Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mannahnin wrote:Mike McSomething was dismissive and insulting about stores charging. Another poster made a ridiculous argument against the MSRP markup. Corrode gave a detailed explanation of why and how his FLGS charges, why it's worth his time and money, and why it's not charity (as Mike claimed) to pay for a service. Mike somehow took offense to this argument (surprising, given how flippant his own was), and got snarky, and Corrode snarked back a little.

I'm not sure why you felt offended by it. I do think that the argument you put forward- that you're accustomed to being provided this service for free, and therefore he should be able to get it for free too, is a display of you feeling entitled to this free service.

No one is feeling a sense of entitlement to anything in a gaming store. I think you misunderstand and misrepresent Platuan4th's words a little bit. What we are entitled to is our money. Some people think that paying to play is not worth their money, and they are entitled to their opinion, and to vote with their dollar. Other people think that it is worth their money, and they vote with their dollar as well.

However, damning one side or another is what gets this conversation on track.

I think what we are all trying to say is that we expect "value" for our money spent, and in some cases we judge that value differently. Some believe that they get more value shopping online (usually with a larger discount) and that's fine, but I think the point that those posters are making is that the business owner that shuns these customers is the business owner that is losing business. Mikhaila has also made some good points to that effect, but their argument is that Best Buy or Walmart doesn't kick you out of the store because you bought something from Amazon, because just because you shopped online doesn't mean you won't shop at their store. Walking in the door is the first step in the retail process anyway, and most retail veterans know this.

On the other hand, people that are disruptive and damaging to the retail climate or your store's merchandise (which could be tables and terrain if you're an LGS) are also bad for business so it's in the business owner's best interest to get those people out of the store. (Just like you would be removed from Walmart if you were being disruptive or damaging things in the store.)

Me personally, if I was the business owner, I wouldn't go about it in the same way, but hey, it's his business after all.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The shop Corrode refers to is Cut and Thrust Wargaming.

It was also my local gaming store until last month when I moved to the US.

The fee is £2.50 per person playing. You get an 8x4 table with excellent terrain, washroom facilities, seating and a clean and hospitable environment for that fee.

The shop has 2 floors of dedicated gaming space with 20 something tables and is entirely for tabletop wargaming.

It also has a snack bar serving hot beverages, dedicated painting tables that are free to use with angled daylight lighting and you are surrounded by mature(ish) fellow gamers and hobbyists.

It is not the crowded, small, poorly heated, brat infested free crèche that the Broadmead GW had become.

£2.50 for as long as I like in that environment to game as I see fit?

That's a bloody bargain. I was entirely happy to pay that fee.

I would have no problem paying $5 US for a day of gaming at a facility like this.

I agree with whitedragon 100%

The thread is basically two camps of people - group A consists of those for whom a decent gaming store is a rare privilege (which makes it worth paying for, but also makes for an unfortunate situation for the gamer, no matter how much they try to convince themselves otherwise, at the end of the day it's a net loss in utility) and group B are those who have several excellent gaming stores with great tables and great environments within easy reach, who are baffled by having to pay at all. Everyone from both groups understands that you need to feel value for your money, and that if someone can charge for something and provide a service that is seen to have value, a person won't necessarily feel bad paying for it.

My "snark" if you will, comes from the attitudes primarily put forward by those in group A - rather than understanding that they are in an unfortunate position, they have performed an intricate series of mental gymnastics that has led to them feeling good about paying for something that a very large amount of other people get for absolutely free.

I agree to a large extent with Whitedragon as well.

I think painting people on the other "side" of the debate with a broad brush is inherently inaccurate and results in overgeneralizations which gloss over fine points and variances in different people's positions. Not everyone in your "Group B" is baffled, and not everyone in your "Group A" find a "decent gaming store" to be a "rare privilege". You display a patronizing attitude when you talk about them going through mental gymnastics or engaging in charity. I'm in "Group B", I suppose, since I have access to good tables for free, but I can certainly understand paying for play space, and have done so in the past.

Can you not see how you're emotionally loading your terms?

You are still displaying a sense of entitlement by labeling your "group A" as unfortunate, and acting as if "group B" is the default and expected position.

Even if a very large number of people do get this service for free, it doesn't mean the majority of them necessarily do. Many places all over the world have expensive rent or limited FLGS options. Perhaps a more accurate and respectful assessment would be to conclude that people in "group B" are very fortunate, for the market forces and culture to favor them with the benefit of gaining this valuable service for free.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whitedragon wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Mike McSomething was dismissive and insulting about stores charging. Another poster made a ridiculous argument against the MSRP markup. Corrode gave a detailed explanation of why and how his FLGS charges, why it's worth his time and money, and why it's not charity (as Mike claimed) to pay for a service. Mike somehow took offense to this argument (surprising, given how flippant his own was), and got snarky, and Corrode snarked back a little.

I'm not sure why you felt offended by it. I do think that the argument you put forward- that you're accustomed to being provided this service for free, and therefore he should be able to get it for free too, is a display of you feeling entitled to this free service.

No one is feeling a sense of entitlement to anything in a gaming store. I think you misunderstand and misrepresent Platuan4th's words a little bit. What we are entitled to is our money. Some people think that paying to play is not worth their money, and they are entitled to their opinion, and to vote with their dollar. Other people think that it is worth their money, and they vote with their dollar as well.

You don't think Platuan4th or MikeMcSomething are displaying a sense of entitlement to free gaming space? It looks different from where I'm sitting, although that's not meant as a moral judgment on them.

Absolutely we are each entitled to value for our money, and each entitled to make informed decisions about spending that dollar. This includes the store owner, who is spending money to provide us with gaming space. It's not exactly shocking to many of us that SOME game store owners ask to be compensated for the service they are providing.

The ONLY store in my town charges us to play.

$15 a day...

or we are to buy our army from there. It's a small store, and doesn't stock most things I want. Also, I don't really need to buy another army.

Mannahnin wrote:Absolutely we are each entitled to value for our money, and each entitled to make informed decisions about spending that dollar. This includes the store owner, who is spending money to provide us with gaming space. It's not exactly shocking to many of us that SOME game store owners ask to be compensated for the service they are providing.

I guess that's the part that makes it rub the wrong way. The game store owner is running a business. In running a business, you have to make money. However, you make that money, however you pay the bills is up to you. However, most successful businesses realize that the customer comes first above all, and to alienate the customer is usually bad, because they are the ones that you have to convince to dump money in your place.

With that in mind, it's a little shocking to see a business owner berating his potential customers over something that is essentially, good competition. We all think that maybe there are other methods or recouping your investment than making the customer feel as though he "owes" the business money, when in reality the business relationship is the other way around. We as customers give money because we want what the business is selling, not because the business tells us we have to. That's what rubs people the wrong way.

I said it in my previous post and I'll say it again, Best Buy won't throw you out when you are browsing or sampling their home theatre equipment because you bought (or were planning to buy) online from Amazon. In fact, a good salesman would try to show you the value that Best Buy had through convenience, warranty plan, installation, having it in stock right away, etc to try to make the sale. They absolutely would.

Now, keeping that in mind, that doesn't mean that they will always make the sale, as some people will still choose to buy online at Amazon. However, just because you said no to the salesguy at Best Buy and told him you really liked the deal from Amazon better, he wouldn't immediately throw you out of the store and tell you to never come back. On the contrary, he would tell you that you should consider Best Buy for any peripheral needs, or what have you.

But a cardinal rule of retail is that you never alienate the customer. I feel that's what this whole debate is about. The Game Store Owner in question came off a little like this in his initial posting, and I think that turned a few people off.

whitedragon wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Absolutely we are each entitled to value for our money, and each entitled to make informed decisions about spending that dollar. This includes the store owner, who is spending money to provide us with gaming space. It's not exactly shocking to many of us that SOME game store owners ask to be compensated for the service they are providing.

I guess that's the part that makes it rub the wrong way. The game store owner is running a business. In running a business, you have to make money. However, you make that money, however you pay the bills is up to you. However, most successful businesses realize that the customer comes first above all, and to alienate the customer is usually bad, because they are the ones that you have to convince to dump money in your place.

Absolutely. And if you read my post at the beginning of the thread, you'll see that I criticised his unprofessional tone and commented that outright banning internet armies was foolish and unenforceable.

whitedragon wrote:[With that in mind, it's a little shocking to see a business owner berating his potential customers over something that is essentially, good competition. We all think that maybe there are other methods or recouping your investment than making the customer feel as though he "owes" the business money, when in reality the business relationship is the other way around. We as customers give money because we want what the business is selling, not because the business tells us we have to. That's what rubs people the wrong way.

He's not berating them over "good competition". They're not his competitors. he was berating people for being parasites; taking advantage of his services and gaining value from his monetary expenditures without returning value in return. What we're talking about here is store owners GIVING the players something (that costs the owner money) for free, and many players taking that service for granted and not acting in their own self-interest to keep the store around. If all the players at a given store buy their armies online instead of buying them at the store, that store is eventually going to close.

The store owner in this case, as further posts through the thread show, did not just try to guilt people. He talked to his players and customers and felt out their opinions on the idea of charging for better tables and prority access. He laid out a clear and reasonable fee for service schedule. He increased awareness of the service he was providing and introduced a system under which he sells acces to a better level of game table to those who are interested in buying that service.

yeah there is a shop near me and they charge a stupid amout of money to use there tables, to join there "gaming club" you have to pay and you have to use there tables. that i cant understand, whats worse is the tables are utter crap, i have more and better scenery of my own but i am not familier enough with folks to invite them round to have a game or 2, and im not paying to use a table to get to know some one to invite them round.

I have run an indipendent shop that sells only GW products before and we never charged any one to play or join ever, we let folks who buy from the net into play it didnt matter it was about having fun and not making money. in my opinon and experiance you make more moeny if people like you, your sotre and your attitude cuz they wanna come back.

gloomygrim wrote:I have run an indipendent shop that sells only GW products before and we never charged any one to play or join ever, we let folks who buy from the net into play it didnt matter it was about having fun and not making money. in my opinon and experiance you make more moeny if people like you, your sotre and your attitude cuz they wanna come back.

Therein lies the entire problem.

gloomygrim wrote:it was about having fun and not making money.

A business based around "having fun and not making money" is a business doomed to fail. Most FLGS's I've come across are ran that way, and very many of them wind up going under because of it.

Honestly, I'm amazed so few FLGS's charge for table space. It seems to me that, since the majority of floorspace in most of them is devoted to playing tables, it would only make sense to use that to help pay the bills.

Not really what i ment barkdreg dude. sorry but i failed to mention this was way back in 2003, before the shop we had clsoed down (the guy whos shop it was mum got cancer and sold off the building to pay for her to go into care) we made a fair amount of profit every day. The game is bassed on having fun and in my experience when people have fun they want to do something again this is how we made money, people came back and brought friends/relatives along but if people dont have fun or feel welcome they probly dont want to come back and if they do it jades there opinion of the store/game and that makes it less likely they will invite folks along or talk about the place in a possitive way.

I can agree that an entire store bassed around having fun is doomed but a store bassed on giving to the customer as well as selling to them stands a better chance of surviving. In todays economic dump you have to do alot to keep people coming back but even that these days isnt a garante.