Kilkrazy wrote:
If someone decided to oppress all Jews, individual Jews surely would be oppressed.

At root we are all members of the group "human" and our rights derive from that membership. Individuality is one of those rights -- freedom of religion and expression, for instance.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As I understand it, you are making the point that group rights cannot trump individual rights.

I am making the point that our individual rights derive from being a member of a group, and that if you oppress the group you oppress the members individually.

 Lockark wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Stormcasts are actually fine in that regard as far as I can see. Their armour is all male because they are made to look like Sigmar, but the Eternals themselves can be women too.

Though, they don't all have male names/personalities, right? Because if they do, then Lockark would be right anyway, as it would be a distinction without a difference.

All the ones that appear in the stories seem to go by male names and male pronouns. I kind of assume at this point any woman who becomes a storm cast is sort of a trans-man situation and take on a male identity.

If I am incorrect and their is refrence to them keeping their female name and pronouns I would be interested to know. But in all honesty a fear something like that would become a joke fairly fast instead of considered with any seriousness.

 ulgurstasta wrote:
<snip>

I thinks it´s quite obvious in this case that it´s simply GW trying to make the space marine thunder strike again. Sigmarines has been designed to be fantasy space marines, in a desperate attempt to lure in 40k players(or people who would consider playing 40k), so they are going to be masculine just like space marines. GW doesn´t care about representation or women in wargaming, all they care about is making money and they think the money is where the space marines are.

 Jayden63 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

*For what it's worth, I think they are wrong: the success of Raging Heroes in this space, with a spincast product (an, IMO, inferior material) shows that people do want to buy sexualized female models.

I think its quite obvious that sexy models do sell, and probably sell well due to just how many new ones get made each and every year. It also might be that non sexy female models dont sell well, or at least well enough to keep several companies churning out new ones each and every year. I wonder how many of us would actually buy female space marines or even guardsmen? Yeah, I can appreciate the idea behind it, I might even like how the model looks. I probably wouldn't buy any though as there is no reason for me too. And if I did, It wouldn't be more than a single unit box just for the novelty of it. Unlike the dozens of squad boxes from the other armies I own. This is all personal opinion though, There are probably some who would drop $300 bucks on female space marines. But are there enough other people out there to actually make it worth it for the model company?

 Dark Severance wrote:

 godardc wrote:
So, in order to bring females to the tabletop, but keeping the realism,should GW just do the same models as now, but giving them femal name ?

This assumes that the obstacle preventing females from playing miniatures game is sexualized miniatures.

Personally I don't think sexualization of miniatures is what keeps women from playing miniatures game compared to males. That would imply that these over sexualized miniatures are in game shops and I don't think that has been made clear or visible. Most of these are in niche markets that you see online, not purchased in a store, and rarely played on a table at a game store... at least I haven't seen it in all my years of gaming (unfortunately I realize that sample size is considered small).

 Ashiraya wrote:
That said, those 'SoB' are probably the best female miniatures I have seen so far, which is a bit depressing.

The sculptors of today can make insanely detailed miniatures (see FW Primarchs) but apparently making a female model without inexplicably thin armour, smacked-on T&A or big gaps is an insurmountable challenge.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Dark Severance wrote:
I'm not entirely sure it is lack of desire as it is why bother.

Yes, the argument is 'why bother with doing two genders for a single model, if the female one doesn't have watermelon breasts and a battle bikini?'. But I am not asking for that. While it would be nice, all that would be necessary really is that when people decide to have that dilemma for themselves, at least someone would then go with 'well, then we'll just make the female model'. That has never happened so far. Why on earth do people say it doesn't sell? You do not know. You have not tried. No one has. Sure, it is a niche within a niche, but so are cheesecake models. In an ideal world, realistic female models would not alone be enough to make me buy a model, but at this point it would probably be because we have six quintillion space marine variants but no other options for a realistic woman. I strongly doubt I would be alone in this - more niche things than this have sold well simply because it was the only option available and was first in an unexploited area.

Spoiler:

If the only difference between a "realistic" armor set of a male and female is simply a slightly thinner waist and maybe arms thinner... but not exaggerated but only shaving a 1-2mm off then there is no reason to do it.

It's like the difference between MK2 and MK3 power armour, basically. Instead of segmented vs flat armour on the front only, we have different leg-torso and hip-shoulder ratios. And I have not seen people angrily ask FW why they bother with two different marks when they are not easily distinct from six feet away. And, you know, in many cases our delicately painted miniatures are detailed things that must be seen up close to be truly appreciated. There is nothing wrong with this.

And why the hell is your conclusion 'the difference is so small so there is no point to making the woman'? What is the magical thing the man has that makes his presence a must? Why is this alleged lack of distinction (which I am not convinced is 'I cannot see' as much as 'I do not want to see') something that is a problem for the female version only when it is actually bidirectional? If the idea of two different things being too similar is too painful, then surely you would be okay with sometimes only having the female version?

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, I guess I'll be the one to say it. Is it possible Mark just meant for their butts to look feminine and not sexualized, but just designed his minis based on a er, gifted model? As an artist, I would tend to use my wife as a model if I wanted to draw or sculpt a woman who looks as realistic as possible, and having been with her for years I tend to think of her automatically if tasked with conceptualizing female anatomy or proportions. Is it possible that's what happened here?

Considering how well-defined the male Eisenkern butts are, Mark was probably just sticking with the same aesthetic, although that doesn't explain the feature-free thigh and shoulder plates.

PS: Am I the only one reminded of "The Pumpkin" from Portnoy's Complaint? Surely not.

This is no complaint about Bob specifically (others are making the same point), but I do sometimes wonder if Dakka causes a kind of amnesia: this discussion, about the look of the (then called Black Widows) is one we already had six months ago.

Mark was quite interested in people's thoughts about the Widows, you can see him responding to my questions (specifically about the model's thighs) here. Mark even set up a survey about the Female Stormtroopers.

That's just some of the discussion from six months ago: in January Mark specifically asked people "how should the Female Stormtroopers look?", and it's worth pointing out that Mark has explicitly said that the feedback of one Ms. J. Cooper, a female LEO, was a major influence on the design of these models.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not yelling "the time for complaints is over!", just pointing out that these images are... well, basically the same thing we saw (and I commented favorably on) six months ago. So... yeah, I'm pretty happy to get the girls in hand.

Wait...

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

 Ashiraya wrote:

Spoiler:

Mark's ones are good, no doubt about that. I think the converted Valkir look even better but that is because I prefer their armour design, like, from a design standpoint without any gender being involved.

The reason Mark's work is remarkable is because it is so rare as to be all but unheard of, which kind of adds to my point when you think about it, and you have to keep in mind Dreamforge is still relatively obscure.

But imagine how he feels when you use his work as a big red herring and slap it on my arguments.

Of course this is all an 'I want' from my side. A lot of posts here are 'I wants'. Many games started as 'I wants'. I doubt making a good sculpt like what I am asking for will be a revolution in wargaming, but it will sure add to an underused area to say the least.

In fact, I find it kind of insulting that you try to stomp all over everything I have said since your last 'contribution' by implying that I do not know what I am talking about because my favourite female armoured model is not your friend's, and given how you seem to pride yourself on logical arguments I really would expect better than that.

IOW tastes vary, but which model is my favourite has no effect on my argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That said, I am not sure if there is much point left for me to debate here.

Me: 'Some more realistic female armoured models would be nice.'

X: 'No demand.'

Me: 'Well, it's not like people have checked very hard. Besides, they would be nice even if they are not in high demand.'

X: 'There is this one.'

Me: 'That is -one-. Let's hope more come.'

That is about my contribution here? To my knowledge, there is no real survey or evidence as to what would happen if that kind of model becomes widespread, so at this point we would just be stuck arguing 'if they become widespread, what I want to happen will happen!' and there is little point to that. My argument was of course never that a proliferation of reasonable female miniatures will suddenly bring in an avalanche of female gamers, but I do think it would help and it is certainly an underused design.

I will wait and see, and leap on to any models I like enough.

So yes, I am done here. Unless you post something particularly egregious, I guess.

 Ashiraya wrote:

Spoiler:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Realistic female miniatures are the "dark, rich, hearty roast" of the miniature world: loads of people claim they want them, but when creators actually spend the tens of thousands of dollars to make them... ehhhhh, maybe not.

What you are missing is that 'sensible female miniatures' are diverse. You are telling a hardcore Blood Angels player that she is a hypocritical Space Marine hater because she doesn't want your Space Wolf army, and it is kind of disingenious.

Also, good job. I did not expect you to post something so far out there it'd make me return within two hours after I left.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
So, people that want 'realistic female models' do want them, on some level, but they aren't willing to buy based only on that point.

This is 100% true, but that making a miniature of sensible proportions would be enough to make them superpopular regardless of other factors is a claim I have not made.

I do think it is a good design component, though.

To return to the McLean example, of course people want healthy burgers, they just do not put it higher on the list than it tasting good. Kind of like how I want sensible female miniatures but not at the price of poor general design quality. Each thing has to juggle several criteria to truly excel.

 Ashiraya wrote:
<snip>

If you like Dark Eldar, you are also in a niche within a niche. That alone does not make something negligible.

If you think I am in agreement with you, you are not paying attention

Ashiraya wrote:

Spoiler:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
No, the size of the niche is what makes it negligible; taking you at your word leads to the conclusions that a negligable number of people are motivated to buy based on the factors you've mentioned.

No, I said that a negligible amount of people are willing to buy based ONLY on if it's a reasonable sized female. IOW, it needs to be a suitable model in other respects as well, which I think is fairly reasonable.

I really hope I emphasised it enough this time.

Ashiraya wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
I want More.

Considering the immense amount of energy you spend trying to stomp down my posts - which only want more of some of the least prevalent designs in all of miniature gaming - I am not sure why you are so inconsistent on what you actually want. Do you concede your point or why do you suddenly agree with me?

If you do want diversity, why are you making long-winded oversized posts about why diversity wouldn't sell?

 Dark Severance wrote:

Spoiler:

 DaggerAndBrush wrote:
@Dark Severance: I found your perspective quite interesting. What kind of sets do you intend to release? Resin, metal or injection plastic?

How would it work out commercially if you have a mixture of genders in your units? So instead of six male poses, you have three each. In theory the costs should be the same, assuming you have more than one pose.

Naturally that will not work for single miniatures, but I don't see why one could not have female and male bodies on one sprue.

I would love to do plastic. However the cost in that is fairly big (for the molds) so that probably will not become an option until many years later. We did start with metal but increased costs in metal, we have found that resin has ended up being more inexpensive long term for us. It allows us to initially outsource initial production runs and then continue casting in-house. We have the experience with resin casting and are already set up for it currently so that makes it easier. At some point we would love to get equipment for metal casting but we are not at that stage yet.

We haven't settled how we'll package that particular unit yet. We created them as a fireteam of 5 members, 3 male and 2 female. We created an alternate torso/head and arms (different weapons/pose) but utilized the same legs, so each miniature has 2 head/torso, 4 arms/weapons, 1 leg with how they were cut. That basically gives 10 different dynamic miniatures of the same design, 6 male and 4 female. If we mixed things up a bit we could probably double that, just depends on how we package them. I won't be able to finalize that until I get final production cost breakdown and mess with them a bit. At the very minimum I would like to do 2 separate fireteams (3 male, 2 female). We thought about doing singles as well but they are designed to work as a fireteam and they have mixed teams. We figured if someone wanted to make a all female or all male, they could probably trade around.

The other sets are all scifi based, with one of the faction that could probably be used for modern units as well. The factions and units that are created are based on the faction and lore for them. We didn't pick male or female because we wanted something sexy or was specifically looking for a particular market, those were the designs for those universes. The UR although evenly populated is largely a male military, there are females that tend to hold rank and command spots so some of the Lieutenant and Sergeant single models may be female. The EC are psionic users and mostly female with a few men. The Cyberoids although initially human, don't have a male or female version and are unisex. We have tossed back and forth on if we'll do a female version or not. Honestly though we plan to let the gaming community weigh into determining some direction in some cases.

The cost to do a male and female version is basically double, if you want it to be of similar design. For example the male and female that I showed look very similar. The female has a slightly thinner ankles and waist. If we cut corners we could have essentially duplicated the male sculpt, touched up the face and chest. If you are an experienced sculptor it doesn't take that much time, although in most cases contract-wise you'll still pay the same as if you had 2 created from scratch. Consequently the majority of costs wasn't actually the sculpting but the cutting, cleanup after the cuts afterwards. Basically what I paid I could have created 2 completely separate units, closer to 3 if I hadn't done the alternate poses creating more cuts.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I feel my points are left unaddressed, at least I get support in what I said from Dark Severance.

I was hoping that a different perspective or look at it might help highlight some other points. It is not simply just about male vs female. These things cost money to sculpt, manufacture and produce... so ultimately it comes down to how big a risk someone wants to take vs a known market.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Ok then, so it is doable to make your vision as a movie too.

Though blockbusters have been used as a mention to the extend of polish and detail.

What I said is you can achieve a high level of detail with not that much money investment, as far as miniatures are concerned.

Demanding others to put the money effort and risk on something you are not prepared to do yourself is at the very least wrong.

At least accept the valid concerns of the ones that are in line and offer valid suggestions and counterpoints.

 Dark Severance wrote:
To kindof bring us back to some of the miniatures that spawned this thread. I'm interested if these new PG13+ versions they've done are considered good or not. Although I like the direction they have gone unfortunately I still have issues with the sculpting/modeling on the non-demon versions, again like the original not because of sexualization but because proportions and sculpting isn't good. It isn't about the detail as the detail is great as it is the sculpting. I can't entirely tell you for sure what it is that isn't good other than the proportions seem off. I will say though that judgement can be hard to make when looking at renders vs having the actual miniatures in your hands though.

Spoiler:

Calypso:


Nyx:


Themis:


Lamia:

Kojiro wrote:...
Now I notice you completely skipped over the example I gave of models I have made, because I wanted them and no one was making them. And I note you equally failed to answer the question: Who do you presume should be paying this cost then, on her behalf and why? Or will you meet my expectations and dodge the question?

Dark Severance wrote:

 kronk wrote:
maybe that's not enough to support a company ... but I can't be alone in this

If it isn't enough to support a company or it is too much of a risk, then why would you expect any company to do create it? Even if you weren't alone on this, if there isn't enough of people that couldn't support the cost of creation, marketing and selling then it is a real poor business decision to make.

Mario wrote:

Spoiler:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Apples, oranges and salads?

On a fundamental level it's people wanting something to change in a product to their benefit (less Jar Jar, fewer half-naked female miniatures, cheaper product, no Sigmarines,…) but somehow the
reality of economics only applies for one type of criticism. The rest can complain and moan all they want but their opinions don't just get dismissed when somebody replies "stop complaining because: economic reality". That's why I singled out H.B.M.C.'s comment because suddenly the economic reality was relevant but when he complains about what GW is doing and doesn't like the arguments that point to an economic reality where GW would need to raise prices even more (boutique collector market with fewer customers who tend to buy a lot but are not price sensitive) he drops his line with complete disregard for the economic implications in that situation. The "good of the people (making the range affordable for more people)" angle is important when it affects him, his buying habits, and his argument but otherwise it's suddenly all about the grim reality of economics and budgeting.

Ultimately GW prices are what they are and their business decision and the risk taken is theirs, one can criticize their practices and compare them with their competitors but one cannot demand GW to lower their prices, they can suggest it they can analyze the visible effects but in the end, its GW's decision and they shoulder the effects of their decisions.

It's the same with wanting female miniatures that look less like pin-ups. Nobody can or is forcing a company to do anything. People are just voicing their opinion on design choices. You can see the same in every N&R thread about new releases. Why is "fewer half naked female miniatures would be nice" somehow absurd but "fewer Space Marines would be nice" totally okay. The only difference is that the threads about female miniatures appear once in a while but the SM complaints are in every thread that can somehow be connected to 40k (and now AoS). Next time when you read an article that says "I want more female miniatures that actually wear armour" just imagine it phrased as a personal opinion instead of as a binding contract with the devil. It's just phrasing influenced by frustration and powerlessness to actually change things. Nobody has the power to change a company's product lineup with a blog post. Just look how people right here on Dakka complain about everything GW does and nothing changed for years (if at all).

In this case though there is a direct comparison and a visible economic effect in the company.

On the miniatures we discuss there is a direct comparison as Reaper said and many others accepted sexy models sell more, so there is an economic impact in deciding otherwise, there is also at least DFG precedent that the effort is not worth the investment (on Buzzsaws account), but I would argue that you can have sexualised and not sexy miniatures like victorias or CBs (though CB has a lot of lovely sexy models too) and sell well.

Sexy models sell more and people complain about it is somehow wrong? Ewoks and Jar Jar sold Star Wars and billions in merchandize to kids but somehow complaining about that is okay (removing such kid friendly elements would cut of a chunk of the target audience and lead to fewer sales). In both cases the fans are complaining about some part that they don't like (Jar Jar destroyed Star Wars,…) but that makes the product more profitable but only one is wholeheartedly dismissed because it's based on opinion. How much rage we could eliminate if we just replied with "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." to anybody complaining about anything.

Or how about PCV miniatures for wargaming? Some lines are made using that material because it's profitable or HIPS is not worth it and people complain about that choice all the time (just look at al the kickstarter threads). The economics show that it as the best choice for the company at the time so consumer should just shut up because they can compare the cost of each medium and see that this was the only way? Somehow that doesn't happen people still say they won't support this or that KS campaign because of material and don't just shut up like obedient little consumer even if the companies have no choice due to their budget. Somebody might not like the medium but in the end that's just their opinion because in all the relevant factors it's the right choice for the company so why do people complain and voice their opinion about something where the company has the actual information.

One person saying "I don't like PVC wargaming miniatures because of reason X" and somebody else saying "I don't like half-naked female miniatures because of reason Y" has the same effect on the company. Companies might have budgetary justification for PVC (or metal or resin) but people still complain about it and a company might have budgetary justification for more sexy female character but somehow complaining now is irrational because of the reality of economics and budgeting. Both are related to design an engineering decision that the company has to make but only one is dismissed because of money. GW puts a certain amount of sprues in a box and they set the price due to whatever calculations they internally have to be profitable but somehow complaining about the price is okay when one could just as easily say that it's just your opinion and they have to sell at inflated prices because of their economic needs.

On the other em you went off too much, but let me try and help you, most of the outcry Lucas has been called for killing the extended universe which was what starwars really was and mind you this was licenced and theoretically approved from him, yes he is a creative and yes he can and did rip the entire (imaginary) cosmos apart and yes, he got the same backlash GW got from AoS.

Killing the extended universe was Disney, he had nothing to do with that (as far as I know he had sold the company by that point) but most of his creative design choices in the prequels have been criticized to hell and back. It's one of the reasons why he was hesitant to make movies after the prequels got ripped apart by fans. Nobody admonished people for doing that but you just dare to say something about the design choices of a female character and people start drooling about censorship and creator's vision as if SJW will storm Punisher style in some company's office (here's your Daredevil reference ).

Advocate a better representation of female according to whom? who makes one individuals opinion better than others, why their vision is the proper and not the others? were is the golden standard of how things should be?

I am not against variance and if some individual wants to make a company selling realistic non sexualised female miniatures more power to them, I am not fond of people demanding other expressions to stop because their vision is the only proper.

According to the people who write the criticism? If you are a creator and (accidentally) read something then you can think about it and decide what to do with it. It might influence you and you might change your opinion (or not). People complain about the design language of PP warjacks all the time (or that one warcaster with the ridiculous shoulder pads) yet nobody imagines that the art director or sculptors will read these threads or just blindly implement whatever critics say (or be forced to do that). What do people imagine could happen if somebody were to read an article about how some random person doesn't like how women are depicted in some miniature line? SJW is just a word, there are no real warriors involved, he same goes for Feminazi (no real SS involved).

If I write that I don't like Space Marine proportions, some of the exaggerations, and all the skulls people manage to comprehend that it's my opinion but if somebody says they don't like how women are depicted… I don't know what happens that makes this opinion so controversial and why do people assume there is some sort of top down SJW design dictatorship that needs to be followed.

Mario wrote:
If I write that I don't like Space Marine proportions, some of the exaggerations, and all the skulls people manage to comprehend that it's my opinion but if somebody says they don't like how women are depicted…

Mario wrote:
Next time when you read an article that says "I want more female miniatures that actually wear armour" just imagine it phrased as a personal opinion instead of as a binding contract with the devil.

I only share a fraction of my work online, and yet I have had people express their concerns at polycount and here at deviantart via PM about it, I've had people tell me I objectify women, I've had people tell me I'm a pervert who likes to jack off to my own art, I've had people call me disgusting, revolting, I've had people say that I should be banned from entering comps if I make females, the list really goes on and on. Working on RIFT I even had people tell me I should be shot.

Mario wrote:
If I said I prefer less exaggerated miniatures people would say they like them bigger because of battlefield visibility or something and not get out the calculator and start playing armchair MBA. And if women are not discouraged by all the male miniatures why should men be discouraged by a few more reasonably clothed female miniatures. They would be essentially interchangeable with their male counterparts. Shouldn't the demand be the same? And if sexy miniatures sell to well why aren't all the male miniatures also sexualized? Wouldn't that mean more sales and better ROI?

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
So for you witches are reasonably dressed and not sexualised?

Edit
because if that is the case KDM does a great job at it too.

 Korraz wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:


This, this right here is yet another reason why the complaint goes nowhere: here we have Mario holding up as ideal the exact thing that others are decrying as what they don't want. Korraz above mentions "organizing people into a single voice that's actually heard", the problem with this being that there is a group of people that all agree on step 1 ('there is something rotten in the state of female miniatures'), but when it actually comes to step 2, listenening to what people want... everyone has not just different opinions, but contradictory opinions.

I can't say how many times I've seen people lament the lack of plastic Adeptus Sororitas, and I also can't say how many times I've seen people lament that the 'female faction' in 40k is Space Nuns in Power Corsets. If GW wasn't so completely estranged from the internet, I would suspect they haven't done anything with Sororitas because they think the backlash against them would be more trouble then the line is worth. But GW seems to think the internet stopped in '97, so that's probably not it.

This is certainly a good point. It's not always easy to find lots of like-minded people to unite behind your cause and sometimes you have to face the truth that there simply aren't enough potential customers to get a company to listen to you. Still, If you really care about something it's always worth a try.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
However, here on Dakka, we have, as far as I know, literally no women that came here to say how she likes her female models to always be sexualized. We however had a bunch tell us that they don't like it. So, how do we explain the disparity?

I think the easiest way to explain the disparity is that the women who like their sexualised models aren't on Dakka complaining about it because they're happily sitting at their painting desks and gaming tables painting and playing with their sexualised female miniatures.

Also, to be realistic here, how many females are here actually posting about how they don't like sexualised models? It's hard to say because I don't know who is and who isn't female, but from my observation it can't be more than a handful. It's hard to make any statistically significant observation from such a small sample size. As wargamers we should know that just because you happen to roll 5 D6 and they all come up as either 5's or 6's doesn't mean a dice can only roll a 5+, it just means you didn't roll it enough times to represent the actual statistical averages.

 Lovejoy wrote:

Spoiler:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
....By way of comparison, the total number of backers for Heroines in Sensible Shoes was 1,030 backers and approximately $50k. Let's be generous and set the proportion of female backers at 50%, so 515 backers contributing $25k. 20% would mean about 200 backers for $10k, 10% correspondingly 100 backers and $5k......

First, even assuming a very lopsided gender split of 80-90% male among the KD/TGG crowd and a very generous split otherwise, there are likely as many women pledging for KD/TGG miniatures as there are for the 'Sensible' female miniatures. This is, in no small part, owed to the much greater size of these campaigns. .....

Second, the amount of spending per backer. It's telling that even though Sensible Shoes had a very respectable number of backers (over 1000 backers total), there is a huge disparity between the per backer spending on that project versus KD/TGG projects. Sensible Shoes averaged about $50 per backer, in contrast KD averaged about $400 per backer, TGG about $250.

Again, we go back to what Dark Severance and I have been saying: it's not about being against diversity, we're both very much for it, but we also live in reality, and not everyone is willing to pay the same for what they want. If Sensible Shoes (and this is no critique of them) had made the kind of money either TGG or KD had made, they would have been well into the range where HIPS would be possible. But they didn't... because the market simply won't support it.

I guess I ought to weigh in on this, seeing as I'm (the male) half of Oathsworn, so have the info on our Sensible Shoes campaign...
You assumed you were being generous setting the proportion of female backers at 50% - but actually you are on the low side. Based on the numbers of backers who have identified as female, or have explicitly said the minis are being bought for a wife/girlfriend/sister, we have around a 65% female demographic for this project.
Obviously I can't comment on KD/TGG male vs female backer numbers, because I have no info on them.
But in terms of amounts pledged, naturally there will be a disparity - KD was a large boxed game project, with lots of elements that you could pledge extra for. TGG was for armies of miniatures. We were only offering 11 minis. While as you pointed out, we averaged $50 per backer, our top pledge level was $50; so the fact that we averaged that is actually a good thing.

As for HIPS, regardless of how much funding we'd received, we wouldn't have gone that route. I just really like single piece metal minis!

In terms of the bigger discussion, I think the reason there are smaller numbers of women in wargaming is less due to the style of the miniatures, and more down to the head-to-head competitive nature of it. Two player games with a definite winner/loser suit the male psyche. Women tend to prefer team games, co-operative games, and more social games generally. The male to female ratios in boardgaming and RPGs are far more evenly split than for tabletop wargaming and two-players CCGs. Naturally this is a gross generalization, and we all know exceptions to it. But I personally think it is broadly correct.

cheers,
Michael

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
in any case, Wyches have indeed pretty equal clothing that does not make them a better representation of females on the tabletop

Sure does when combined with Kabbalites.

Whatever you may or may do with kitbashing is irrelevant in my book.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Sisters may be armoured but are a fetish in miniature form

You misspelled Slaanesh .

No, I have not.

 Dark Severance wrote:

pgmason wrote:
I think he meant that if you take the Dark eldar range as a whole - wyches and kabalites combined - males and females are treated equally.

Warriors wear similar armour regardless of sex, while Wyches, who are gladiators rather than soldiers, wear similarly skimpy costumes regardless of sex.

Doesn't that have more to do with the lore/history of that faction vs representation?

 Korraz wrote:

 Dark Severance wrote:


A certain game company could also easily say "women and men" do serve in those units, they are however indistinguishable from each other especially since they all wear helmets. The only way to show they were different would be to do a unhelmeted head swap and put a female head on them (which is suggested and people do). There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It satisfies both discussions. It is realistic because in soldiers, you wouldn't want people to distinguish men and women from each other for various reasons. You also want the army unit to function without any boundaries or lines, hence most are helmeted soldiers that are the bread and butter... they are all the same, simply soldiers, not women, not men but soldiers. Current lore and everything could still fit in without rebooting.

However once we got to head swaps. Then it became, well why can't we do more. That isn't enough, now we have to have a realistic female (despite that two armored units indistinguishable would be realistic) alternate sculpt. They want something that they can identify with, that isn't 'manlike' in nature.

I'm not entirely sure how this is a bad thing, though. Considering that, well, the Imperial Guard is in fact mixed gender. I don't think anyone is arguing that Space Marines should be mixed, or that there absolutely can not be any male (or female!) only units. Actually having variety in units that are, by lore, mixed though would be pretty great.
I'm also 100% with Hybrid here. Wyches are fine because both are treated equally. It's only bs if only the female combatants are required to wear high heels (or the guys have to go as chippendale mock-ups.) Yes, Elves are androgynous, that makes it easier, but you need to sculpt the bodies either way, so why not have a 3/7, 4/6 or 5/5 split in IG boxes? It's not like the current Cadians and Catachans aren't horrendous anyway. I mean, honestly, they don't look suited for human beings of either gender right now.

 Dark Severance wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I am not fooling myself though, there are still going to be a very few people that will be extremely pissed by the change. I just don't really care about them, and I don't think they matter financially in the long term. Too few in numbers, too angry about any change, and also usually will throw a big fit but keep playing, and after a while will get used to the new version of things and will throw a fit if it is changed back.

I don't understand how discussions like this eventually end up with what I highlighted. It is exactly what the usual sides on both sides of the fence will say. They don't care what the other person thinks, they don't think they financially matter in the long term... yet for whatever reasons "their" PoV/Opinion is what is supposed to matter and override the others.

Honestly until a third party source actually does the market research and partial development, no one will really know the answer to those statements on which side is bigger and matters more. And I don't simply mean a small sample by surveying local game stores or even a region, but I mean a larger case study with viable examples of what something is trying to introduce. Otherwise it evolves into the category of Side A says vs Side B says with no eventual change (at least from the companies they would like to see change).

 Dark Severance wrote:
...

 Desubot wrote:
Wait is that dark elf walking around in crab claws?

They definitely look like them. Although after watching a couple concerts over the weekend, being amazed how well some of the stage dancers moved with thigh high boot stilettos was pretty cool. I can't imagine someone wearing those long term for a battle though.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
If the the slave handler was a female would have been ok?

Spoiler:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
the dog was an icon plain and simple

Too bad it wasn't a profitable one. Taco Bell's purpose is to make money, not to preserve marketing campaigns you consider "iconic".

And again, this just goes back to the real fears here: you're afraid that people who want to buy sexy miniatures are a small and powerless market, so any criticism of sexy miniatures needs to be silenced. The threat is not that someone is going to step in and ban sexy miniatures, it's that the people making them are going to voluntarily decide "this isn't making enough money anymore" and move on to more profitable product lines. And you're terrified that if the current companies producing sexy miniatures do drop those product lines you aren't a profitable enough market for new companies to start producing their own sexy miniatures.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
there is a possibility a product be successful but be canceled because of a minority of extremely loudmouthed minority abusing the normal democratic means to enforce their opinion on others.

This is not realistic to happen in the wargame industry at this point, but could happen if it gets more successful the boardgame industry is on the verge of getting the mass to draw attention and the industry that is huge enouph to be a close example is the computer games industry were they have a constant battle against media and people getting offence.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
This was mentioned a bit ago and I think it merits an answer, as Peregrine's hypothesis is very nearly the exact opposite of what my research into the market of miniatures reveals.

Put simply, the facts I have available to me indicate that the market for 'sexy' miniatures is vastly larger than the market for 'sensible' miniatures (vastly as in perhaps an order-of-magnitude larger). This is my evaluation based on Kickstarter performances and the oft quoted point by Bryan from Reaper about the relative sales of clothed versus unclothed versions of the same miniature.

Then what exactly are you so afraid of? If sexy miniatures are an order of magnitude more profitable than other miniatures then no sane miniatures company is going to stop making them, no matter how many complaints they get. Because, in the end, the goal of a successful company is to make money.

Of course, what I suspect is really the case, is that you aren't all that confident in your "market research". No matter how confidently you state that sexy miniatures sell an order of magnitude better you're afraid that it isn't true, that sexy miniatures are a marginal product line and if the manufacturers get too many complaints they'll dump those product lines in favor of something less controversial. And that, because sexy miniatures don't make much money, no new company is going to replace them. So we get lots of outrage over "SJW censorship", because you're afraid that the "SJWs" have more influence than you.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Buzzsaw, as a fellow Jew, I wonder how you would feel about someone producing miniatures of Jewish concentration camp victims in the selection process. I know you don't think miniatures can be bigoted or reflect harmful ideas on the part of their creators or purchasers. However, I am curious if would you feel the need to tell them your level, composed rendition of "not cool bro"? Or would you just say nothing at all?

Personally, I've always seen the squeaky wheel get the grease, and I belong to the Mel Brooks school of thought, where if you cannot defeat a harmful idea, at least you can mock it until everyone sees it as ridiculous. So, yes, I complain a lot about miniatures I don't like. Sometimes companies even listen and make changes. More often, they do not. That's okay. People can make and buy what they want, and I can think what I want about them. And we can all have a conversation about it. That isn't censorship. That's social discourse. These days, it isn't as pleasant as it used to be.

I'm not trying to shut down GoA. I do however want them to realize that some of their decisions can drive away customers and negatively impact their brand. I doubt they care. they could probably release an entire sex- trafficking faction, and their ridiculous prices would still be the biggest threat to their business.

 =Angel= wrote:

Spoiler:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

So, if I get it right, the terrible, terrible damage done by SJW which justify considering them a very, very real threat that needs to be dealt with is that… some students were protesting against three donkey-caves giving speeches at their university?

(hilariously, quoting you allows me to see what you wrote and Dakka Dakka filtered to 'donkey caves')

Donkey caves?
Foreigners?
Gays?
Mormons?
Jews?
People with different opinions?

It doesn't matter who is giving a speech and whether you have 'opinions' about them. The point of free speech and indeed, organised events is that they are allowed to occur- but you may hold your own speeches and refute their points.
What is happening here instead is a kind of bullying people into silence. Attempting to drown out or intimidate people into submission.
Milo, quite cleverly, allows even his detractors to ask questions at these events- so he can expose their lunacy and refute their arguments.
Without fail, most of the questions will be 'don't you find it hypocritical/problematic that...' - leading questions of the 'how often do you beat your wife?' variety.
Without fail, their concerns can be addressed with facts and logic.

I am pretty sure mentioning “the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in comic books” is exactly what you needed to do to make your concern irrelevant to people that are not into your very specific, very tiny political cult. I mean, “the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in comic books” is not a problem for most people. They are happy enough with comics, and enjoy some of them but not all yet are fine with the idea that not all comics have to be written for them specifically. There is plenty of violence and plenty of sex (and plenty of cheap titillation masquerading as sexy too) to be found.

That's the thing about subjectivity. Perhaps some people have enjoyed the anvilicious, heavy handed rhetoric that slaps you inthe face when you open a Wonder Woman comic these days.

Like Wondy allowing a defenceless man who is bound and at her mercy to be assaulted. And saying 'mansplaining'

It's not been well received by everyone .

Spoiler: