare such content creators as the creators of If the Emperor had a text to speech device off, which is a parody and thus protected under fair use. Which doesn’t really mean anything when frivolous suits can economically ruin anyone that can’t afford costly court and lawyer fees regardless of exactly how right or wrong they are...
Anyways, the right thing to do would have been to explain that at least in that instance fair use applies because it was a parody. It also would have been nice to get a wink wink nudge nudge “by the way we aren’t interested in prosecuting demonetized usage of our IP and fan productions as long as you explain that it is unofficial and give us credit but technically we can.” If they choose not to encourage fair use of their IP then they absolutely deserve to suffer whatever losses are incurred.
As I've said though, animations were already something covered under the previous guidelines by the "anything else that you will be distributing using Games Workshop’s IP". This situation appears to be the result of some people not having read the guidelines in the first place and suddenly finding out about them because of the update or because of the change from "anything else" to "animation" having lead to a mix of hyperbole, misinformation and misinterpretations over the guidelines even though what's allowed is the same. That in combination with them offering animators jobs has been interpreted as GW suddenly trying to stop fan animations overall even though they haven't been doing that at all. The things covered by the guidelines were the same and the re-wording wasn't a change limited to just that infringement stuff either, which means the article was simply re-worded to make them more succinct and clear, not anything like "They changed it just so they could start going after animators!" like some imply, and those offered jobs said GW were perfectly reasonable. They've not cease and desisted anyone (Not that I know of) just because they've made an animation and the few that were taken down were for things like having used a significant amount of copyrighted music or were taken down by the creators for other reasons. I totally get why some are scared, and i certainly don't think GW is without fault in lots of other ways, but unless there's something that I've just entirely missed, so far they haven't actually done anything bad in this situation. They've reworded a set of guidelines but what is and isn't allowed hasn't changed, and they've hired some animators, but even those who refused were still allowed to carry on.
As for the "parody" thing though, that seems to be quite a common misconception as that's not quite how it works from what I've read of it, It isn't as simple as "This is a parody" and that's that, you can still make an infringing parody. In UK law, "fair dealing" isn't something that has a set criteria but is determined on a case-by-case basis only after legal action is taken to look into if it actually meets "fair dealing" or not. The exemptions allowed are for a limited use of copyright material, you can't just use whatever you want and however much you want.
Parodies are protected under fair use because of the nature of parodies; they are criticisms of often protected works. Trying to get a license to make fun of somebody else's IP can be incredibly difficult if not impossible, but criticism is generally allowed. TTS very clearly brought up some fair criticisms in fair fun.
Also of note is that we are in different countries with different IP laws; criticism is a fundamental value of the first amendment in our bill of rights of our constitution and we do have different IP laws. Parodies in essence are arguably our fundamental right to make.
The grey area is how flip floppity interpretations of fair use and the application of the first ammendment tends to be; court cases can have inconsistent outcomes and IP law is one of the most complex monstrosities out there. Many subject matter experts have been saying for a while that IP laws are way too strong and need to be relaxed. You can be entirely in the right and have an iron clad case for yourself but if you do not have the money to hire a ridiculously expensive lawyer to make that case and the cash to pay intentionally expensive court fees to get in a court in the first place frivolous lawsuits can financially ruin you for life. Such a court case would be referred to as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). Flexing muscles knowing that someone could technically be in the right legally speaking but still pretty much financially pay like they are not is something people can rightfully be very weary of, especially if the guidelines are trying to discourage fair use of their IP. Fair use is a fundamental right that has been diminished under decades of strengthening IP laws and IP laws have long overstepped their bounds.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (I mean primarily in my country; I barely understand IP law in America let alone british or international IP law.)
The Red Hobbit wrote: We shouldn't use the availability of the KT starter as a deciding factor on sales here. Remember, they promised everyone who preordered would get one, that's very different than other limited sets that disappear and never return.
Fair point, though the real question is, does the guarantee help, or hinder sales? Are more people relaxed at the lack of FOMO, and thus take more time to consider the purchase and then decide against it?
However, content of boxes is also a factor, as popular as DKoK are, some people wouldn't buy Octarius due to how expensive it was as a buy in to get them (even though in hindsight it seems a fairly good deal compared to the latest KT box), Dominion was obviously not the right mix of models - the Orruks seem to have split opinion with their aesthetic and the sigmarines whilst nice models, don't seem allll that different to what has come before to the untrained eye. The inclusion of Tau might hurt the latest KT box sales. I've detailed the potential issues with the BT box above...
