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.

We have discussed this before and probably will discuss this in the future, but the Corporation is not going to target the hobbyist that is making product for his own personal use. They will be targeting people who make product for mass production to give/sell to the public. And that is the key right there.

3D prinitng is no different from recasting parts, it is just a different media in doing so and we have the same kinds of discussions in that area too.

The costs for the average person to recast (and in this case 3D printing) is cost prohibited and will be for years to come.

When the cost of materials as well as the cost of the time to recreate an item go down to a easily financeable situation, then we can go back to see if the Corporation will start firing off C&D letters to those average hobbyists.

I've actually been hankering for a pre-Heresy World Eaters army for a long, long time, and now that Forgeworld has jumped on the Great Crusade bandwagon it's possible to build one.

BUT

A proper 2000 pt pre-Heresy army made almost entirely with Forgeworld parts (at least, the list I want to build) would cost almost $1000 US.

So I've been staying after at work, using 3d engineering software to make my own early marks of "space knight" armor. The quality won't be quite as high, but the cost comes in around 25% less than Forgeworld, and I can make any pose or add any iconography I want. I'm on the fence about it because it's still a big investment, but once I have all the dimensions worked out, I'll probably start the printing. Since it's personal use only, I think I'm in the clear.

The system needs a overhaul, this is partially the reason why the prices hike, it's the GW knee jerk reaction to loss of customers considering they know that some of us will pay whatever the cost.

If you want the prices to come down then stop buying third party things so they don't sue them and use more money and keep buying their stuff.

I think they should look to the future and try and find other materials that work well and cost less. They moved from metal to mostly plastic and then got rid of metal for resin.
Next step is some cheap and easy to make material that reacts well to paint stays in the same shape at high temperature (Just below boling would be good)

The prices do need to come down but complaining about them on a forum doesn't change a thing. I would like a independant company to come along and have a look at their profit margins on everything, and cost.

If the markup is stupidly high then I would want to ransack the company and elect someone who remembers the customer, if it's just around normal or slightly lower then it's justified.

I want this independant company to stop the quarrels

No, if you want the prices to come down you STOP buying from GW. Even if you don't buy from third-party dealers, the lack of demand will have an impact.

Demand fuels price increases. LACK of demand fuels price decreases.

They can only get away with these endless price increases for mediocre products so long as people are foolish enough to pay for them. Other manufacturers make minis every bit as good - if not better - for around half the price. If you are willing to compromise somewhat on the quality of sculpt (usually because you can't or don't want paint a highly-detailed sculpt up to show off all its details and just want a tabletop-quality army) there are manufacturers that make minis to tabletop quality for a quarter or less of GW's price.

We don't need GW to play Warhammer - our minis don't dissolve, and our rulebooks won't vanish if they go out of business. They need US to stay in business. WE have the power... we just haven't chosen to use it.

Yet.

Adam LongWalker wrote:...3D prinitng is no different from recasting parts, it is just a different media in doing so and we have the same kinds of discussions in that area too.

The costs for the average person to recast (and in this case 3D printing) is cost prohibited and will be for years to come...

This isn't actually true. You can get a 3D printer for $500 or less. Whatever object you print will have some obvious strata, but that could be sanded away/filled/painted over. You can also find machines that will recycle plastic to create the material you need for the extruder heads. Even the time to create CAD models is being reduced. If you suck at CAD, folks have figured out how to use the Kinect as a 3D scanner, there's an app for the iPad, etc.

All of the costs associated with 3D printing have dropped significantly in the last six months. I wouldn't be surprised to see 3D printers hit the shelves at big box stores inside of two years.

I've been waiting for the price of 3D scanners to come down. I need to look into that Kinect idea.

adamsouza wrote:I've been waiting for the price of 3D scanners to come down. I need to look into that Kinect idea.

You can also find programs that create a 3D image if you take multiple pictures (from multiple angles) of your object with a digital camera. I'm not saying the result is going to be as good as a $100,000 scanner, but they should be plenty fine to do hobbyist work with.

When a cheap 3D printer, with scanning capabilities and if there is a reduction in cost for materials... Then whats the point buying more than one of any given model?

It will force model makers to eventually sell blueprints only....but how does a company survive on that?

Mr Hyena wrote:When a cheap 3D printer, with scanning capabilities and if there is a reduction in cost for materials... Then whats the point buying more than one of any given model?

It will force model makers to eventually sell blueprints only....but how does a company survive on that?

Oh no, with all these VCRs what's the point of broadcasting a program more than once?

Whenever a disruptive technology arises the choice is clear: Adapt or die. How do you compete with 3D printing? well, they already have the CAD models for much of what they produce, would be quite simple to sell high-price, high-res versions of that (or sell at multiple price points for different resolutions - £30 buys you a tabletop-quality, but relatively static model of your basic troop type (divided into 3-5 subassemblies) all the way up to £100+ for a full model breakdown (essentially allowing you to print a sprue) and higher for tank kits

Just like how now you can get snap-together Marines, Tactical Marines and chapter-specific addon sprues, you could create 10+ products from a single troop type if you do it well

People still buy CDs and DVDs don't they ?

GWs pricing will seem reasonable once I can kick out as many copies as I need

GW stamping down of stuff that is posted on the web is one thing, but what about the all the stuff that doesn't get posted publicly on the web? The stuff that gets put on torrent sites or passed around club members?

A gamer or group of gamers buy a 3d printer, models are scanned and then produced. No 3d model appears on the web, so no footprint. Times that by hundreds and you have a big problem. Once 3d printers / scanners reach the critical price & quality level then everything will change and I don't think anybody really understands this. You can only stamp down on infringements you know about, there will be thousands they don't.

And the big reason these infringements will occur is because of the popular opinion that GW stuff is far overpriced for what your are getting. To use someone's analogy from another thread, GW prices like Porsche... and delivers a Ford-level product. It's decent; it does they job it's supposed to do; but for a Porsche price I expect something MORE. Is it any wonder people are unhappy?

That doesn't justify ripping it off.

If GW go out of business because they are undermined by homemade copies, there won't be any over-priced originals for people to clone.

The majority of wargame models are cheap enough not to be worth copying.

newbis wrote:

Adam LongWalker wrote:...3D prinitng is no different from recasting parts, it is just a different media in doing so and we have the same kinds of discussions in that area too.

The costs for the average person to recast (and in this case 3D printing) is cost prohibited and will be for years to come...

This isn't actually true. You can get a 3D printer for $500 or less. Whatever object you print will have some obvious strata, but that could be sanded away/filled/painted over. You can also find machines that will recycle plastic to create the material you need for the extruder heads. Even the time to create CAD models is being reduced. If you suck at CAD, folks have figured out how to use the Kinect as a 3D scanner, there's an app for the iPad, etc.

All of the costs associated with 3D printing have dropped significantly in the last six months. I wouldn't be surprised to see 3D printers hit the shelves at big box stores inside of two years.

I have to stand by my comment due to the amount of research I have had to do because of the rising cost of producing parts for my metal models as well as injuries to my hands. Getting harder to sculpt in my case. Oh and try to avoid getting old. I highly do not recommend it.

I do agree with you that you can get a 3D printer for a reasonable price, but to get professional results akin to casting models, it is going to cost you several thousands of dollars of equipment and time.

I really believe that within 5 years 3-D printing that is able to turn out a higher quality product than today will be affordable to the average hobbyist.

Copying an existing copyrighted design is one thing and is obviously protected by copyright laws all around the world.

But my serious fear is that hobbyist's original designs will get false DMCA'd into oblivion by industry magnates trying to stymy competition. This happens in the software world all the time, and open source developers and content writers on places like Youtube know it well. The question is whether law enforcement can have the patience and the forbearance to sift through legitimate cases of copyright infringement and whether copyright holders can stop frothing at the mouth and trying to monopolize a market. There is a point where a standard in legislation designed to encourage the generation of unique content actually stymies the production of creative content, and that's where I become concerned.

This production method can allow for rapid replication and dissemination of new ideas, concepts, art, and technologies. The "old guard" of industry standards and establishment figures has a tendency to scratch their beard and become befuddled by innovation, particularly innovation that allows for rapid generation and spread of new ideas at near-zero marginal cost. This tendency is cancer. Absolutely nothing about gigantic corporate tycoons trying desperately to hang on to decades old IPs should give anyone a degree of moral pause when discussing a new method of production. Is anyone here old enough to remember the panic attack they had with the release of VHS, or floppy discs, or CD-ROM, or CD-ROM burners?

This concept of "intellectual property" is a rather new one and one that doesn't square soundly with the original intention of a patent. Legislators should look at this issue objectively and secure enforcement - and I mean strong enforcement - against false DMCA filings in particular. Protections should be secured for the use of new technologies and from abuse from industry old guard to guarantee continued innovation and dissemination of new technologies.

I feel we will be able to walk into a FLGS or GW and design and print a unit of models years before it becomes cost effective to do it at home. It will be like build a bear workshop and you can come in, design your model and print it and take it home. The stores will provide the professional grade equipment and secure content via licenses which will protect the IP of the models they print. fLGS will be licensed to pro t many manufacturers.

The issue is people don't want to pay per model any ore. They want to pirate their asses off. That and the long and the short of it. They want to steal 3D models of copyrighted things and print unlimited models for only the cost of raw materials. They do not want to pay licenses or artists. They do not want original 3D models, they want copies of copyrighted models.

I see a valid business case for the technology, it is just one that people who wish to disrespect artists and infringe on copyrights won't accept.

Kilkrazy wrote:That doesn't justify ripping it off.

If GW go out of business because they are undermined by homemade copies, there won't be any over-priced originals for people to clone.

The majority of wargame models are cheap enough not to be worth copying.

You are correct, or almost so, on all counts.

GW models being overpriced for their value does not justify ripping off the designs. That won't stop people from doing it when they percieve that they are being ripped off by GW.

If GW goes under, there won't be any more NEW overpriced originals (thank you for acknowledging that they ARE overpriced, by the way), but there will be tons of existing originals to be cloned... and even more motivation to do so, since the manufacturer is no longer in production.

The majority of wargame models are cheap enough not to be worth copying, true. GW probably does not prodice the majority of wargame models... and theirs definitely ARE NOT cheap enough to be 'not worth copying', especially in the large numbers needed to play 8E WFB.

nkelsch wrote:The issue is people don't want to pay per model any ore. They want to pirate their asses off. That and the long and the short of it. They want to steal 3D models of copyrighted things and print unlimited models for only the cost of raw materials. They do not want to pay licenses or artists. They do not want original 3D models, they want copies of copyrighted models.

I see a valid business case for the technology, it is just one that people who wish to disrespect artists and infringe on copyrights won't accept.

A fair amount of corporate whining about pirating is hyperbole. Any time a game or movie doesn't do as well as the company had been planning, they blame it on pirates. If you look at the reality behind the RIAA claims, you'll see they are claiming pirating costs them more jobs and cash than they actually ever made or had.

Look at the Avengers movie or Diablo III. Both of those were incredibly successful, regardless of piracy. If you produce a product people are willing to pay for - and one they feel they are getting their money's worth for - they will pay for it.

3D printing is no different.

newbis wrote:
Look at the Avengers movie or Diablo III. Both of those were incredibly successful, regardless of piracy.

Did you just use Diablo III as an example of how the industry overcame piracy? You do know that Diablo III is the posterchild against your very argument as they have a singleplayer game which cannot be played offline which made a huge portion of the internet cry buckets of tears because they are basically prevented from pirating it as you cannot play it offline without a battle.net account and a legit version of the game.

Blizzard went extra far to prevent piracy and pissed people off, and the game was still amazingly successful. It doesn't prove people are not prone to pirate things, it proves if anything you need to force strict protection of your copyrights or risk being impacted by them. Citing Diablo III as a reason that companies need not worry about piracy is an utter joke.

From the posters on Dakka, I see plenty of entitled pirate talk on a daily basis. When something is not worth the cost, you go without... not steal it. The issue is people want their cake and eat it too.

Diablo III is also an unusual example as Blizzard has a really impressive reputation for putting out good games, albeit ones with balance issues fixed in patches... On the other hand, I think they still occasionally tweak Starcraft 1 for balance, so they do keep working on problems for customers.

nkelsch wrote:Did you just use Diablo III as an example of how the industry overcame piracy? You do know that Diablo III is the posterchild against your very argument as they have a singleplayer game which cannot be played offline which made a huge portion of the internet cry buckets of tears because they are basically prevented from pirating it as you cannot play it offline without a battle.net account and a legit version of the game.

I think what you really want to say here is, "yet." People have hacked games that had an online requirement before and I doubt D3 will be any different. I could just as easily have pointed to Bioshock 2 or any number of other games that people were willing to pay for.

nkelsch wrote:

newbis wrote:
Look at the Avengers movie or Diablo III. Both of those were incredibly successful, regardless of piracy.

Did you just use Diablo III as an example of how the industry overcame piracy? You do know that Diablo III is the posterchild against your very argument as they have a singleplayer game which cannot be played offline which made a huge portion of the internet cry buckets of tears because they are basically prevented from pirating it as you cannot play it offline without a battle.net account and a legit version of the game.

Blizzard went extra far to prevent piracy and pissed people off, and the game was still amazingly successful. It doesn't prove people are not prone to pirate things, it proves if anything you need to force strict protection of your copyrights or risk being impacted by them. Citing Diablo III as a reason that companies need not worry about piracy is an utter joke.

From the posters on Dakka, I see plenty of entitled pirate talk on a daily basis. When something is not worth the cost, you go without... not steal it. The issue is people want their cake and eat it too.

It's not really a matter of having cake and eating it. Let's take Assassin's Creed Revelations. I just finished playing it. It was my first AC title so I didn't know if I would enjoy it. It costs $40 currently. That is a lot of money for a game that I don't know if I will like or not. Also, as I only play PC games, there is no trade in option. I'm straight up out the $40 if the game sucks. So I pirated it. If there wasn't a Skidrow release of it I would have just never played it and gone on with my life. But I was bored, and TPB had it for download, so I got it on the off chance I might like it, with no real financial risk. Turns out I loved it. So much that I very much intend to actually buy AC3 when it comes out in the fall.

Now the only way to truly prevent piracy in games is to force consumers to play on the companies servers a la Diablo3 and WoW. But you can't very well convince someone to play a single person non MMO or FPS game on a company server. What if the server is down? Then I can't play my games. Plus, the cost of maintaining those servers without consistent income from the game makes it a huge waste of money. ACR plays on my PC, so if my PC is working, the game will run. This costs nothing to the Publisher. They make their money from sales and they are done with it.

I can't see single player games requiring online logins just to play, and on the few that I have, there have been ways to crack it by rerouting the login IP and cracking the .exe's.

I'll buy a game if I trust the franchise like BF3 or now AC. But I am not in the business of making $60 gambles on games.


EDIT: Just remembered, there are Pirated servers for WoW out there, tons of them. I'm sure in time Diablo 3 will have them as well.

We all know that casual piracy is done by teenagers and students who have a big appetite for games and music etc. and no money.

It's difficult and sometimes counterproductive to attack that kind of piracy and most people grow out of it anyway.

The organisations that pirate stuff on an industrial scale are more damaging, but they are also easier to attack.

Software piracy is easily the most rampant. But when Adobe decide to charge $800 for a few programs, the decision to pirate it makes more sense, unless you can charge that $800 as a business expense.

As for music, most artists that are signed to record labels make very little off of album sales, and most of their income is based on merchandising and touring. If pirating music makes someone a fan because they found your music for free, then they decide to buy a shirt and go to your shows, then I don't know of any musician who would be opposed. Metallica may be the exception, but I was referring to real musicians.

Now, if someone were to make a copy of say the Landraider injection mold and start cranking them out and selling them for $15 then I could see GW taking that as a real threat.

I almost have enough animosity for GW that, if I won the lottery, I would likely do just that. Buy a few injection machines, reverse engineer some sprues into molds, and set up a shop in China or Russia and sell at 1% profit.

Charax wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:When a cheap 3D printer, with scanning capabilities and if there is a reduction in cost for materials... Then whats the point buying more than one of any given model?

It will force model makers to eventually sell blueprints only....but how does a company survive on that?

Oh no, with all these VCRs what's the point of broadcasting a program more than once?

Whenever a disruptive technology arises the choice is clear: Adapt or die. How do you compete with 3D printing? well, they already have the CAD models for much of what they produce, would be quite simple to sell high-price, high-res versions of that (or sell at multiple price points for different resolutions - £30 buys you a tabletop-quality, but relatively static model of your basic troop type (divided into 3-5 subassemblies) all the way up to £100+ for a full model breakdown (essentially allowing you to print a sprue) and higher for tank kits

Just like how now you can get snap-together Marines, Tactical Marines and chapter-specific addon sprues, you could create 10+ products from a single troop type if you do it well

The thing is. How do you run a successful company like GW on that? Since they are only buying one blueprint of a product that doesn't bring much money in to fund the company for things such as development (they'd need to offer a much wider range of products to break even...that has costs.).

As has been noted earlier, style can't be copywritten.

Jeep tried to sue Hummer because it had a grill with seven slats resembling what Jeep believed to be an Iconic design and lost.

Harley Davidson tried to sue Honda from making a motorcycle which sounded like theirs. They were only successful in that Honda had to change the pipes which at that time resembled a Harley design. They changed the functionality subtly, yet maintained the sound.

As far as GW's product, I would imagine it's possible to make a Mk 9 armor suit which stylistically would fit in with the other types and even sell them. Just don't call it Space Marine armor. But if you add the Eagle, purity seals or something readily identifiable as a Space Marine for sale by GW or FW you'd be in for trouble. Making direct copies and calling them by another name doesn't keep you safe either.

GW has a long history of taking things from pop culture and using twisted versions in their universe to make money. I'm almost sure that they didn't contact the Terminator movie franchise and ask to make the Necrons in their present form for example. One could even argue the Starship Trooper (and to a lessser extent) Alien movies connection with the Tyranids or the Imperial Guard, specifically the Cadians.

GW realizes that the simple act of threatening an individual with infringement is often enough to get them to close up shop.

Interestingly, in the UK both parties are liable for legal costs regardless of the outcome. in the US the plantiff is liable if they lose... I THINK this is the case. Some legal mind out there should correct me if I;m wrong.

Most states in the US do not have a "loser pays" system in place because it would discourage the "little guy" from attempting to file a legitimate lawsuit against a business or the government. It is possible for one party to be awarded court costs as part of the judgement but I don't know what the circumstances are when that happens.

Actually, loser pays systems are typically adopted to prevent frivolous lawsuits, as is frequently the case; and one of the biggest offenders happens to be copyright trolls.

Kilkrazy wrote:That doesn't justify ripping it off.

If GW go out of business because they are undermined by homemade copies, there won't be any over-priced originals for people to clone.

The majority of wargame models are cheap enough not to be worth copying.

It doesn't matter whether or not its 'justified'. It is simple cause and effect. Anytime a commodity becomes unreasonably priced, or its access unreasonably restricted, black markets and piracy will happen. The why does NOT matter. It will happen and is starting to happen now.

If GW wants to stay in business they better STOP acting like they their product is made of unobtainium.

SickSix wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:That doesn't justify ripping it off.

If GW go out of business because they are undermined by homemade copies, there won't be any over-priced originals for people to clone.

The majority of wargame models are cheap enough not to be worth copying.

It doesn't matter whether or not its 'justified'. It is simple cause and effect. Anytime a commodity becomes unreasonably priced, or its access unreasonably restricted, black markets and piracy will happen. The why does NOT matter. It will happen and is starting to happen now.

If GW wants to stay in business they better STOP acting like they their product is made of unobtainium.

Exactly right.