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.

Oh, for crying out loud, NOT THIS THREAD AGAIN.

Deeming an entire box of Wracks to be unacceptable because of a pinhead sized bubble in one weapon is quite frankly absurd. Miniatures aren't going to be perfect. My metal Venomthrope's vents didn't fit exactly flush, but I didn't judge the model to be unacceptable as a result. I just gave it a coat of Liquid Green Stuff and it was fine. Heck, some of the imperfections that people claim makes a whole Finecast model
or box unacceptable are easier to fix than everyday mold lines. And people don't bitch and whine all day long about those.

It doesn't help that many of the moderators here are anti-Finecast or anti-GW.

Necroshea wrote:Lol, so in other words at the end the guy is saying "Yeah some bubbles show up but that's not a big deal. Just buy our overpriced liquid putty and fix it yourself"

This.

So they raise prices on failcost. Then they expect customers to pay even more to fix their own manufacturing deficiencies...

Dear GW,

Die in a fire.

KTHNXBUHBAI

Sincerely,
A former fanboi who wised up years ago.

Chowderhead wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:I undstand this was posted by a mod but doesn't this really belong in one of the ongoing threads about the failure(s) of fine cast? Do we really need another thread about this?

This is not a hate thread. This is someone posting GW's comments and putting them up to review.

So far, it's been "This is the SOP for companies, nothing new."

Well I gave it 2 pages and I stand by my previous assertion that this didn't need it's own thread. I respect your opinion Chowderhead but this is just a slightly more mundane version of the other thread, with only a slightly different main topic.

Someone will eventually say it, so it might as well be me this time.

Most people aren't just complaining about flaws in Finecast models. They are complaining about those flaws because of three related facts.

GW chose to go to a new material which is apparently much cheaper for them.

GW released models in that material, not at a lower price, but at the same, or often, significantly higher prices.

GW chose to market those products as "Finecast", calling them the highest quality miniatures on the market.



And then, people bought them and found flaws. I'm sure some people would complain if ANY model had flaws, but I'll wager my entire backlog of unpainted minis that if GW had said:

Hey, the price for our materials has been going up, so rather than increase the cost, we've decided to produce models in a different, less expensive material. This will enable us to keep our prices flat for you. We hope that you will try out these new miniatures, and, as always, if you receive a faulty model, either metal or resin, contact us for assistance. We will always stand by out product.

much less people would have been irate.

If GW had said:

Hey, here's a new material we are using. Honestly, it's a little more fragile and prone to casting defects than our old white metal castings were. However, we can sell it to you for 20% less than those models. We hope you find the savings are worth the little added hassle of the occasional bubble or flash. As always, we stand behind our product, and if you are unsatisfied with a purchase, please contact GW for a return or exchange.

I think you would have seen less complaining.

The key elements here are:

Lower Apparent Quality + Higher Apparent Profit + Corporate Insistence on Higher Actual Quality = Nerd Rage

It takes all three to really kick us up from normal moaning and whining to full-throated indignation.

Squigsquasher wrote:Oh, for crying out loud, NOT THIS THREAD AGAIN.

Deeming an entire box of Wracks to be unacceptable because of a pinhead sized bubble in one weapon is quite frankly absurd. Miniatures aren't going to be perfect. My metal Venomthrope's vents didn't fit exactly flush, but I didn't judge the model to be unacceptable as a result. I just gave it a coat of Liquid Green Stuff and it was fine. Heck, some of the imperfections that people claim makes a whole Finecast model
or box unacceptable are easier to fix than everyday mold lines. And people don't bitch and whine all day long about those.

It doesn't help that many of the moderators here are anti-Finecast or anti-GW.

lol. I don't think they are all anti-gw, especially Yakface and Janthkin but this made me laugh when you consider the thread was started by a mod and a lot of the first posters in the thread were mods. Don't think you're necessarily right but still funny.

Oh dear. You used the phrase Failcost, which is neither funny nor clever.