I think we will see less army boxes next year, and I think starter sets or setting boxes etc will be far more considered in terms of content.
This is probably nothing to do with boycotts or limited edition sets selling out and more to do with GW returning to it pre-8th 40k era ways with messy rules, high prices and just general anti-consumer dickery.
First the reports say that Gw has had considerable growth over the last five years.
This has likely been a result of
a) no fething Kirby
b) Covid lockdown and people collecting armies as something to do.
This would raise GW from an underperformer to a more competent performer, but in doing so caused a bubble in its own market.
Now Covid lockdown is mostly over, and around the same time Warhammer + appeared alongside some rather predatory practices. GW is retuning to old form, so might share value regress also? it makes sense for an investment bank to allocate analyst staff to finding out.
Business analysts might not be interested if marines are OP or Tau are unplayable. They might however take interest in a predatory T&C that they can read for themselves and see as a sign of management inflexibility.
Also the boycott has not hit stores it has hit Warhammer +, which itself has been a financial failure and has hit market interest via YouTube.
It should also be noted that Jeffries claimns in the articles to have sent its analysts around the fan forums. It is likely whoever researched their view of Games Workshop for them came here amongst other places. We have not been silent and a fair few or us are intelligent and eloquent enough to string together an opinion. Many here have pledged to reduce spending on GW products, and some stated where else their hobby money would go. Some vocalised an intention to carry on as normal. Normally this would not reach the ears of market analysts, but Jeffries decided to quietly canvass online opinions for market stability data.
Yes some people will talk boycott then fold and buy Black Templars, but others won't. Increased interest in non-GW product and 3d printing will likely not have been overlooked and the share price has fallen due to lost sales. Jeffries wanted to know why so they could better inform their investors. Disgruntled clientelle is something business analysts look for, and these people are professional likely to do their job. I strongly suspect the analysts spent time here and on Warseer and other major GW based websites and read not only recent commentary and counted likes and hits but also went back a few months na years to get the zeitgeist of changing opinions.
I think it is highly plausible for Jeffries to issue warnings, citing loss of customer confidence and loss of fan based support via content creators being shut down. The latter is a direct shot to own foot with regards to market reach and traditional third party advertising, which are phenomena that analysts would look for.
Remember that comments that players will come crawling back are no less vacous than comments of players claiming they have given up on GW for good. Give these analysts some credit, they can read between the lines on angry forums posts, and they will also read the fluent input from grown ups inbetween the triggered txtspeak.. in is certainly arguable GW has lost some customer confidence recently, lost market goodwill and reduced their own online footprint for accessing new potential customers with their content creator policies. Plausible conclusions can be gleaned from this data and the bank may wish provide investors with information to help them speculate on investments in GW stock.
This. All of this. It's stock market analysts doing stock market analyst things, it's all about perception and nothing to do with current releases or an actual effect from any hypothetical boycott.
The question is, outside the mayhem of stock markets, does it actually matter? GW is a UK company and so presumably avoids any "duty to maximise shareholder value" or other such nonsense. Does GW care about their share price? Do they care about it more than fan annoyance about a new IP document? And if so, will they do anything about it?
there is none and share prices have nothing to do what is going on on the customer side of the market
people are selling their shares with the end of Lockdowns, while long term investors don't want to buy at the highest price, and the share price drops, mystery solved
that latest GW sales are not as good as they could be?
well, GW always tries to get their one working business model from 40k, to work with every other game and community
making Stormcast the Marines of AoS and try to push them into sales does not work as they are not that iconic and don't buy them just because there is a "new hat" like with Marines
having again Stormcast in the core box together with Orks with a complete new style and the potential customers are just a fraction of the players
Kill Team hindered itself with strange rule gimmicks that turned people off while at the same time promised that the models are going to be released stand alone, so no hype buying out from those that wanted just the models, at the same time no hype from the KT players who just bought an expensive box for the old game that is now worthless
and as we still don't know if the expanded team rules for the special box teams will be available outside the box, the game does not pick up very fast as people this time are going the "wait and see" route instead of instand buy
GW is testing waters at the same time they try to milk the existing customers and have to deal with a changing stock market while the part of the community that is upset is much better organized via youtube as it was the last time GW's special community interaction caused trouble
of Brexit? Sure 
