Switch Theme:

Product design masterclass - how to annoy customers  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





Germany

I guess some of these might have popped up in conversations over here, but I reckoned, it might be a worthwile topic for a consolidated discussion.

I've found the time to work on GW miniatures again after spending time with other models and I noticed quite the nasty trend. "New" models - the earliest kit I am aware of are the Flash Gitz - are designed - as in sprue design - in a way to harm the profits of other companies, recasters as well as 3rd party bit-makers. Let me elaborate:
Earlier kits usually had a "legs"-part and an upper body part and arms and heads. This made for simpler molds, as these are somewhat simple shapes and it made kitbashing possible, since you could just, say, glue the arms frome one kit onto the body of another. What I see now - for example, the necromunda models, but pretty much everything else I've seen from GW in a while - are some fubar cad-designed cuts where you have the torso integrated with one full leg, one leg down to the knee and only a part of the back. Then you have one arm with the back part, another that has some missing part of the hip and a lower ankle, plus - in some cases multipart - head. This makes it absolute hell to recast the bits and also prevents the use of third party bits, since some "non-guardsman arm with custom not-lasgun" wont complete the model, as it will still lack a part of its torso. So you either can't use 3rd-party-bits, or you need to be the greatmaster of all greenstuff to fill in the missing body parts.
While preventing recasts might be considered a legitimate reason, making kitbashes or the use of other bits is not. And still having teeny-tiny fiddly bits like weapon arms in two parts when it could obviously have been cast as a single piece (more complex parts can be seen on the same damn sprue) is just needlessly angering your customers. This isn't a 1000+ parts scale model where you assemble each wheel from 20 parts, the model is still made of 4-6 fragments. Cutting it into parts that require precision gluing without any guide notches or nubs is just a way to say "eh, we couldn't give a damn". And having your attatchment points to the sprue on visible parts of the model - instead of, say, under the heels or in the joints, areas usually covered by other parts when assebled - is just unexplainable in this day and age. It's certainly not due to some mould design constraints, I've seen parts where the sprue designer went out of his way to attatch the model at some visible part instad of using the many nearby areas that would have allowed for a better connection to the sprue.

Another grievance I found with GW's product design are the paint pots. I guess everyone had one (if not several) of them closed not 100% perfect after use. This of course makes the paint dry out faster. When you shake the bottle before the next use, some of the paint will get into the lid, where it will dry, making closing said lid even more difficult, making your paint dry out faster again, forcing you to buy more paint. Something, that just does not happen with dropper bottles or with screwed on lids or even damn snapcaps if they were differently designed. I have a 20 mL labratory-type glas snapcap vial that contains acrylic paint. For over 5 years now. And it still didn't even begin to dry out.

So, all in all, this makes me feel like the designers are more interested in preventing you from using some non-GW custom bits or milking 3$ more for the odd paint pot than actually making a high-quality product.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/12/01 22:21:42


Waaagh an' a 'alf
1500 Pts WIP 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Counter point: GW is not obligated to invest effort into making their products compatible with third party stuff, and those "weird" cut patterns have a functional purpose.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





Germany

 Peregrine wrote:
Counter point: GW is not obligated to invest effort into making their products compatible with third party stuff, and those "weird" cut patterns have a functional purpose.


Which functional purpose would that be, aside from making the model monopose with very limited customization options?

Waaagh an' a 'alf
1500 Pts WIP 
   
Made in us
Wing Commander





McAllen, TX

You know recasters just cast the whole sprue that GW makes or combine parts themselves and then cast them together, what you're talking about is new GW kits being not compatible with most 3rd party bits.

As far as the new pots are concerned, my only gripe is with the new taller wash pots, they are more prone to tip over and spill all of its contents. In order to keep the pots from drying out, simply add some drops of acrylic medium/metallic medium and some bottled water/distilled water.
   
Made in de
Primus





Rhein Main Gebiet

I reckon the weirdo bits are more to do with posing and hiding seam lines than restricting kit bashability. If you only want hair that flows to the side then 1 piece heads are all you will ever need.

I also have the problem of paint getting into the lid with all my paints regardless of manufacturer (except maybe Tamiya), but i find dropper bottle are the worst for drying out at the tip them exploding out of the nozzle.

"What do you want?"
"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I'd look up at your lifeless eyes and wave like this. Can you and your associates arrange it for me, Mr. Morden?"
Morden and Vir, In the Shadow of Z'ha'dum 
   
Made in ca
Trustworthy Shas'vre






 Kosake wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Counter point: GW is not obligated to invest effort into making their products compatible with third party stuff, and those "weird" cut patterns have a functional purpose.


Which functional purpose would that be, aside from making the model monopose with very limited customization options?


More dynamic sculpting is possible. Contrast a box of Devastators vs a box of Hellblasters.

It's a trade-off - less customization/poses for more interesting poses.

   
Made in us
Androgynous Daemon Prince of Slaanesh





Devon, UK

preventing recasts


The most effective thing in their design that's doing this is the increasing use of swirly gak™.

Anything in plastic that's long and spindly is generally ok, transition that to a resin recast and it'll be in bits in seconds. The new Lord Of Change isn't in one recaster's catalogue explicitly because there's too many thin pieces to make it viable to recast and it would make a poor model even if they went to the effort.

But ultimately the thing they've done to most effectively combat recasts is improve their value proposition. To illustrate how far things have changed (although in part because of wider political and subsequent currency changes) in the last few years, I can now buy the Titanicus Christmas set for less money from Dark Sphere delivered than I can from any recaster whose catalogue I have access to that is selling them before fees and shipping.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/01 22:46:33


We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark

The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox

Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





Germany

 Big Mac wrote:
You know recasters just cast the whole sprue that GW makes or combine parts themselves and then cast them together, what you're talking about is new GW kits being not compatible with most 3rd party bits.

As far as the new pots are concerned, my only gripe is with the new taller wash pots, they are more prone to tip over and spill all of its contents. In order to keep the pots from drying out, simply add some drops of acrylic medium/metallic medium and some bottled water/distilled water.


I have serious doubts that you can cast a sprue that is optimized for industrial injection moulding of polystyrene in a silicon mold with resin. But as I said, that is the least of my worries.

 John Prins wrote:
 Kosake wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Counter point: GW is not obligated to invest effort into making their products compatible with third party stuff, and those "weird" cut patterns have a functional purpose.


Which functional purpose would that be, aside from making the model monopose with very limited customization options?


More dynamic sculpting is possible. Contrast a box of Devastators vs a box of Hellblasters.

It's a trade-off - less customization/poses for more interesting poses.


I have to disagree. I have the Necromunda assebly sheet lying in front of me right now. Pretty much every model could have been made by having a "legs-hips"-part and a torso part, highly interchangeable and just as dynamic. I am very sceptical about this whole "you need monopose with weird cuts for dynamic models". Seeing the shapes of some of the pieces, there are definitely ways to cut the model into simpler parts. This monopose-no-customization is intentional.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/01 22:50:51


Waaagh an' a 'alf
1500 Pts WIP 
   
Made in us
Androgynous Daemon Prince of Slaanesh





Devon, UK

No, that's what they do. Or assemble the bits into larger, easier to recast pieces, or cut the sprue for the same reasons.

I'm sat not more than a few feet from a box with many examples of this.

We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark

The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox

Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





Germany

 StygianBeach wrote:
I reckon the weirdo bits are more to do with posing and hiding seam lines than restricting kit bashability. If you only want hair that flows to the side then 1 piece heads are all you will ever need.

I also have the problem of paint getting into the lid with all my paints regardless of manufacturer (except maybe Tamiya), but i find dropper bottle are the worst for drying out at the tip them exploding out of the nozzle.


Intricate hairdos I'll buy, but it's definitely not improving the seam line situation. The seams still go around the side of the model or lenghtwise along the arm, in plain view. While the weird cuts may hide it here or there, it's still prominently visible on large areas.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/01 22:57:39


Waaagh an' a 'alf
1500 Pts WIP 
   
Made in gb
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard







The new plastics look absolutely gorgeous. The old kits with the flat joint at the waist for example, yes you could have thetorso at any angle you liked, but in reality there is a limit to the angles you might want to use. While the new sculpts don't give infinite variation, the sculpted torsos and armourbplates now look so much cooler. Reavers for example with the torso electromuscle all bunched up as they turn. Brilliant. Also even with the older kits you needed to use GS anywhere you wanted to get properly kneeling models for example, so the newer kits don't actually need any higher degree of skill to get a unique pose, and for the vast majority of cases the stock poses look fantastic.

Van Saar for example.

This just needed a slightly altered leg angle.



And this one just needed a bit of leg jimmying to get a proper kneeling pose. No different to the requirements to get a kneeling marine, and with much better connectivity between groin and chest.


Please excuse any spelling errors. I use a tablet frequently and software keyboards are a pain!

Terranwing - w3;d1;l1
51st Dunedinw2;d0;l0
Cadre Coronal Afterglow w1;d0;l0 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





Germany

@ Flinty:
Yes, if you want to modify existing pieces, you'll probably always need GS. That's not what I mean. Look at the Chaos Cultists and Cawdor gangers. Both lines look similar enough that you could probably mix and match a lot of the models from one into the other. But due to both kits being monopose weird-cut assemblies, you can't just take the slugtosser from a cultist and put it on a ganger the same way as you could, say, put a spare rokkit launcher from a tankbusta kit onto a regular ork boy model.

Waaagh an' a 'alf
1500 Pts WIP 
   
Made in gb
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard







I don't know about cultists, but reivers seem to be relatively easy to rearm


Please excuse any spelling errors. I use a tablet frequently and software keyboards are a pain!

Terranwing - w3;d1;l1
51st Dunedinw2;d0;l0
Cadre Coronal Afterglow w1;d0;l0 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




UK

Some of the cuts allow for hiding mould lines more effectively; this isn't universal and some newer models are better than some others; whilst some still have horrible crimes of join lines (such as termagaunt heads and the arms on both Witch Aelves and Deamonettes).

That said its my observation that many of the much newer sculpts are indeed getting a much more seam hiding design.

A second reason is to get around the limits of what can and cannot be cast in a mould. Some of the odd cuts allow parts to join together so that they form a 3D shape that otherwise would be impossible, very hard or not as durable an area if cut another way and cast for moulding.


I very much doubt 3rd party parts are an issue. Esp these days as 3rd parties are more a threat to GW when they are making alternate models rather than upgrade parts. Upgrade parts don't harm GW that much because GW doesn't do a bits service (any more) and to upgrade a part you've already had to buy the GW model itself. So upgrading bits isn't something GW has to fear at all, if anything its a good thing for them.

No the 3rd party sculpts risk are companies like Raging Heroes who make entire alternate model lines inspired by and matching the GW listings. Those are where actual sales can be lost to an alternative sculpt because you don't need any part of the original model.



Honestly I think the odd cut patterns are to achieve unique and new results and partly a result of the fact that many models are now computer designed rather than hand crafted which might mean that the cutting points are made in the 3D software; allowing for more creative cut options than just at the shoulder/hip areas (many of the cuts now are too complex to be easily cut on a master by hand; whilst in the past many cut points were simple big chunky areas easily cut into like the middle of the torso and arms in sockets.


Also don't forget that the majority of gamers don't convert much. So monopose models work for them and if they look cool (and lets be honest some of the models such as mounted cavalry in AoS are looking outstanding - way beyond the stock horse of the past)

A Blog in Miniature - now featuring reviews of many new Black Library books (latest Novellas) 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Cutting stuff up and bunging it back together in new and interesting ways.






Under the couch

 Overread wrote:
Honestly I think the odd cut patterns are to achieve unique and new results and partly a result of the fact that many models are now computer designed rather than hand crafted which might mean that the cutting points are made in the 3D software; allowing for more creative cut options than just at the shoulder/hip areas (many of the cuts now are too complex to be easily cut on a master by hand; whilst in the past many cut points were simple big chunky areas easily cut into like the middle of the torso and arms in sockets.


Also don't forget that the majority of gamers don't convert much. So monopose models work for them and if they look cool (and lets be honest some of the models such as mounted cavalry in AoS are looking outstanding - way beyond the stock horse of the past)

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on it as well. GW's current direction is to produce plastics that are as detailed as possible, with conversion potential being a secondary consideration. They're clearly working on the assumption that their customers would generally prefer prettier, easier to assemble models rather than more generic, multi-pose models. Whether or not they're correct is anyone's guess, but so far it seems to be working for them.

   
Made in gb
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair





London

I don’t think it’s about frustrating third party companies but just their general trend towards mono-posed miniatures. Many have limited converting options beyond head swaps and weapons, because you can’t reposition bodies and legs when the sculpted clothing and shape is designed for only one position. The way they’ve cast them suits their construction.

The models look better overall, but have limited options for the modeller wanting their figures to look unique compared to others. They’ve been cutting down on the number of parts in sets for some years, just to appeal to a different audience I think. They’re simpler builds out the box and characterful/dynamic posed pieces, rather than offering creative modelling opportunities.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




UK

Lets also not forget that Necromunda allows for a lot of customising and that Adepticus Titanicus features a fully articulated set of legs for the Warlord titan.

So its not a one trick only thing with GW.


Also don't forget that GW models are one of the few where you get optional parts. I've a load of Warmachine models and not a SINGLE bit in the bits box from that. In contrast I've a draw full of spare Tyranid bits, many long before GW did duel plastic kits.

A Blog in Miniature - now featuring reviews of many new Black Library books (latest Novellas) 
   
Made in gb
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard







[user]I've had a bit of a look at the cultist and Cawdor models and I actually think that those specific sets are more limited than most due to the cowls they wear. The models are split in such a way as to have one piece shoulders and that has led to limitations in the model flexibility. In oth3r cases the model aesthetics don't have that constraint and therefore it easier to fiddle with the base model. I certainly wouldn't say that GW has entirely gone down the road of limited monopose only bas3d on the various evidence above.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/02 00:04:58


Please excuse any spelling errors. I use a tablet frequently and software keyboards are a pain!

Terranwing - w3;d1;l1
51st Dunedinw2;d0;l0
Cadre Coronal Afterglow w1;d0;l0 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






I'm definitely off-put by the over-detail and over-posing of most current GW miniatures. Some of the Blackstone Fortress minis are particularly bad.

Given the choice, I stick to older models where possible. At the end of the day, I want gaming pieces...not miniature boutique pieces of plastic finery.

 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






It seems to come down to less parts, more idiot-proof assembly, less seam lines, and a more consistently "flashy", "cool" end product for new, inexperienced customers. Customizability, posability, conversion-friendliness, and all of those qualities associated with experienced, hardcore tabletop modelers have all gone out the window in favor of maximum user friendliness for the newbie. Modern GW is all about streamlining for the most casual hobbyist above all else.

There will always be pros and cons when companies expand this way. Pros being that the playerbase grows, the company is more financially successful and is able to offer bigger and potentially better products. Cons being that the nature of those products will likely change to accommodate a brand new audience that may or may not care about what existing veteran fans care about.

GW is really just catching up to what the video game industry has perfected over the past decade or so. 3E to 8E is pretty much Diablo 2 to Diablo 3, or Counter-Strike to Fortnite.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/02 00:58:16


   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Which is logical, if veteran fans aren't generating income for the company. My main critique though - again let's use Blackstone Fortress as an example.

It's a push-fit boardgame...more or less. You need clippers to cut out the minis, but in theory a non-wargamer could easily buy this game to play it as you would a normal board game. However, the miniatures are stupidly thin-modeled and lots of breakages are being reported. These are not new-gamer friendly minis, other than being push-fit (you get a couple poses per model).

Many of these miniatures will not survive more than a handful of games before bits start breaking - and that's even if you use foam....god help a casual player who tosses them in the box after the game.

It's kind of the Forgeworld paradox coming to roost in normal GW. They seem obsessed with creating a miniature from a visionary piece of art - without considering the realities of the end user. Forgeworld is extremely well known for this - producing intricate and flimsy model pieces/equipment/etc. which is produced in resin, arguably the least robust gaming miniature material available. At some point, the designers of miniatures need to think about two things:

1) What material is this being produced in?
2) Will this survive actual handling during 5-10 years of gaming.

These questions seem to not be asked as of late. Now, a handful of brilliant painters may benefit from having an overly ornate and intricate miniature with which to compete for painting trophies...but at the end of the day the stuff needs to be user-friendly and aimed at the actual game itself.

 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






I've always assumed the move toward more spindly models and lack of concern for ultra durable designs was a calculated business decision to reduce resale value.

When I break a model my first reaction is generally to start shopping for a replacement, rather than blame the manufacturer for poor design. I think this is because I'm fully aware of how fragile the models are going into it and any breakage due to improper handling on my part is pretty undeniably user error that I could have prevented. I don't know how many others feels this way though.

That said, GW plastic is pretty damn good and I'm often surprised at how much of a beating even some of the spindly stuff can take. I've worked with a lot of fragile resin kits in the past and by comparison, the modern plastic kits are practically indestructible.


   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




The Blackstone fortress models are beautiful though, and the goons for the most part are fairly sturdy.

But I'd have not brought the game otherwise.

That said, I got into the hobby because we were looking for replacement pieces for the 1989 Dungeon! game...
   
Made in lt
Longtime Dakkanaut






I partially agree. The way they present those models on sprues is just horrible. I mean, two part MK3 backpack while MK4 is one full part? Why?

Regarding their paint bottles, just don't open them all the way up and leave them that way. It's a matter of opening them enough to scoop some paint and close them right away. I've never had a new GW pot dry out.

And the mold line hiding thing is pure heresy. IMO, mold lines should be clearly visible so you can clean them properly. Not some 0,1mm lines you know about only when you put some paint and they start casting shadow.




   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





 CragHack wrote:
I partially agree. The way they present those models on sprues is just horrible. I mean, two part MK3 backpack while MK4 is one full part? Why?


The MkIIIs are two pieces because of the how the top ribbed cables wrap around the cowling of the exhausts to join in the middle of the top piece, and the way exhaust vents are oriented sideways. It's a limitation of injection molding versus metal/resin casting: no undercuts.
There's a few ways they could do it in a single piece but it would sacrifice a lot of the detail, or get real costly with multiple-moving injection mold sections.
Similar reasons as to why the legs are separated.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






 Kosake wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Counter point: GW is not obligated to invest effort into making their products compatible with third party stuff, and those "weird" cut patterns have a functional purpose.


Which functional purpose would that be, aside from making the model monopose with very limited customization options?


Allowing shapes that can't be done with other mold methods. For example, undercuts are impossible with injection molded plastic because the metal molds are too rigid to release an undercut part (unlike the molds for resin casting). So if you want a piece with undercuts you have to break it down into multiple parts. The straightforward way is to just add a bunch of tiny pieces that you glue together, the more complex way is to carefully pick the split lines on a multi-part figure so that they cut through the middle of any undercut areas. With CAD software figuring out those complex split lines is much easier than it used to be, and if your goal is to reduce total part count then it's absolutely worth doing. The same kind of thing is likely true of other limits. Maybe using a "weird" split line solves a problem with the plastic flow not getting into the deepest corners before it cools too much, etc.

Now, yes, it does have the effect of creating monopose models but that is also a design choice that has its own merits independent of any concerns over third party parts. It's the classic "theme park" vs. "sand box" debate in video games, do you have very highly detailed plastic kits at the expense of conversion potential or do you aim to maximize how interchangeable your various kits are even if it means simplifying some of the designs? Modern GW wants a "theme park" sort of game, where you get a really cool thing and don't have to think about designing your own. But if that isn't going to pay off in improved sculpting options then sacrificing a selling point in how much conversion potential your kits have just so third party companies have a harder time selling conversion parts (which require you to buy a GW kit to use them) is utter lunacy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 slave.entity wrote:
When I break a model my first reaction is generally to start shopping for a replacement, rather than blame the manufacturer for poor design. I think this is because I'm fully aware of how fragile the models are going into it and any breakage due to improper handling on my part is pretty undeniably user error that I could have prevented. I don't know how many others feels this way though.


That's a much more generous attitude than many people have. If something breaks right out of the box I may not demand a refund or replacement, depending on how I feel about it being my error vs. poor product quality, but I'm sure going to consider that broken part in whether I buy another thing from the company. Deliberately making broken models a goal is committing corporate suicide, with far more potential for lost sales than any competition from the used market. After all, the people who buy stuff used generally don't care much about the quality in the first place, so having a few delicate bits broken off isn't going to make much of a difference in their purchasing habits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Elbows wrote:
It's kind of the Forgeworld paradox coming to roost in normal GW. They seem obsessed with creating a miniature from a visionary piece of art - without considering the realities of the end user. Forgeworld is extremely well known for this - producing intricate and flimsy model pieces/equipment/etc. which is produced in resin, arguably the least robust gaming miniature material available. At some point, the designers of miniatures need to think about two things:

1) What material is this being produced in?
2) Will this survive actual handling during 5-10 years of gaming.

These questions seem to not be asked as of late. Now, a handful of brilliant painters may benefit from having an overly ornate and intricate miniature with which to compete for painting trophies...but at the end of the day the stuff needs to be user-friendly and aimed at the actual game itself.


