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.

 Aerethan wrote:
I'd argue it is within Fair Use. They are making a single digital backup of a physical medium that they purchased legitimately and are then taking turns using it. No different there than loaning someone the actual book, provided there are not more copies made than the single backup. Now if each person took a copy, it would be piracy.

Yeah right. It's very clearly copying the book with the intent to give everyone access to a copy without buying their own. That's not even close to fair use.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
I'd argue it is within Fair Use. They are making a single digital backup of a physical medium that they purchased legitimately and are then taking turns using it. No different there than loaning someone the actual book, provided there are not more copies made than the single backup. Now if each person took a copy, it would be piracy.

Yeah right. It's very clearly copying the book with the intent to give everyone access to a copy without buying their own. That's not even close to fair use.

The law states you are allowed one digital backup copy for items you own. They don't say where you have to put said backup copy. If there is one tablet where the single backup copy of each codex goes, then according to the law, this is perfectly legal. GW may disagree, but as long as only a single digital copy exists, there is legally nothing wrong with it. That said, if they each have a copy on their computers, it's a clear no-no and in violation of piracy laws. One copy on a master "computer" shared by all of them is legal. Morally it may be wrong as is, but they're following the letter of the law, just not the spirit.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
I'd argue it is within Fair Use. They are making a single digital backup of a physical medium that they purchased legitimately and are then taking turns using it. No different there than loaning someone the actual book, provided there are not more copies made than the single backup. Now if each person took a copy, it would be piracy.

Yeah right. It's very clearly copying the book with the intent to give everyone access to a copy without buying their own. That's not even close to fair use.

The law states you are allowed one digital backup copy for items you own. They don't say where you have to put said backup copy. If there is one tablet where the single backup copy of each codex goes, then according to the law, this is perfectly legal. GW may disagree, but as long as only a single digital copy exists, there is legally nothing wrong with it. That said, if they each have a copy on their computers, it's a clear no-no and in violation of piracy laws. One copy on a master "computer" shared by all of them is legal. Morally it may be wrong as is, but they're following the letter of the law, just not the spirit.

Uh, what? I think you're confusing the rules regarding non-commercial phonorecord copies with the general rules. Copying books in their entierty to create an archive for several people to have use to would seem to be a fairly plain violation of the Copyright act (specifically the right of reproduction, possibly the right of derivation,distribution and display). Of course, it's still a de minimus violation, but it's still not the best solution.

EDIT: Actually, on further thought, you're probably thinking of the exception for computer programs? Maybe?

 Aerethan wrote:
I'd argue it is within Fair Use. They are making a single digital backup of a physical medium that they purchased legitimately and are then taking turns using it. No different there than loaning someone the actual book, provided there are not more copies made than the single backup. Now if each person took a copy, it would be piracy.

Funny how a blatant disregard for copyright laws is defended here, yet when someone suggests molding a spare part its suddenly against the law... FYI, almost anything photocopied breaks Fair Use doctrines.

Anyway, back on topic...

Why does everyone insist that GW (or anyone's for that matter) stuff have to be cheap? If it were cheaper, it wouldn't be as nice and people would complain. My complaints to Aston-Martin and Ferrari are hereby still unanswered as to why their stuff increases in price every year, pricing me out of buying one. However, if they cut their quality to make a lower price point, it wouldn't be the same.

 Aerethan wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Byte wrote:

dreamakuma wrote:
I've been into the hobby for 2 years now. I was given an ork army of about 700 points.Now I have close to 5000. The group I'm with has support from each other. we trade, scan each others codexies and have a laptop with armybuilder and said codexices for everyone to use. So the hobby has been pretty ok to get into. That being said, starting a second army has been uphill. I rarelybuy from gb unless it helps with a whole army. I do BA and all I buy is death company for the extra bits every couple months. other than that I buy secondhand and convert.

So your pirating...

A stand up work around.

"Pirating"? Just sounds like a club sharing rulebooks to me, except they're scanned and loaded into a single laptop, which I gather is done more for the sake of convenience since all the books were purchased legally beforehand.

I'd argue it is within Fair Use. They are making a single digital backup of a physical medium that they purchased legitimately and are then taking turns using it. No different there than loaning someone the actual book, provided there are not more copies made than the single backup. Now if each person took a copy, it would be piracy.

I'm not a laywer, but I don't think it'd fall in to Fair Use. From what I understand, making a digital copy of something could only be considered fair use if it's for "personal use", this is not "personal use".

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Why does everyone insist that GW (or anyone's for that matter) stuff have to be cheap? If it were cheaper, it wouldn't be as nice and people would complain. My complaints to Aston-Martin and Ferrari are hereby still unanswered as to why their stuff increases in price every year, pricing me out of buying one. However, if they cut their quality to make a lower price point, it wouldn't be the same.

The general consensus I get from threads like this is not that they want GW stuff to be cheap, but cheaper. People aren't asking for Mantic prices most of the time, but a 30-40% price drop, while still above Mantics prices, would be palatable. Then there's stuff that's just blatantly rip-off price bracketed, like Blood Knights, or the aforementioned Sammael and Archaon. Those could all take easily a 50% price drop and still be profitable for GW. In fact moreso, because people would actually buy them.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
I'd argue it is within Fair Use. They are making a single digital backup of a physical medium that they purchased legitimately and are then taking turns using it. No different there than loaning someone the actual book, provided there are not more copies made than the single backup. Now if each person took a copy, it would be piracy.

Yeah right. It's very clearly copying the book with the intent to give everyone access to a copy without buying their own. That's not even close to fair use.

The law states you are allowed one digital backup copy for items you own. They don't say where you have to put said backup copy. If there is one tablet where the single backup copy of each codex goes, then according to the law, this is perfectly legal. GW may disagree, but as long as only a single digital copy exists, there is legally nothing wrong with it. That said, if they each have a copy on their computers, it's a clear no-no and in violation of piracy laws. One copy on a master "computer" shared by all of them is legal. Morally it may be wrong as is, but they're following the letter of the law, just not the spirit.

Uh, what? I think you're confusing the rules regarding non-commercial phonorecord copies with the general rules. Copying books in their entierty to create an archive for several people to have use to would seem to be a fairly plain violation of the Copyright act (specifically the right of reproduction, possibly the right of derivation,distribution and display). Of course, it's still a de minimus violation, but it's still not the best solution.

EDIT: Actually, on further thought, you're probably thinking of the exception for computer programs? Maybe?

4. What's been recognized as fair use?

Courts have previously found that a use was fair where the use of the copyrighted work was socially beneficial. In particular, U.S. courts have recognized the following fair uses: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research and parodies.

In addition, in 1984 the Supreme Court held that time-shifting (for example, private, non-commercial home taping of television programs with a VCR to permit later viewing) is fair use. (Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984, S.C.)

Although the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers believe that the following (and many other uses) are also fair uses:

Space-shifting or format-shifting - that is, taking content you own in one format and putting it into another format, for personal, non-commercial use. For instance, "ripping" an audio CD (that is, making an MP3-format version of an audio CD that you already own) is considered fair use by many lawyers, based on the 1984 Betamax decision and the 1999 Rio MP3 player decision (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F. 3d 1072, 1079, 9th Circ. 1999.)
Making a personal back-up copy of content you own - for instance, burning a copy of an audio CD you own.

Right off the fair use website. Here's the link: http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php
Took me 3 seconds to find. Any lawyer could get it thrown out with ease.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
I'd argue it is within Fair Use. They are making a single digital backup of a physical medium that they purchased legitimately and are then taking turns using it. No different there than loaning someone the actual book, provided there are not more copies made than the single backup. Now if each person took a copy, it would be piracy.

Yeah right. It's very clearly copying the book with the intent to give everyone access to a copy without buying their own. That's not even close to fair use.

The law states you are allowed one digital backup copy for items you own. They don't say where you have to put said backup copy. If there is one tablet where the single backup copy of each codex goes, then according to the law, this is perfectly legal. GW may disagree, but as long as only a single digital copy exists, there is legally nothing wrong with it. That said, if they each have a copy on their computers, it's a clear no-no and in violation of piracy laws. One copy on a master "computer" shared by all of them is legal. Morally it may be wrong as is, but they're following the letter of the law, just not the spirit.

Uh, what? I think you're confusing the rules regarding non-commercial phonorecord copies with the general rules. Copying books in their entierty to create an archive for several people to have use to would seem to be a fairly plain violation of the Copyright act (specifically the right of reproduction, possibly the right of derivation,distribution and display). Of course, it's still a de minimus violation, but it's still not the best solution.

EDIT: Actually, on further thought, you're probably thinking of the exception for computer programs? Maybe?

4. What's been recognized as fair use?

Courts have previously found that a use was fair where the use of the copyrighted work was socially beneficial. In particular, U.S. courts have recognized the following fair uses: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research and parodies.

In addition, in 1984 the Supreme Court held that time-shifting (for example, private, non-commercial home taping of television programs with a VCR to permit later viewing) is fair use. (Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984, S.C.)

Although the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers believe that the following (and many other uses) are also fair uses:

Space-shifting or format-shifting - that is, taking content you own in one format and putting it into another format, for personal, non-commercial use. For instance, "ripping" an audio CD (that is, making an MP3-format version of an audio CD that you already own) is considered fair use by many lawyers, based on the 1984 Betamax decision and the 1999 Rio MP3 player decision (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F. 3d 1072, 1079, 9th Circ. 1999.)
Making a personal back-up copy of content you own - for instance, burning a copy of an audio CD you own.

Right off the fair use website. Here's the link: http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php
Took me 3 seconds to find. Any lawyer could get it thrown out with ease.

It's funny that they all cite personal use. When you have a PDF on a device being shared, it's no longer personal use, so no longer fair use. Whether intentionally done or not, it's no fair use once more than the person who backed it up is using it.

As Buzzsaw said, it's still de minimus. It's not, however, defensible as fair use.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
4. What's been recognized as fair use?

Courts have previously found that a use was fair where the use of the copyrighted work was socially beneficial. In particular, U.S. courts have recognized the following fair uses: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research and parodies.

In addition, in 1984 the Supreme Court held that time-shifting (for example, private, non-commercial home taping of television programs with a VCR to permit later viewing) is fair use. (Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984, S.C.)

Although the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers believe that the following (and many other uses) are also fair uses:

Space-shifting or format-shifting - that is, taking content you own in one format and putting it into another format, for personal, non-commercial use. For instance, "ripping" an audio CD (that is, making an MP3-format version of an audio CD that you already own) is considered fair use by many lawyers, based on the 1984 Betamax decision and the 1999 Rio MP3 player decision (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F. 3d 1072, 1079, 9th Circ. 1999.)
Making a personal back-up copy of content you own - for instance, burning a copy of an audio CD you own.

Right off the fair use website. Here's the link: http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php
Took me 3 seconds to find. Any lawyer could get it thrown out with ease.

I don't see anything in that which says making a COMPLETE digital copy for PUBLIC use falls under fair use. Making PARTIAL copies for eduction/comment/news/etc or copies for PERSONAL use I see, not COMPLETE copies for PUBLIC use.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
...

Uh, what? I think you're confusing the rules regarding non-commercial phonorecord copies with the general rules. Copying books in their entierty to create an archive for several people to have use to would seem to be a fairly plain violation of the Copyright act (specifically the right of reproduction, possibly the right of derivation,distribution and display). Of course, it's still a de minimus violation, but it's still not the best solution.

EDIT: Actually, on further thought, you're probably thinking of the exception for computer programs? Maybe?

4. What's been recognized as fair use?

Courts have previously found that a use was fair where the use of the copyrighted work was socially beneficial. In particular, U.S. courts have recognized the following fair uses: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research and parodies.

In addition, in 1984 the Supreme Court held that time-shifting (for example, private, non-commercial home taping of television programs with a VCR to permit later viewing) is fair use. (Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984, S.C.)

Although the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers believe that the following (and many other uses) are also fair uses:

Space-shifting or format-shifting - that is, taking content you own in one format and putting it into another format, for personal, non-commercial use. For instance, "ripping" an audio CD (that is, making an MP3-format version of an audio CD that you already own) is considered fair use by many lawyers, based on the 1984 Betamax decision and the 1999 Rio MP3 player decision (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F. 3d 1072, 1079, 9th Circ. 1999.)
Making a personal back-up copy of content you own - for instance, burning a copy of an audio CD you own.

Right off the fair use website. Here's the link: http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php
Took me 3 seconds to find. Any lawyer could get it thrown out with ease.

Yeah... not to point out too many errors at once, but the "fair use website" you quote is the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is an advocacy group, not a legal source. You also might want to note at the top of that page "Last updated: 6:00pm PST, 2002-03-21"...

You, of course, also realize that making a back-up for "personal, non-commercial use" necessarily precludes sharing it, right?

You'll also notice that they are refering to actions that are explicitly allowed under statute. Which is a bit of a red flag...

Eh, too late to argue: 11 hour drive to make tomorrow, found what I felt was necessary enough info (they also say that it's a grey area), so I'll leave it to others to hash out. I do believe any competent lawyer could get it thrown out, if anyone actually figured out who was doing it (pretty much impossible to do if the codexes were originally legally obtained and not DLed). I don't condone piracy, but this setup really isn't any different than Little Peter letting Little Jimmy borrow his codex. At the end of the day, Little Peter has to hand the Tablet back to Little Jimmy, and he doesn't have a digital copy of everybody's codex to take home. Of course, whoever owns the Tablet makes out like a bandit, unless the group all bought it and it rotates ownership each day.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Eh, too late to argue: 11 hour drive to make tomorrow, found what I felt was necessary enough info (they also say that it's a grey area), so I'll leave it to others to hash out. I do believe any competent lawyer could get it thrown out, if anyone actually figured out who was doing it (pretty much impossible to do if the codexes were originally legally obtained and not DLed). I don't condone piracy, but this setup really isn't any different than Little Peter letting Little Jimmy borrow his codex. At the end of the day, Little Peter has to hand the Tablet back to Little Jimmy, and he doesn't have a digital copy of everybody's codex to take home. Of course, whoever owns the Tablet makes out like a bandit, unless the group all bought it and it rotates ownership each day.

As someone who fancies himself a competent lawyer, I agree it's not going to be found out (and would be limited to statutory damages in any case), and disagree that it's fair use. You may accept or deny that as you will.

EDIT: and to be specific, it's different from loaning the book from one person to another (enshrined in first sale doctrine) because the book is, after all, being copied. And being shared. And has a specific commercial cost. Other then that, it's a great comparison.

Fair enough. I don't copy my books, for personal use or for anyone else, so this really has no effect on me. I'm just not seeing this example as a big deal (provided each codex was bought and only one digital copy exists in total). If they pirated any copies offline, or each of them has a copy of each book on their computers, then off with their heads!

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Fair enough. I don't copy my books, for personal use or for anyone else, so this really has no effect on me. I'm just not seeing this example as a big deal (provided each codex was bought and only one digital copy exists in total). If they pirated any copies offline, or each of them has a copy of each book on their computers, then off with their heads!

The fact that it's a small-scale illegal act doesn't change the fact that it's still illegal. GW isn't going to sue someone for copying a codex and sharing it with their friends, but don't try to take some kind of moral high ground and pretend that it's perfectly legal to do so. You're breaking the law for your own convenience, you're just not worth suing.

Riquende wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
What's a better investment for me, buying a fifth army, or starting a completely new system? It's called diminishing returns.

Definitely starting a completely new system, because then you won't have to play 40k.

Theres something to be said for that.

5th edition was a good bit of "meh", 6th edition is full on "WTF am I reading?"...its really bad, no way around it. A guy at work got into 40K just before 6th came out. I almost joined him, he had started GK, I was doing a custom army using the DA codex. We both started looking at 6th...well to this day he hasnt finish assembling the small GK army he bought, I got 2 termie squads mostly done, havent touched them since. The6th edition rules completely turned us off. Since then we have been watching the prices rise and rise...and that hasnt encouraged us at all.

For around the same amount of money it would have cost to finish my DA army I have started: Blackwater Gulch (2 starters + kickstarter bonuses), 15mm WWII armor, Relic Knights (2 factions + KS bonuses), and a Dreamforge Leviathan.


If 40k had great rules, I might have stuck with it, but Im not spending huge amounts to play a crappy game.

If i wanted to get into dark angels i'd buy the codex from my game store and buy random Space marine crap online and convert. these dark angel prices are outrageous and anyone who buys them is part of the problem.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
I'd argue it is within Fair Use. They are making a single digital backup of a physical medium that they purchased legitimately and are then taking turns using it. No different there than loaning someone the actual book, provided there are not more copies made than the single backup. Now if each person took a copy, it would be piracy.

Funny how a blatant disregard for copyright laws is defended here, yet when someone suggests molding a spare part its suddenly against the law... FYI, almost anything photocopied breaks Fair Use doctrines.

Anyway, back on topic...

Why does everyone insist that GW (or anyone's for that matter) stuff have to be cheap? If it were cheaper, it wouldn't be as nice and people would complain. My complaints to Aston-Martin and Ferrari are hereby still unanswered as to why their stuff increases in price every year, pricing me out of buying one. However, if they cut their quality to make a lower price point, it wouldn't be the same.

Its fine when a newer better product comes out and costs more, but theres no way to defend a double or triple digit percentile price increase on something that hasnt changed in many years...thats just gouging the customer.

 Mad4Minis wrote:
The6th edition rules completely turned us off. Since then we have been watching the prices rise and rise...and that hasnt encouraged us at all.

Technically the only price rise for 6th edition was the hardcover codices. The models are simply hitting price brackets set up in last years price hike. So you haven't actually seen the prices 'rise and rise' since 6th edition.

 Mad4Minis wrote:
Its fine when a newer better product comes out and costs more, but theres no way to defend a double or triple digit percentile price increase on something that hasnt changed in many years...thats just gouging the customer.

There's an easy way to defend it: "it's making us more money".

And in the end, that's all that matters. You can complain about how you're entitled to cheaper models, or about how unethical GW is being by trying to make money, but it's all irrelevant. The only legitimate objection to GW's prices is that they're pursuing a short-sighted strategy that favors immediate profits over long-term growth and stability.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:If it were cheaper, it wouldn't be as nice and people would complain.

In my opinion the models aren't as nice as they should be, not for the price I'm being asked to pay. Most of their releases nowadays are pretty damn poor, suffering from one of several problems: either being poorly sculpted in general, looking way too cartoony and in some cases even looking like parodies of 40k models instead of being designs I'm supposed to take seriously, sculpted in boring or static poses, and one thing they seem especially fond of now is covering a model in so much detail, no doubt thinking it makes the model look better and thus worth more, that it actually has the opposite effect and makes the models look poor on account of being too busy. I'm not an artist or a sculptor and I still feel like I could have come up with better designs than the heldrake or forge/mauler fiends, or the new DA land speeder and dark talon. I could have thought of a better pose for Belial, too, even a static "command" pose like they were going for could have been much better if his legs weren't so stiff. Just prop his left leg up on a rock or something, hell, he's already looking and pointing his sword in that direction...I dunno, it would have been more interesting if you ask me.

I hear people go on and on about how GW is first in quality, but personally I just don't see it anymore. They're just asking for insane amounts of money for some really goofy-looking models now. And the few cases where they do release quality sculpts are marred by the fact that they're usually in Finecast and overpriced. I don't understand what was wrong with the $30 price point for 5 metal incubi, that's pretty damn reasonable in my opinion and also nicely in impulse-buy range...can't tell you how many times I just bought a random $25-35 box of models at the store because I needed to spend money and couldn't think of what else to get (I have way more DE warriors and scourges than I'll probably ever need...hell, I actually bought vespid once...vespid.). Being nearly $50 for the same models and being lower-quality casts that will require me to waste several hours of my time carefully re-sculpting bits of detail like spikes, fingers, gems, etc.? feth that. I'll just have to be happy with the 15 metal ones I have, I guess, and keep browsing eBay for more, or wait until they come out in plastic 10 years from now with another codex update that makes the DE relevant for all of two months before another BRB gets released and invalidates the entire army...again.

As for cheaper models not being as nice, you don't even have to use another company's models to prove that isn't true. Compare the DE razorwing to the CSM heldrake, the razorwing is obviously the better-looking model there, and also has a more reasonable price to boot: $45 compared to nearly $80. If I was purely interested in buying nice models to collect and display I'd probably buy two razorwings and never even consider buying one ugly heldrake. And as much as I hate the heldrake model, if it were half the price it is now I could probably see myself buying one for no other reason than to take a whack at trying to "fix" it...I'd leave the goofy WHF dragon parts off and try to make it look more like the designs from FW.

 Byte wrote:

dreamakuma wrote:
I've been into the hobby for 2 years now. I was given an ork army of about 700 points.Now I have close to 5000. The group I'm with has support from each other. we trade, scan each others codexies and have a laptop with armybuilder and said codexices for everyone to use. So the hobby has been pretty ok to get into. That being said, starting a second army has been uphill. I rarelybuy from gb unless it helps with a whole army. I do BA and all I buy is death company for the extra bits every couple months. other than that I buy secondhand and convert.

So your pirating...

A stand up work around.

I pirate too. As a matter of fact, every time some newbie mentions buying a rulebook or a codex, i tell him to torrent a PDF and spend that money on a Land Raider or something.

The DV box brought me back to WH40K but except for 2 DV boxes (bought with 20% discount) and some DA conversion sprues, I have bought everything on Ebay or from friends who wanted to get rid of the "toys".

I agree with the OP that the ultimate price limit has already been reached for a lot of people, and seeing the new DA releases (not to mention the new Hobbit releases...), GW will lose more customers that they will win.

Let's be honest, who pumps most money into the hobby, on a money-per-head ratio? Us old farts! (and by that I just mean everyone spending more than a year and more than the barest necessities on the hobby, so don't get all elitist.)
New people come in, buy a starter set, might buy 2-3 vehicles and 2-3 troop extensions and then leave it after a year or so, with a bit of luck ( for us) putting it up on Ebay shortly after.

Now obviously, long-timers were recruited from those young kids, so a certain percentage stays (or returns) to pump more money into the system.
But with the prices rising and rising, and Ebay prices for GW stuff being what they are nowadays (pretty attractive to sellers), it is much easier and more attractive to find a cheaper alternative to spend your money on.

Someone said that GW makes most of its money from newbies, which was basically the main reason why GW did not have to listen to the old farts. I doubt that.
But even if that is so, is it a sensible move to raise the entry thresholds every year? They are not making any money on the starter sets, that's for sure.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I stopped buying most GW stuff a couple of years ago, and price was part of the reason. I can get a lot more for my game dollar from many other systems (especially Historicals).

However it is also true that I don't any more armies. I have two built and two more ready to start building. The ones I am still building will be done with as few GW models as possible.

I would buy an awesome kit like a Tau Orca.

It is the price of the books that worries me. To refresh my codexes for 6th edition will cost £100 at least.

Much like KK, I hit the wall a couple of years ago after that year's particular price rise. The only spending I have done since then has been a couple of terrain kits which are the few things that GW produce that I consider to be good value for money and the 6th Ed rulebook (and I consider that to be a waste of money since I don't play 6th) - anything else has come via Ebay. I have all the armies I would ever need anyway; I don't play competitively so therefore have little motivation to buy the latest shiniest things and I have made the decision not to play 6th so have no need to update my armies. 6th Ed was a big turn off for me - I don't like the rules or the direction the game is taking. Admittedly, I haven't played many games of it yet but the fat that it will cost me £100's just to update all the codexes I need was enough to sway my decision. Much easier to stick with 5th or 4th or 3rd or whatever edition I feel like.

I feel my decision vindicated somewhat by the god-awful sculpts and releases that seem to be coming out latterly; the Chaos release left me cold both in terms of rules and in terms of models (the stupid Zoid models in particular). The upcoming DA release just seems 'same old, same old' to me (with an added price increase to boot) so I don't really feel I am missing out.

I have said it before but it bears repeating, if I were new to this hobby (hell, even if I was a veteran gamer returning now after a hiatus) and wasn't already invested in GW stuff, there would be no way I would be playing/buying GW stuff - not at these prices. The only reason I play GW games is because I have either already spent the money or because it is a game that they no longer support but which is excellent (like Blood Bowl or 2nd Ed Epic).

 Sidstyler wrote:

In my opinion the models aren't as nice as they should be, not for the price I'm being asked to pay. Most of their releases nowadays are pretty damn poor, suffering from one of several problems: either being poorly sculpted in general, looking way too cartoony and in some cases even looking like parodies of 40k models instead of being designs I'm supposed to take seriously, sculpted in boring or static poses, and one thing they seem especially fond of now is covering a model in so much detail, no doubt thinking it makes the model look better and thus worth more, that it actually has the opposite effect and makes the models look poor on account of being too busy.

I agree some of their sculpts are too busy, I guess when computer sculpting makes it easier to add stuff they add more stuff. Mind you, GW is not the only manufacturer guilty for this.

And it's not completely new thing, look at this old DW terminator:

 Sidstyler wrote:

In my opinion the models aren't as nice as they should be, not for the price I'm being asked to pay. Most of their releases nowadays are pretty damn poor, suffering from one of several problems: either being poorly sculpted in general, looking way too cartoony and in some cases even looking like parodies of 40k models instead of being designs I'm supposed to take seriously, sculpted in boring or static poses, and one thing they seem especially fond of now is covering a model in so much detail, no doubt thinking it makes the model look better and thus worth more, that it actually has the opposite effect and makes the models look poor on account of being too busy. I'm not an artist or a sculptor and I still feel like I could have come up with better designs than the heldrake or forge/mauler fiends, or the new DA land speeder and dark talon. I could have thought of a better pose for Belial, too, even a static "command" pose like they were going for could have been much better if his legs weren't so stiff. Just prop his left leg up on a rock or something, hell, he's already looking and pointing his sword in that direction...I dunno, it would have been more interesting if you ask me.

I hear people go on and on about how GW is first in quality, but personally I just don't see it anymore. They're just asking for insane amounts of money for some really goofy-looking models now. And the few cases where they do release quality sculpts are marred by the fact that they're usually in Finecast and overpriced. I don't understand what was wrong with the $30 price point for 5 metal incubi, that's pretty damn reasonable in my opinion and also nicely in impulse-buy range...can't tell you how many times I just bought a random $25-35 box of models at the store because I needed to spend money and couldn't think of what else to get (I have way more DE warriors and scourges than I'll probably ever need...hell, I actually bought vespid once...vespid.). Being nearly $50 for the same models and being lower-quality casts that will require me to waste several hours of my time carefully re-sculpting bits of detail like spikes, fingers, gems, etc.? feth that. I'll just have to be happy with the 15 metal ones I have, I guess, and keep browsing eBay for more, or wait until they come out in plastic 10 years from now with another codex update that makes the DE relevant for all of two months before another BRB gets released and invalidates the entire army...again.

As for cheaper models not being as nice, you don't even have to use another company's models to prove that isn't true. Compare the DE razorwing to the CSM heldrake, the razorwing is obviously the better-looking model there, and also has a more reasonable price to boot: $45 compared to nearly $80. If I was purely interested in buying nice models to collect and display I'd probably buy two razorwings and never even consider buying one ugly heldrake. And as much as I hate the heldrake model, if it were half the price it is now I could probably see myself buying one for no other reason than to take a whack at trying to "fix" it...I'd leave the goofy WHF dragon parts off and try to make it look more like the designs from FW.

I agree with this so much. Personally, i think the sculpting is ridiculous. I can see the sculptor taking a sculpt into a meeting and some one saying "WHAT! there is a bare area of armour on that marine, put a purity seal on it, QUICK"
Most marines look like they have part time jobs in a goth strip club with all the swords, angel wings, purity seals and skulls they wear.
I like simpler sculpts. I guess it all ends up as aesthetics but, coupled with the price i can safely say i will never buy a gw sculpt.
I truly, truly hate the forgefiend, to me ith just looks like someone watched aliens and decided to nuts with the concept, on the other hand, i like alot of skorne skulpts from warmachine.

Not really priced out - I just buy second hand/other manufacturers/scratch build. I don't care if I can't play in a GW store, I won't set foot in them anyway.

 Sidstyler wrote:

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:If it were cheaper, it wouldn't be as nice and people would complain.

In my opinion the models aren't as nice as they should be, not for the price I'm being asked to pay. Most of their releases nowadays are pretty damn poor, suffering from one of several problems: either being poorly sculpted in general, looking way too cartoony and in some cases even looking like parodies of 40k models instead of being designs I'm supposed to take seriously, sculpted in boring or static poses, and one thing they seem especially fond of now is covering a model in so much detail, no doubt thinking it makes the model look better and thus worth more, that it actually has the opposite effect and makes the models look poor on account of being too busy. I'm not an artist or a sculptor and I still feel like I could have come up with better designs than the heldrake or forge/mauler fiends, or the new DA land speeder and dark talon. I could have thought of a better pose for Belial, too, even a static "command" pose like they were going for could have been much better if his legs weren't so stiff. Just prop his left leg up on a rock or something, hell, he's already looking and pointing his sword in that direction...I dunno, it would have been more interesting if you ask me.

I hear people go on and on about how GW is first in quality, but personally I just don't see it anymore. They're just asking for insane amounts of money for some really goofy-looking models now. And the few cases where they do release quality sculpts are marred by the fact that they're usually in Finecast and overpriced. I don't understand what was wrong with the $30 price point for 5 metal incubi, that's pretty damn reasonable in my opinion and also nicely in impulse-buy range...can't tell you how many times I just bought a random $25-35 box of models at the store because I needed to spend money and couldn't think of what else to get (I have way more DE warriors and scourges than I'll probably ever need...hell, I actually bought vespid once...vespid.). Being nearly $50 for the same models and being lower-quality casts that will require me to waste several hours of my time carefully re-sculpting bits of detail like spikes, fingers, gems, etc.? feth that. I'll just have to be happy with the 15 metal ones I have, I guess, and keep browsing eBay for more, or wait until they come out in plastic 10 years from now with another codex update that makes the DE relevant for all of two months before another BRB gets released and invalidates the entire army...again.

As for cheaper models not being as nice, you don't even have to use another company's models to prove that isn't true. Compare the DE razorwing to the CSM heldrake, the razorwing is obviously the better-looking model there, and also has a more reasonable price to boot: $45 compared to nearly $80. If I was purely interested in buying nice models to collect and display I'd probably buy two razorwings and never even consider buying one ugly heldrake. And as much as I hate the heldrake model, if it were half the price it is now I could probably see myself buying one for no other reason than to take a whack at trying to "fix" it...I'd leave the goofy WHF dragon parts off and try to make it look more like the designs from FW.

There is little I can add to Sid's excellent post: he really captures a lot of what I've been thinking about GW releases for some time. Just looking at the DA releases, I can't believe that these are things that have been produced by modern companies.

If you want cheap DA & Chaos figures, ebay is your friend right now.

Loads of people are buying and splitting the DV box sets for a small profit, as an example the DA terminator squads are £8 - £10 here in the UK right now.

 Sidstyler wrote:
In my opinion the models aren't as nice as they should be, not for the price I'm being asked to pay. Most of their releases nowadays are pretty damn poor, suffering from one of several problems: either being poorly sculpted in general, looking way too cartoony and in some cases even looking like parodies of 40k models instead of being designs I'm supposed to take seriously, sculpted in boring or static poses, and one thing they seem especially fond of now is covering a model in so much detail, no doubt thinking it makes the model look better and thus worth more, that it actually has the opposite effect and makes the models look poor on account of being too busy.

I agree to a limited extent-- "most" seems like an overstatement, especially given the really strong Dark Eldar, Necron, GK, and Dark Vengeance releases, but there are definitely models that I get that impression from. The new Dark Angels vehicles are particularly underwhelming, though the Nephilim Jetfighter looks all right to me. However, the cost is high enough that I won't be picking one up. If I'm going to pay 75 USD for a model, it had better be an awesome model. On the other hand, Sammael on jetbike costs like 50 bucks or something these days, but he's awesome enough that I'm fine with it-- but not all sculpts are that quality. If GW wants to charge a premium price, they had better offer a premium product.

 Sidstyler wrote:
I hear people go on and on about how GW is first in quality, but personally I just don't see it anymore. They're just asking for insane amounts of money for some really goofy-looking models now. And the few cases where they do release quality sculpts are marred by the fact that they're usually in Finecast and overpriced.

I think GW is clearly not first in sculpt quality, but they do have by far the best multi-part plastic kits of any manufacturer-- multi-part plastic kits that many of their metal and Finecast offerings are very compatible with. I know of no other wargames manufacturer that makes it as easy and rewarding to truly make your models your own as GW does.

I will concede the fair use point.

I personally use printed PDF's of my army books(which I own legitimate copies of) simply because having the ability to have a single sheet out is easier than having the entire book on the table, and I don't want to cut my book up for sake of ease. Having the PDF also allows me to reference pages quickly without having to track down my book which is usually in an army case which may be in the trunk of my car.

I've never had moral issues with sticking it to GW financially in such small ways only because they are blatantly gouging prices these days. 10 years ago I wouldn't have that same outlook.

As for book price increases, the Bretonnian army book was $20 when it released. It is currently 100% the same book and costs $33.

Damn near every other book on the planet goes down in price as it gets older until it becomes a collectible/antique.

Now if GW wants to make a new Bret book and charge $45, fine. At least then we can say the price is due to inflation since the previous one, nicer quality, etc. But charging 50% more for the same product that is now a decade old is ludicrous. And the same goes for pretty much any model that is 10 years old.