Finecost is funny. Failcast is less funny. Failcost isn't funny at all. You're overdoing it.

Besides, telling GW to die in fire isn't going to help. And if you're giving up on GW, fine, go play Boremachine with its stupid looking, misproportioned, poorly detailed models.

Squigsquasher wrote:Oh, for crying out loud, NOT THIS THREAD AGAIN.

Deeming an entire box of Wracks to be unacceptable because of a pinhead sized bubble in one weapon is quite frankly absurd. Miniatures aren't going to be perfect. My metal Venomthrope's vents didn't fit exactly flush, but I didn't judge the model to be unacceptable as a result. I just gave it a coat of Liquid Green Stuff and it was fine. Heck, some of the imperfections that people claim makes a whole Finecast model
or box unacceptable are easier to fix than everyday mold lines. And people don't bitch and whine all day long about those.

It doesn't help that many of the moderators here are anti-Finecast or anti-GW.

Translation:


Come up with hard evidence to deny the myriad of pictures thrown around that show how bad their resin production is.

because telling people to shut up over a bubble in a box, is not only ridiculous hyperbole, but disingenuous to boot.

You want the regulars of this site who have put up with GW's shenanigans for YEARS to see it your way? Then provide evidence. "Put up or shut up" as the saying goes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Squigsquasher wrote:Oh dear. You used the phrase Failcost, which is neither funny nor clever.

Finecost is funny. Failcast is less funny. Failcost isn't funny at all. You're overdoing it.

Besides, telling GW to die in fire isn't going to help. And if you're giving up on GW, fine, go play Boremachine with its stupid looking, misproportioned, poorly detailed models.

Gawrsh mr.internet police, I am so sowwy for not pleasing you. Shall I just bend over backwards falling overmyself making sure you are delighted and serviced every second of the day. feth off troll.

Squigsquasher wrote:Oh dear. You used the phrase Failcost, which is neither funny nor clever.

Finecost is funny. Failcast is less funny. Failcost isn't funny at all. You're overdoing it.

I'm confused - I've reread all the posts since your last one (currently showing as first post on page 3), and the only person I can see referring to "Failcost" is yourself.

Squigsquasher wrote:Besides, telling GW to die in fire isn't going to help. And if you're giving up on GW, fine, go play Boremachine with its stupid looking, misproportioned, poorly detailed models.

While I agree that telling GW to die in a fire isn't going to help, I'm not sure that insulting Warmachine (and the miniature designers who work for Privateer Press) is the way to sway another poster's position.

Out of interest, have you ever played Warmachine or Hordes, before you label it as "Boremachine"? I'm also fairly sure that for every "criticism" (or, more accurately, insult) you just levelled against the Privateer Press miniature range, examples can be found amongst models currently available from GW that are as bad, if not worse.

Da Butcha wrote:Someone will eventually say it, so it might as well be me this time.

Most people aren't just complaining about flaws in Finecast models. They are complaining about those flaws because of three related facts.

GW chose to go to a new material which is apparently much cheaper for them.

GW released models in that material, not at a lower price, but at the same, or often, significantly higher prices.

GW chose to market those products as "Finecast", calling them the highest quality miniatures on the market.



And then, people bought them and found flaws. I'm sure some people would complain if ANY model had flaws, but I'll wager my entire backlog of unpainted minis that if GW had said:

Hey, the price for our materials has been going up, so rather than increase the cost, we've decided to produce models in a different, less expensive material. This will enable us to keep our prices flat for you. We hope that you will try out these new miniatures, and, as always, if you receive a faulty model, either metal or resin, contact us for assistance. We will always stand by out product.

much less people would have been irate.

If GW had said:

Hey, here's a new material we are using. Honestly, it's a little more fragile and prone to casting defects than our old white metal castings were. However, we can sell it to you for 20% less than those models. We hope you find the savings are worth the little added hassle of the occasional bubble or flash. As always, we stand behind our product, and if you are unsatisfied with a purchase, please contact GW for a return or exchange.

I think you would have seen less complaining.

The key elements here are:

Lower Apparent Quality + Higher Apparent Profit + Corporate Insistence on Higher Actual Quality = Nerd Rage

It takes all three to really kick us up from normal moaning and whining to full-throated indignation.

Quoted for immense amounts of truth.

I came to this thread thinking that GW owned up to their mistakes and was addressing them in a non patronizing fashion. Instead it is just more of the same.

Even now, if they owned up to it and were earnest about their failings, I could at least give them the benefit of the doubt. But... the hubris they display is awe inspiring.

Almost as awe inspiring as those who defend GW patronizing remarks and poor product quality having the huevos to become appalled that people take umbrage against such patronizing remarks that GW make.

To expect reactions of anything less than "You have GOT to be kidding me" to GW's official response from the masses is ridiculous.

So...because I happen not to agree with your ludicrous viewpoint that EVERY MODEL MUST BE ABSOLUTELY PERFECT!!!11!1!1ONE!!1! I'm a troll? Pathetic.

Every Finecast model I've ever come across has been fine, and most of the examples peoppe put across are really not that bad. They are certainly nothing that can't be fixed with minimal effort. Granted, there have been some atrocious miscasts, and I think they should try to improve the quality a bit, but even the worst miscast I've personally come across was so minor as to be not worth making a fuss about. Besides, I have a theory that a lot of the "solid evidence for Finecast being rubbish" is actually people working for other companies deliberately buying rejected models or even damaging perfectly good models, and then posting the "evidence" and crying "OMG FINECAST IS RUBBISH LOOK AT THE MISCAST BUY THIS STUFF INSTEAD ITS THE EPICNESS!!!11!!!!!!!11ONE!!!!!!!1ONE". So, I have yet to see solid evidence for the "unacceptabilty" of Finecast, only that people have stupid standards.

And would YOU like to try assembling a Mangler Squig if it had been made of metal? There is no denying that Finecast does have advantages over metal, like ease of assembly and conversion.

And how am I an Internet Policeman? I was simply making you aware that the phrase "Failcost" was rather unfunny. That's all.

Silly boy (or girl).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And Dystartes, the comment was on page 2.

The funny thing is that every statement made by the GW employee in the original post is unambiguously correct, but that still doesn't stop the haters. Whether or not you think Finecast is an improvement in quality or not, it is incontrovertibly true that, relative to metal, detail is more visible on an unpainted Finecast model, Finecast models weigh less, and Finecast models are substantially easier to convert.

Personally, I prefer the amount of work entailed with finishing a Finecast model to the amount of work entailed with finishing a metal model. A lot of people don't seem to see it that way, which is fine-- to each their own-- but to frame it as some kind of big swindle or as a marked drop in quality is really deceptive.

Someone earlier also mentioned the confirmation bias. As someone with a fair amount of knowledge on that phenomenon, I can say it's not really at work here. What might be more appropriate is the availability heuristic-- the mental rule by which one judges events or situations based on what sort of examples come most readily to mind. With Finecast, lots of Internet people have complaints and issues and have posted about them, so your average forumite will be quick to think of complaints when they think of Finecast.

By comparison, the real life scuttlebutt in the shops and clubs that I've been to is much more positive. Thus, people who primarily interact with other gamers in that setting are much more likely to have positive impressions of Finecast, as the examples that come most readily to mind are going to be cool conversions by buddies rather than Internet hate threads. This is what I refer to when I say that Finecast hate is primarily an Internet phenomenon.

reds8n wrote: .. has it really been 9 months already ? For one reason or another it seems longer.

It came out May 28th.

Its April 10th now.

Either Im stupid or GW cant count. 10.5 months

That is unless, he wrote what he was going to say 1.5 months ago and finally get to read the speech today.

Mr.Church13 wrote:90% of people who complain about Finecast have never purchased one model.

And where did you pull that figure from? Go on - I want to see the working behind it.

Zarren Wevon wrote:
You know I've always wondered whether or not GW is using stealth/viral marketing on certain forums around the web. Not saying this guy is one, but it seems like a good strategy for GW to employ, seeing as how their web presence involves very little interaction with the customer.

They for sure do, after all the new paint info pics came up there was dozens on here claiming they were all fake, photoshopped and stupid. Well turns out it was all real. It just makes me happy there are GW employees that arent sale bots and try and mess with the company from the inside.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Mr.Church13 wrote:90% of people who complain about Finecast have never purchased one model.

And where did you pull that figure from? Go on - I want to see the working behind it.

Same, the only other person I heard say that was wearing a black shirt, trying to sell me liquid greenstuff....

Squigsquasher wrote:Oh, for crying out loud, NOT THIS THREAD AGAIN.

Deeming an entire box of Wracks to be unacceptable because of a pinhead sized bubble in one weapon is quite frankly absurd.

Did I say that? No.

I said missing parts and weapons, or my spefically in my case giant airbubbles taking out elbows and facemasks or whole halves of bodies, If a single model is like that it deems a return of the entire box, or are you okay with buying this that arent complete?

@All:

"It's okay to not like things but don't be a dick about it" also applies to criticism of Finecast. Please try to be respectful of other people's opinions. Phrases like "failcrast" and "boremachine" really ought to be avoided by anyone who wants to have a discussion as opposed to just trolling.

Squigsquasher wrote:It doesn't help that many of the moderators here are anti-Finecast or anti-GW.

I was quite prepared to be all over Finecast when it was first announced. The idea of swapping metal for resin was an exciting one.

The actual reality... that GW released models in an inferior material and inferior quality to most other resin producers out there, while jacking up the prices and then claiming that the issues with the models are unavoidable (despite other resin manufacturers not having the same issues) and perfectly acceptable (because you can buy another GW product to fix them) make it rather difficult to take them seriously at this point.

Squigsquasher wrote:So...because I happen not to agree with your ludicrous viewpoint that EVERY MODEL MUST BE ABSOLUTELY PERFECT!!!11!1!1ONE!!1! I'm a troll? Pathetic.

Every Finecast model I've ever come across has been fine, and most of the examples peoppe put across are really not that bad. They are certainly nothing that can't be fixed with minimal effort. Granted, there have been some atrocious miscasts, and I think they should try to improve the quality a bit, but even the worst miscast I've personally come across was so minor as to be not worth making a fuss about. Besides, I have a theory that a lot of the "solid evidence for Finecast being rubbish" is actually people working for other companies deliberately buying rejected models or even damaging perfectly good models, and then posting the "evidence" and crying "OMG FINECAST IS RUBBISH LOOK AT THE MISCAST BUY THIS STUFF INSTEAD ITS THE EPICNESS!!!11!!!!!!!11ONE!!!!!!!1ONE". So, I have yet to see solid evidence for the "unacceptabilty" of Finecast, only that people have stupid standards.
.

I have to say Squigsquasher, even in light of your previous posts concerning Finecast, this is by far your best sequence of comments.

I was tempted to split it into smaller blocks of quotation, but it would provide a disservice, and perhaps deny people the pleasure of reading it once more in it's pure, unadulterated glory.

insaniak wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:It doesn't help that many of the moderators here are anti-Finecast or anti-GW.

I was quite prepared to be all over Finecast when it was first announced. The idea of swapping metal for resin was an exciting one.

The actual reality... that GW released models in an inferior material and inferior quality to most other resin producers out there, while jacking up the prices and then claiming that the issues with the models are unavoidable (despite other resin manufacturers not having the same issues) and perfectly acceptable (because you can buy another GW product to fix them) make it rather difficult to take them seriously at this point.

Exactly. I am absolutely not anti-finecast. I am however, pro reality.