Disagree with this. FW resin kits, GW's newest fragile stuff, etc, all work fine if you take care of your models. I play DKoK and virtually all of my broken parts have been clean breaks at glue joints, because I take care of my models instead of throwing them in a heap in a shoe box between games. There's nothing wrong about aiming for an adult market that cares about their stuff, and nothing inherent about any of GW's products that prevents them from surviving 5-10 years of gaming. Maybe this means losing some of the small child market, but TBH I'd be happy to see GW abandon that market and focus on a more mature audience.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/02 08:55:48


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




UK

There are some models that are far more fragile than others. Daughters of Khaine Khinari come to mind. They are super cool and I really love the models and poses, but the whole model is on a thin plastic tail. Whilst this gets around not having to have the thick flight rod or the odd bits of plastic linking to the base (like the original Sisters of Battle Seraphon), it does mean that there's a lot of model held up by very little plastic. Even careful care that plastic is going to wear far more so as its got some movement potential even without doing anything much.

It's a clear point of weakness that could have been overcome with the model flying around an object such as a shattered spire or rock formation which would have given one or two extra points of contact and stability.


I think these types of model are more common now not just because GW has improved casting, but because CAD design lets designers do things that were either very impractical or difficult before or were near impossible. It's also something that I would have more expected of a metal model than a plastic or something with a thicker tail section.



Also I'd say that GW models have always been near idiot proof in terms of assembly. A few options like a couple of tanks and bigger models were more complicated; but I've never seen any model half as complex as many Airfix kits. In fact many basic troops you can assemble without any glance at the manual or box save to work out how to equip your models.
That said push fit makes sense, esp with a "boxed game" where GW is clearly aiming to get both hobbyists and casual gamers into the market (its a neat way to penetrate the boardgame market which is otherwise very hard to get into in a meaningful way).

A Blog in Miniature - now featuring reviews of many new Black Library books (latest Novellas) 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






 Peregrine wrote:


 slave.entity wrote:
When I break a model my first reaction is generally to start shopping for a replacement, rather than blame the manufacturer for poor design. I think this is because I'm fully aware of how fragile the models are going into it and any breakage due to improper handling on my part is pretty undeniably user error that I could have prevented. I don't know how many others feels this way though.


That's a much more generous attitude than many people have. If something breaks right out of the box I may not demand a refund or replacement, depending on how I feel about it being my error vs. poor product quality, but I'm sure going to consider that broken part in whether I buy another thing from the company. Deliberately making broken models a goal is committing corporate suicide, with far more potential for lost sales than any competition from the used market. After all, the people who buy stuff used generally don't care much about the quality in the first place, so having a few delicate bits broken off isn't going to make much of a difference in their purchasing habits.


That's it though. They are not *quite* *definitively* deliberately making broken models with the intention of screwing the customer. But it could be argued that they are skirting that line. Which is pretty much exactly how markets encourage corporations to operate. I don't think tabletop durability is a high priority on the sculptor's list of checkboxes precisely for this reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
Maybe this means losing some of the small child market, but TBH I'd be happy to see GW abandon that market and focus on a more mature audience.


I've got some bad news for ya...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/02 09:56:41


   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




UK

GW will never abandon the teenage market.
Just look at this
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/763215.page

Whilst the sample size is small and somewhat biased, its a very powerful skew that clearly shows the younger years were the entry point for an overwhelming majority of, now mature, gamers. GW is going to remain focused on that market heavily because its the entry point. If they can get you before you're 20 chances are they've got you for life (on and off or all the time). So in order to have an adult market they've got to appeal to the teens.


Heck their early TV ads were all about teenagers.

GW is one of the few hobby companies that not only realises the importance of this market, but pushes for it heavily. They realise that that market is where the adult gamers of tomorrow are and that if they lose sight of it they will steadily bleed customers even if they do everything right.

A Blog in Miniature - now featuring reviews of many new Black Library books (latest Novellas) 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Nottingham, UK

 PondaNagura wrote:
 CragHack wrote:
I partially agree. The way they present those models on sprues is just horrible. I mean, two part MK3 backpack while MK4 is one full part? Why?


The MkIIIs are two pieces because of the how the top ribbed cables wrap around the cowling of the exhausts to join in the middle of the top piece, and the way exhaust vents are oriented sideways. It's a limitation of injection molding versus metal/resin casting: no undercuts.
There's a few ways they could do it in a single piece but it would sacrifice a lot of the detail, or get real costly with multiple-moving injection mold sections.
Similar reasons as to why the legs are separated.


This guy gets it.

The whole part breakdown is about avoiding ugly flats on the model from a two-part mould with no sliding core. They've gotten very very good at it.


 
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: