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.

Unfortunately, the bitz service never got off the ground the way they wanted it too. When I worked at GW, they came to my sales department and asked us to come up with different groupings of bitz we would think customers would want. Like 5 heads from this metal model, 10 arms from that model etc.

We started sending groupings with codes, but with personnel changes etc, the plan was pretty much kiboshed.

I remember the bitz service that GW had on their website in the late 90's (not sure when they quit). You could basically build your own individual model, perfect for conversions.

I am sure that they had a good reason for getting rit of it.

d-usa wrote:I remember the bitz service that GW had on their website in the late 90's (not sure when they quit). You could basically build your own individual model, perfect for conversions.

I am sure that they had a good reason for getting rit of it.

Supposedly part of the reason they got rid of it was that the shelves collapsed and pieces got mixed together, with the cost in employee labor and time to resort the entire thing being far, far too excessive.

That's the way I've always heard it at least, couldn't confirm.

Kanluwen wrote:

d-usa wrote:I remember the bitz service that GW had on their website in the late 90's (not sure when they quit). You could basically build your own individual model, perfect for conversions.

I am sure that they had a good reason for getting rit of it.

Supposedly part of the reason they got rid of it was that the shelves collapsed and pieces got mixed together, with the cost in employee labor and time to resort the entire thing being far, far too excessive.

That's the way I've always heard it at least, couldn't confirm.

That wasn't the end of the bitz service, just a really cool sale. I bought 10lbs of metal bitz; that was 2002 or so. Bitz died a number of years later.

d-usa wrote:I am sure that they had a good reason for getting rit of it.

Keeping inventory of every part of every model you currently make is both time consuming, space consuming and money consuming. And replacing that bits service with a smaller service that sells only the 'best seller' items is a far better idea.

Note, they haven't actually done that second part. Instead they have a bloated and borderline useless bits service with overpriced 'conversion packs' that appear to be thrown together with no real mind towards market research, but the first part is true enough.

I think GW's old bitz service is rather moot in light of the fact that sort of cataloging doesn't work as easily with finecast and leaving us wanting for only random plastic sprues, from their current offerings.

GW's bitz service didn't fail because it couldn't make money, it wasn't even a case of not making enough margin. Its that GW saw bitz as a self competeting buisness where through its absence they could sell the entire kit, and not just a piece of a kit. From their perspective, instead of selling 50% of a kit 3 times... if they got rid of bitz and got just 2 of those 3 to buy full kits they've made more than if they continued the bitz service.

KGatch113 wrote:

Unfortunately, the bitz service never got off the ground the way they wanted it too. When I worked at GW, they came to my sales department and asked us to come up with different groupings of bitz we would think customers would want. Like 5 heads from this metal model, 10 arms from that model etc.

We started sending groupings with codes, but with personnel changes etc, the plan was pretty much kiboshed.

Dont they still do this?

I'm pretty sure I have bought 5 packs of meltaguns,plasma guns and some others in the last few years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here we go -

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/armySubUnitCats.jsp?catId=cat440339a&rootCatGameStyle=

Not exactly cheap at £6.65 but you'll prolly pay a £1 each from a bitz site.

severedblue wrote:

Emerett wrote:Them not selling a magnetic combi melta requires you to either: buy more of their whole models to make what you need, or buy it from third parties.

So if they remove third parties, it boosts their business model.

I'm inclined to believe you that this may be their tactic. Before the tervigon was released for advanced order, the local GW store manager (who ran Tyranids himself and had them on display in the store) suggested that I buy both a carnifex AND an Arachnarok Spider from the Orcs and Goblins range.

That's $83 AUD + $96 AUD per tervigon! I'm not willing to pay ~AUD$190 per monsterous creature (when I will need 2 or 3 for a competitive list).

It definitely seems to be their business model. I am sure they expect these same gamers who converted tervigons to buy their new model as well. Moreover, they continue to produce expensive new plastic kits that lack options. Take for instance Dark Eldar Scourges. The kit should have included more than one of each special gun. It would have been nice it they included full sets of wings of each type as well.

It is because of this type of situation that gamers buy third party miniatures to use in GW games. It is good to see their greedy sales strategy fail.

mattyrm wrote:Its probably hard to say that GW has lost sales because of CH, because as I said, they dont make most of it. I bought 12 CH combi weapons because the best GW offer is a pack with one combi flamer in and a load of pre heresy bolters.

And therein lies the problem. GW is saying "You copied our stuff," to which CH responds, "What stuff did we copy?" GW is then left in a tough spot.

mattyrm wrote:Thats what I would do If I was in charge, I would monitor their website (CH), use my superior number of sculptors and resources and advertising, and then play them out of the game the hard way. If CH make some magnetic combi-weapons, GW should do the same and make them 50 cents cheaper. Everything they make, you make.

There's two problems with this: First, if they copied CH's work directly GW could be infringing CH's copyright. Second: CH makes small batches so can afford a quick turnaround. The lead time and expense of plastics means GW can't adapt as quickly. Plus, CH can afford to have the occasional bad sculpt in a way that GW cannot.

Dysartes wrote:Actually, that raises a question for the lawyery-types in here - how do you go about proving that you've lost sales due to someone else's actions, generally?

Usually we just assume that any sales made by the infringer would have naturally occurred to the copyright holder. CH sells 100 of miniature X, that's 100 sales GW lost. CH should disgorge their profits.

Other ways include providing historical sales figures and projected sales of a product.

notprop wrote:Dont they still do this?

I'm pretty sure I have bought 5 packs of meltaguns,plasma guns and some others in the last few years.

Yeah, but they don't sell Thousand Sons heads. Wish I had bought more when they had the bits service.

So enlighten a noob like me, why on earth did they stop the bitz service?!

If they sold combi weapons at £2 a pop, I guarantee they would shift literally 10s of thousands of them. I checked ebay for months before I bought my CH stuff and the combi meltas were going for about 3-4 squid a pop. I would happily pay over the odds because I think GWs stuff looks way better. The GW combi-flamer looks brilliant, but I think its only available in one pack isnt it?

Put it this way, Im not hugely into the hobby, but ive got 15 sternguard, and if they were selling individual combi weapons for £2-3 quid a go I would have happily bought ten of the bastards.

Its a false economy if they think making bits hard to get hold of makes people buy more surely? Even a suit at GW HQ must be able to see that people arent going to buy 6 boxes of devestators to get their nice ten man 4 PC dev squad, they are going to buy two boxes and then find the other weapons via ebay and bits websites.

Was there a logical/admin reason for it? Because If not Ima going to take a walk down to Nottingham and beat Jervis with my common sense stick.

Its their buisness model, i have been complaining about it for years now, they sell you 3 wheel cars...

As to lost profits, I will add that it is the plaintiff's burden to prove lost profits, but only by a preponderance of the evidence. Additionally, the damages must be calculated with a "reasonable degree of certainty." In other words, mathematical precision is not required. However, the defendant is very much allowed to present its own evidence, which tends to muddy the water considerably, especially if the plaintiff did something entirely reasonable like perform internal market research about its percentage of market share. Such internal documents are generally viewed to be more "unbiased" than the opinion of an expert being paid hundreds of dollars per hour to generate lost profits in the specific context of litigation, especially considering that the defendant also has its own expert who disagrees with the plaintiff's expert.

And to mattyrm I will sum up my earlier point for your convenience: Ideas are not protected by copyright. The "game" is only protectible insofar as it is expressed in discrete works, which must be copied in order to be infringed. Finding that an accused work infringes an asserted copyright is effectively saying that the two works are the same thing. Hence it is called copyright, not you-took-my-idea-right.

And I will add, mattyrm, that within the above context you should consider the potential significance of your statement: "I would happily pay over the odds because I think GWs stuff looks way better."

As a businessman, I make the assumption that GW discontinued the bitz service because they judged that the same resources would be more profitably employed in some other capacity.

I can see the hassles involved in bitz. It looks like a complete nightmare to maintain the stocks and make up piddling small packages for people.

Things would have got worse the more product was shifted to polystyrene.

aka_mythos had the reason bitz was discontinued spot on in my opinion.

aka_mythos wrote:GW's bitz service didn't fail because it couldn't make money, it wasn't even a case of not making enough margin. Its that GW saw bitz as a self competeting buisness where through its absence they could sell the entire kit, and not just a piece of a kit. From their perspective, instead of selling 50% of a kit 3 times... if they got rid of bitz and got just 2 of those 3 to buy full kits they've made more than if they continued the bitz service.

Why let customers buy individual parts when a lot of them are willing to pay for the entire model just to get that part.

aka_mythos wrote:I think GW's old bitz service is rather moot in light of the fact that sort of cataloging doesn't work as easily with finecast and leaving us wanting for only random plastic sprues, from their current offerings.

GW's bitz service didn't fail because it couldn't make money, it wasn't even a case of not making enough margin. Its that GW saw bitz as a self competeting buisness where through its absence they could sell the entire kit, and not just a piece of a kit. From their perspective, instead of selling 50% of a kit 3 times... if they got rid of bitz and got just 2 of those 3 to buy full kits they've made more than if they continued the bitz service.

This is probley closer to the truth then whatever GW has said in the past.

My Wells; " Why just sell gun #X when we can sell the whole kit and make more money? I mean people will pay 10$-20 dollars for a single model that has a combi-melta so if they need 5 of them thats $100 bucks we have made instead of 5$ for just the gun."

Mr Kirby; " Great Idea! Kills the bitz service now! Anyone who speaks of it again will be banished to Swindon forever. So it has been said so shall it be done."

I think the writing was on the wall once the decision was made to move to plastic being the primary material.

It's one thing to offer bits when you are dealing with actual metal components (the other parts of a kit can be easily reused after all) but who is going to employ some to clip parts from a sprue leaving 90% of it to collect dust which you then have to pay storage on.

This is not really on topic for The Chapterhouse lawsuit.

Lets try to keep this thread alive by not going off topic.

GW stopped selling bits when they started casting them on sprues together with other bits that people might not want so much of.
When it was all metal it was alot easier.

FacelessMage wrote:This is not really on topic for The Chapterhouse lawsuit.

Lets try to keep this thread alive by not going off topic.

Pretty much.

Discussions/speculation/etc. on why GW stopped their bits service can we taken elsewhere, please.

Thanks!

biccat wrote:

Dysartes wrote:Actually, that raises a question for the lawyery-types in here - how do you go about proving that you've lost sales due to someone else's actions, generally?

Usually we just assume that any sales made by the infringer would have naturally occurred to the copyright holder. CH sells 100 of miniature X, that's 100 sales GW lost. CH should disgorge their profits.

Other ways include providing historical sales figures and projected sales of a product.

In your (non-binding, I-acknowledge-that-you're-not-my-lawyer ) opinion, would they have grounds to claim for lost sales in this sort of case, where products (such as the Stormraven expansion kit or magnetic combi-weapon kit) do not have a direct analogue within GW's line?

weeble1000 wrote:As to lost profits, I will add that it is the plaintiff's burden to prove lost profits, but only by a preponderance of the evidence. Additionally, the damages must be calculated with a "reasonable degree of certainty." In other words, mathematical precision is not required. However, the defendant is very much allowed to present its own evidence, which tends to muddy the water considerably, especially if the plaintiff did something entirely reasonable like perform internal market research about its percentage of market share. Such internal documents are generally viewed to be more "unbiased" than the opinion of an expert being paid hundreds of dollars per hour to generate lost profits in the specific context of litigation, especially considering that the defendant also has its own expert who disagrees with the plaintiff's expert.

Sorry, weeble - preponderance of the evidence?

I can understand not needing precise figures - as who can tell exactly what the market will do, after all. This does sound very complicated, however. I take it this isn't something likely to be done during the discovery process?

Weeble is essentially correct, although his explanation is a bit convoluted. The plaintiff has to establish loss and damage as a result of infringement. This is assessed after liability is established. Ideally, you can establish it from existing documents (projections etc), but it's often the subject of expert accounting evidence (because projections can be no more than wishful thinking and there will be many factors that might affect sales). This area can become very complex - there are several acceptable appproaches to calculating loss and damage - and it can be quite difficult to determine which products are affected even once liability is determined. As a rule, courts hate having to decide which expert is right, and noone except the accountants understand the numbers. However, in many cases the main aim is to prove liability. If you can do this, the defendant may be prepared to reach a settlement. You may even be able to put them out of business (I'm not suggesting that this would be GW's aim, or that they would succeed, but these are the normal dynamics of this kind of case).

Dysartes wrote:

biccat wrote:

Dysartes wrote:Actually, that raises a question for the lawyery-types in here - how do you go about proving that you've lost sales due to someone else's actions, generally?

Usually we just assume that any sales made by the infringer would have naturally occurred to the copyright holder. CH sells 100 of miniature X, that's 100 sales GW lost. CH should disgorge their profits.

Other ways include providing historical sales figures and projected sales of a product.

In your (non-binding, I-acknowledge-that-you're-not-my-lawyer ) opinion, would they have grounds to claim for lost sales in this sort of case, where products (such as the Stormraven expansion kit or magnetic combi-weapon kit) do not have a direct analogue within GW's line?
......

I would suggest that every magnetic combi-weapon sold would be claimed as 3 x (for melta, plasma, flamer non magnetic variants GW sells) whatever kit the GW version appears in (I think I'm right in assuming that GW don't sell seperate packs of combi-weapons. I.e maximising the claim.

The Stormraven expansion would be more difficult but I would expect a suitably obtuse inclusion (lawyers are good at that ).

Surely the Stormraven expansion requires the user to buy an original Stormraven kit.

If anything, GW's sales would be increased by the people who don't like the standard design but like the modified design.

notprop wrote:I would suggest that every magnetic combi-weapon sold would be claimed as 3 x (for melta, plasma, flamer non magnetic variants GW sells) whatever kit the GW version appears in (I think I'm right in assuming that GW don't sell seperate packs of combi-weapons. I.e maximising the claim.

I read your post as saying GW should get 3x the value of each kit (say, assault marines, $50 or whatever they are now) for each bit?

This is incorrect, because the value of the individual bit CH copied is the actual loss by GW. Theoretically, people who buy the assault marine box will get additional value (7 marines, jump packs, whatever the heck is in the box). So GW would have to establish the value of the individual bit then sue CH for that value x however many sales GW lost out on.

Much easier to simply go after CH's profits for selling those pieces.

Dysartes wrote:In your (non-binding, I-acknowledge-that-you're-not-my-lawyer ) opinion, would they have grounds to claim for lost sales in this sort of case, where products (such as the Stormraven expansion kit or magnetic combi-weapon kit) do not have a direct analogue within GW's line?

If the products infringe on GW's copyright, then yes, GW would be able to recover lost sales in this case.

Whether CH infringes GW's copyright is the whole point of this case. Has GW included the stormraven and combi-weapons? I thought this was mostly about the tyranid and shoulder pads?

Dysartes wrote:preponderance of the evidence?

Evidence showing that it is more likely than not. Basically >50%.

Biccat, but that I figured that GWs lost sale would be the actual retail value of the sale (sorry not up to speed on where the combi-weapon appears).

The 3x would be because the CH kit can cover 3 options, to cover 3 options there might be upto 3 kits required (assuming say that each combi weapon appeared in a different kit) to match that utility. I would suggest this is suitably OTT for an opening gambit. The (reasonable) resolution would be somewhat less that this.

Kilkrazy wrote:Surely the Stormraven expansion requires the user to buy an original Stormraven kit.

If anything, GW's sales would be increased by the people who don't like the standard design but like the modified design.

I agree completely

The only stuff I really have a problem with is the models (such as the eldar female exarch) which are direct sub-ins for readily available GW models, and are sold as such.

As for the rest of it? It's impossible for me to buy something like a true-scale set, and use it, without buying product from GW, most likely a tactical box. Same too with Maxmini heads and jump packs. What's more, I might not have bought those tactical marines if those Maxmini bits didn't exist. I've lost track of how many comments I have read concerning the StormRaven, "The chapterhouse kit makes it an acceptable model", so if anything a lot of these 3rd party components are actually promoting sale of GW products.

Not only that, but we've had Thunderwolf cavalry and Nid conversion kits which have helped gamers play with those options in their army, when otherwise they have been waiting years for a model to finally appear (and even then, you don't know it's coming until it is practically on top of you).

I realise in legal terms my opinion on this probably holds zero water, and that Chapterhouse and the dozen other companies like them are indeed using IP of GW without their permission (and making money from it). But in general terms and away from GW's perspective, those companies are fulfilling a customer need. If they didn't, then they would have long since closed down without GW's help.

And as I said before, for the most part I don't think these kits are impacting GW's revenue - you still need the GW boxsets to make them work. It might have been more prudent for GW legal, rather than pursuing Chapterhouse and others like them (who are probably only the niche of GW hobbyists, and not costing GW any money), to instead spend their energy to try and stop the increasing number of Russian and Chinese re-casters who are selling actual GW sculpts for a cheaper price, and are far more commonly available than this kind of thing.

But then again, you have to wonder how much money is going into the solicitors pockets, and the people who have advised GW to go for the jugular with this rather than turn a blind eye. Ultimately, they are the only ones who will win in this kind of situation.

Actually I have one for the true scale thing now; a CH sale costs GW in Green stuff, glue and sculpting tools. There easy!

notprop wrote:Actually I have one for the true scale thing now; a CH sale costs GW in Green stuff, glue and sculpting tools. There easy!

Curse GW for being the only company in the world that sells any of those things!

Kilkrazy wrote:Surely the Stormraven expansion requires the user to buy an original Stormraven kit.

If anything, GW's sales would be increased by the people who don't like the standard design but like the modified design.

Much like the Carnifex plus O&G spider = Tervigon example given earlier in the thread, maybe GW sees it unrealistically as lost sales since you could go with two stormravens kitbashed into one longer non-chibi chassis.

notprop wrote:Actually I have one for the true scale thing now; a CH sale costs GW in Green stuff, glue and sculpting tools. There easy!

That would actually be a tough one because the plaintiff would have to show that each (or at least a majority of) CH kit sold went to a buyer who would have otherwise bought a kit and scratch built a conversion themselves.