And the reality is, that in my personal experience, I have had really lackluster finecast models. Not as advertised, not as good as metals IMHO.

As for the mods being anti-GW. We collectively own a pretty significant dollar value of their stuff, know the fluff back and forth and contribute to a website dominated by their products on a daily basis. There is a big difference between criticism aimed at improving something we love and just pooping on something no matter what it does.

I hope you will bear that in mind next time you make sweeping generalizations Squigsquasher.

insaniak wrote:

When you are casting resin, the process can involve air bubbles and things of that nature, ...

The process can, yes. And then your quality control kicks in, and you bin those models and just sell the good casts.

Selling them for premium prices and then expecting your customers to buy another product to fix miniatures that shouldn't need fixing in the first place?


Madness. Utter, utter madness.



Here's the thing, GW: Saying 'Resin can have air bubbles' is not an excuse for selling flawed product. Any casting medium has the potential for casting defects. If you can't figure out how to cast in that medium without flawed results you're doing it wrong.

Ian, have you ever bought a computer processor?

When they make them on a mold, they are not all equal - each processor can potentially be completely different to everyone else, yet they sell them under one name.

Its not that uncommon to sell flawed product and then put the onus on the user to fix it.

Scipio Africanus wrote:Ian, have you ever bought a computer processor?

When they make them on a mold, they are not all equal - each processor can potentially be completely different to everyone else, yet they sell them under one name.

They still have to fit into certain standards, though.

There is no industry standard for gauging acceptability of miniature casts. Just the one imposed by the company producing them and the people buying them. In this case, GW are promoting Finecast as the best quality miniatures on the market. That's a bold claim to make, and one that is guaranteed to get peoples' backs up if they can see for themselves that it simply isn't true.

Having the best quality miniatures isn't just down to having good sculptors. Your casting has to be good as well.

Its not that uncommon to sell flawed product and then put the onus on the user to fix it.

Can you name a few examples?

Because the only one that really springs to mind is computer software... and even then, it's not really up to the user to fix it. You don't have to write the code yourself, just install a patch provided (generally for free) by the developer.

GW are the only company I can think of that works on the premise that customers should pay them more money to fix something that wouldn't be broken in the first place if they took a little more care in their manufacturing process.

The last CPU I got had all sorts of problems. Luckily Intel put out their Liquid Silicone so I could fix the problems.

Oh wait that's stupid...

puma713 wrote:The reason that the pictures on the internet carry so much weight is because they're just that - hard evidence.

This response was over the top and rude. Reign it in, you could have made the exact same point without name-calling or generalizations. You have an opinion, express it as such and only as such. MT11

Kaldor wrote:

puma713 wrote:The reason that the pictures on the internet carry so much weight is because they're just that - hard evidence.

removed quote of rude post -.

Yep. To quote a famous poster in this very thread, pictures are not "solid evidence for the 'unacceptabilty' of Finecast". People who think otherwise "have stupid standards".

As it is written... So shall it be.

H.B.M.C. wrote:The last CPU I got had all sorts of problems. Luckily Intel put out their Liquid Silicone so I could fix the problems.

Oh wait that's stupid...

If GW stop giving new models to replace defects, this would work. As it is, defective CPUs getting replaced is the exact same policy as defective models getting replaced.

Also, defective CPUs happen all the time. It's just not as noticeable because you buy one for your PC, not dozens. CPUs also break and need replacing after installation and working initially. CPUs are also intentionally sold broken. Those triple core CPUs? They're usually quad core CPUs with a defective core. True, they're advertised as triple core, not quad core, CPUs. But there's nothing on the box telling you you're buying a broken quad core.

I find it interesting that nobody attacks metal models for requiring pinning and drilling, but many attack Finecast models for requiring gap filling-- which many metal models also require. In my experience as a hobbyist, gap filling is far less time consuming than pinning and drilling. It's a different type of prep work, and the Internet fears change, but I don't really see it as fundamentally different or in some way offensive to me as a consumer. After all, new materials merit the use of new tools and techniques.

Kaldor wrote:

puma713 wrote:The reason that the pictures on the internet carry so much weight is because they're just that - hard evidence.

Pictures on the internet only carry weight with morons.

You better let all those internet resellers that rely on pictures (and their corresponding review, since that is what we're talking about) know this. You're suggesting that a review without a picture carries as much weight as a review with pictures? You're probably right - that's why eBay auctions sell so much better without pictures.

Kaldor wrote:And they only carry weight with morons because only an idiot would see any number of pictures and assume anything about over-all quality.

Interesting point. Too bad it completely missed the actual discussion - you do realize most of these pictures come with a review attached explaining the pictures, right? It's not like the Golden Daemon winner simply posted pictures and I drew my conclusions about the quality of Finecast from them. I had a handy-dandy review to go along with them. It is the people defending Finecast that are simply talking heads without any sort of evidence to show anyone.

Unless what you're suggesting is that people are going out of their way to manipulate pictures of Finecast models to smear Games Workshop for some reason. On a massive scale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fetterkey wrote:I find it interesting that nobody attacks metal models for requiring pinning and drilling

I've been playing since 2nd Ed. and have never had to pin or drill a metal model. I've owned Bloodthirsters, Lords of Change, Hive Tyrants, you name it. I've never had any of them fall apart and I've been smart enough not to punt them across the game store. Not only that, but there is a vast difference between pinning/drilling and repairing a model. They are not the same thing and should not be equated.

puma713 wrote:Interesting point. Too bad it completely missed the actual discussion - you do realize most of these pictures come with a review attached explaining the pictures, right?

That wasn't his point. His point was about overall quality. The same dozen pictures popping up in the same repeated threads doesn't give an overall picture of the hundreds of thousands of models sold.

Alright guys, this is rapidly going the way of all Finecast threads, pro and anti camps entrenching their positions.

If you are happy with Finecast, good on you, no one should begrudge you being satisfied, there is no need to make a problem where there isn't one. For you.

Likewise if someone has concerns about Finecast I think it is pretty fair to say it isn't pure hypochondria either. There are some issues.

The only question is where your tolerance lies.

Either way, there is no need to start attacking each other over it. Agreement on this subject in pretty unlikely, but that is no reason not to have some tolerance. Come on guys we can do better -

Fetterkey wrote:I find it interesting that nobody attacks metal models for requiring pinning and drilling, but many attack Finecast models for requiring gap filling-- which many metal models also require.

Don’t be so brazenly disingenuous. You know damn well it’s not just ‘gap filling’. It’s miscasts, mould slippage and actual missing detail (fingers missing, actual miscasts). Not just bubbles.

It’s quite far removed from having to fill a gap with greenstuff or pinning a metal model (which I’ve done all of once since the start of 2nd Ed).

-Loki- wrote:

puma713 wrote:Interesting point. Too bad it completely missed the actual discussion - you do realize most of these pictures come with a review attached explaining the pictures, right?

That wasn't his point. His point was about overall quality. The same dozen pictures popping up in the same repeated threads doesn't give an overall picture of the hundreds of thousands of models sold.

They do a better job than the lack of evidence supporting the opposing viewpoint. That was my point. What you're saying is, "Assume that most are good, despite the fact that almost all reviews are negative."

Then you might continue with, "But all reviews aren't negative, see these threads. . "

To which we come back to the original point - anecdotal evidence is worthless and pictures are worth a thousand words.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that there are plenty of people who are having negative experiences that aren't posting as well, as if the only people posting negative reviews must by the only ones getting poor-quality products. What I'm saying is I am sure there are people that get decent casts - but where are they? There have been numerous threads on this topic, why hasn't one gleaming, flawless example reared its head?

Someone tried once, in one thread, but the piece he pictured was incredibly flawed and, when pointed out, the poster got defensive and said that we were being too nitpickey. I apologize if I want my $33 figure to have its fingers.