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.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Grot 6 wrote:
You say you have old stuff for the game? What if I come back and tel you that to be competative, you NEED to come on into the local "One man GW store" and buy this flyer here, because it is so great, then while your at it you have to get the book to use it as a secondary product at an additional 30 bucks or so? Price irrelivent, what I'm asking you to buy the full product for two to three times the cost of the need for it. AND I'm telling you to buy it at a specific place, because you can't go down to your LGS and buy it there from your old pal that you usually buy your stuff from, and bought with a 30-40% discount.

Honestly, I'd probably say, "prove it." And it would really depend on what you mean by "competitive." Now, bear in mind you're talking to a dude who's primary play group took 5E necrons to Adepticon because, "why not" and who's same playgroup took the "bankrupt space marines" that didn't have enough money to use vehicles to that same tournament a year later.

They are a hostile company. They treat thier players and employees like gak, and act as if they can do no wrong. They overcharge for shoddy craft products, and they intentionally overstep thier make in local markets and drive away business. If they find that they have a particularly storn area, they open up thier shop thier, suck dry the local market, then close shop to shuck and jive that it counts as a profit. The discarded unsold merchandise is destroyed and counted as profits/ spoilage, and in turn counted as an overall success.

I've never felt that GW has treated me poorly. Or really treated me in anyway, for that matter. Now, when I've interacted with GW employees, I've always been treated to politness and professionalism, and in the case of their design team members at Adepticon or Games Day, they've even been enthusiastic and friendly. I don't consider their price rises, or their lack of official rumor mongoring to be treating me poorly. Maybe that makes me a sucker.

I will not call you a sucker, but I will say that your "experience" is not even in the ballpark of the rest of us out here in the rest of the.. gaming community(?edit- I don't know for a better word...). I feel that you should stop trying to counter the arguments, and ask yourself WHY there are so many others out here in the country that are having issue. YOU might think that your points are valid, but in the saying "In my experience", it is exactly that. Your experience. In much the same way as you think your getting a good experience, people ( I was one of them.) are getting a crappy one. They get it from one to add another to anotehr to the point where you feel that you've been betrayed for want of a better word. ( Yes, GW is a business, but thier practices are unreasonable and hostile to thier customers.) Like it or not, thats the fact. It is a fact, because it is in the perception, and the writtne, and discussed evidence to the contrary.

As to prove it, I'd go on and just say- it isn't so much in proving a point, as in countering the perceived slight and trying to figure out exactly why are all these people having issue, or reasonably discussing the contention. Just because you have 1-10 people that are happy, and the other 90 are having issue- your still going to lose 90, even if you keep 10. UNLESS YOU DO SOMETHING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE/S.

At this point in time, GW has done nothing of a sort. In this case, it began with a spark, and now the room is on fire. Even if it was as you say , "Perceived"- Perception is reality.

SO in that case, I can see how you perceive that the 90 people are not looking at the issues in the same way you are, but in that, you as well- are not seeming to be getting the full on effect that some of us are in the issues.

 Amaya wrote:
If you can't discuss fairness in absolute terms there is no reason to discuss it. Every customer is going to have a different opinion of what is fair. Can you really make a good argument that not pricing their product at cost plus 10% is unfair? It's a bunch of cheap little plastic soldiers for strange men to play with in dark rooms. You pay how much for it? The concept of fairness is so arbitrary and fluid that you can't pin it down in this scenario.

Again, if you dislike it, do not buy it. That means don't continue to spend X amount on GW and just accept that you'll get less. The only way you can cut into their profit margin is buy not buying any of their product and encouraging fellow gamers to do the same.

Now if you want to criticize GW, attacking them for bad business practices is fair game. GW has earned its bad reputation. Arguing about whether or not you have the right to buy a commodity for a fair price is pointless.

Fairness and it's interpretation is going to vary from individual to individual. If your company is doing things right, the number of people who regard it as unfair is going to be low. If the public perception is that you are behaving questionably, they will believe you are being unfair, the more people think this, the more 'online rants' or 'forums full of whiners' there will be.

If something is released for one army and it's now $90 when something similar in size and use for another army is $60, then people will say it is unfair. You can quibble all you want about the definitions of unfair and that won't matter two jots, the consumers are complaining because they feel GW isn't treating them fairly.

GW's failure to engage it's own consumers is exacerbating this situation further. It's customer relations and PR is nonexistant whilst it's legal team is in overdrive. It creates a fairly bad image.

You can claim the high ground with the actual definition of 'fair' but in retail and business in general, perception is king.

But the primary argument is always centered around people not liking how things are priced.

There's very, very little in regards to people actually, tangibly, being mistreated by representatives from GW.

And as far as being "betrayed" by a business? Come on, son. No one is forcing you to buy a single thing.

The top three complaints are:
1. Prices are too high.
2. They don't give us previews.
3. WD is an advertisement.

And to all three of those things, I say...Okay?

1. Prices are too high IMO on gas. Because I feel this way, I drive less, and therefore have to spend less on it, and bear in mind driving is far more essential than GW products are.
2. So they don't give us previews... So what? I don't know how to respond to this but to say...oh well?
3. Plenty of magazines are advertisement. And...

Is legal attitude questionable. I guess. They send C&D letters and (thanks Buzz) have been somewhat disingenuous and unethical in how they're trying to get info from past artists for the CHS case. Okay. The means rarely justify the ends and they don't IMO in this case, but that hardly affects my everyday experience with GW. I find the bad-faith request for Amazon to take down gaks the Space Marine in poor taste by GW, but just as much by Amazon's lack of due diligence. I'm still going to patronize Amazon. And for me, the fact that GW keeps jobs in the UK and doesn't outsource to China for their production (this could very well solve a lot of #1, mind you) tells me that, while they're clearly lacking in judgement in the legal department, they're concerned about their native land, at least a little bit.

And again, my direct interactions with GW personnel has always been positive and courteous. There are few to no people that actually have anecdotal evidence of being directly mistreated by GW other than the aforementioned three items.

The C&D thing is a problem because they are attacking other parts of the hobby with their aggression and bullying. Just saying 'don't buy GW' doesn't prevent them harming my hobby, you can avoid GW shops but you can't avoid their toxic influence on gaming in general.

I don't want other companies that have nothing to do with GW being impacted by them sending out threatening letters and bullying people into removing products they've invested time and money in.

 cincydooley wrote:
But the primary argument is always centered around people not liking how things are priced.

There's very, very little in regards to people actually, tangibly, being mistreated by representatives from GW.

And as far as being "betrayed" by a business? Come on, son. No one is forcing you to buy a single thing.

The top three complaints are:
1. Prices are too high.
2. They don't give us previews.
3. WD is an advertisement.

And to all three of those things, I say...Okay?

1. Prices are too high IMO on gas. Because I feel this way, I drive less, and therefore have to spend less on it, and bear in mind driving is far more essential than GW products are.
2. So they don't give us previews... So what? I don't know how to respond to this but to say...oh well?
3. Plenty of magazines are advertisement. And...

Is legal attitude questionable. I guess. They send C&D letters and (thanks Buzz) have been somewhat disingenuous and unethical in how they're trying to get info from past artists for the CHS case. Okay. The means rarely justify the ends and they don't IMO in this case, but that hardly affects my everyday experience with GW. I find the bad-faith request for Amazon to take down gaks the Space Marine in poor taste by GW, but just as much by Amazon's lack of due diligence. I'm still going to patronize Amazon. And for me, the fact that GW keeps jobs in the UK and doesn't outsource to China for their production (this could very well solve a lot of #1, mind you) tells me that, while they're clearly lacking in judgement in the legal department, they're concerned about their native land, at least a little bit.

And again, my direct interactions with GW personnel has always been positive and courteous. There are few to no people that actually have anecdotal evidence of being directly mistreated by GW other than the aforementioned three items.

So, you give anecdotal evidence of being happy with your experience with GW but cannot understand why other's don't have your personal experience or viewpoint and find themselves subject to negative factors and express it on a forum about wargaming?

Let me give you a topical example, from my perspective.

I own a large ork army, I have spent a large amount of cash on it. I understood when I bought into it, that I would require a rulebook, a codex and the miniatures. I bought them all, even understanding that the books would rotate and, being an old hand at this, that certain minis would ebb and flow in their capabilities, to continue turning the wheels of purchasing.

Understanding all this, I entered into this unspoken contract of updating my army happily enough, that's how GW operates.

GW then releases a flyer model for my army (Cool! Like that!) but don't give me the rules to play it online for free (hmmm, that's a pain) so I have to buy the white dwarf to get them (oh well, that was greedy)... and now they scrap those rules (so the white dwarf cost was for 'temporary rules') and placed the rules for my already purchased mini into another book (hang on...) for another $40 (what the?) and if I want to use the model I bought, in the army I bought, with the rules and codex I bought, I now have to buy a further book, just for these rules, which will then be either repeated or replaced when the 'cycling' turns and my new codex is replaced. So they have added another layer to my necessary purchasing and now have the potential to further add layers, if they decide to update 'warbosses' in the forthcoming 'Death from HQs' supplement.

Now, this is but one example of a way in which I can claim to have been treated unfairly and the unspoken contract between supplier and consumer of product is breached.

It's like Kirby said 'I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it further'...

MGS--

I think this is one of the only valid things I've heard that doesn't involve pricing, and you're absolutely right.

The PDF should be made available online or included as an insert in the box. I think this is an entirely valid criticism.

I think the thing I struggle with the most is that we can't determine whether or not decisions like this are out of malevolence or stupidity. With GW, I generally err on the side of stupidity, honestly.

But everything else focuses on the pricing of things.

Arguing with MGS is a lost cause. He is only concerned with emotion.

 Amaya wrote:
Arguing with MGS is a lost cause. He is only concerned with emotion.

Naw, I think the point on the flyer rules is a completely valid one. There's really no excuse to not release rules for new models with the model itself or at least make the rules easily available, even if that is via a purchase method. Making the rules available only in a limited print book is shockingly poor judgement.

He is correct about that. Complaints about GW's clandestine secrecy over upcoming releases, nerfbatting old models, overpowered new models, and slow updates for certain armies would also be valid. I'm sure there are some other valid criticisms that I haven't thought of as well.

But hanging up on the price issue and not admitting that it just comes to people not liking it is foolish.

 Amaya wrote:
He is correct about that. Complaints about GW's clandestine secrecy over upcoming releases, nerfbatting old models, overpowered new models, and slow updates for certain armies would also be valid. I'm sure there are some other valid criticisms that I haven't thought of as well.

But hanging up on the price issue and not admitting that it just comes to people not liking it is foolish.

The reason why people are getting hung up on the pricing for this stuff relates to every "valid criticism" you listed. Don't know what we're releasing until 2 weeks before we release it? can't save up some cash to pay for their high prices, nerfing all my old models? Now I have to buy your high priced new models. Overpowered new models? Now I have to buy your high priced new models. Slow updates for armies are probably the only thing that isn't directly related to pricing...

cincydooley wrote:MGS--

I think this is one of the only valid things I've heard that doesn't involve pricing, and you're absolutely right.

The PDF should be made available online or included as an insert in the box. I think this is an entirely valid criticism.

I think the thing I struggle with the most is that we can't determine whether or not decisions like this are out of malevolence or stupidity. With GW, I generally err on the side of stupidity, honestly.

But everything else focuses on the pricing of things.

Thank you for reading my post and taking what I said onboard there, it's a recent and topical cause for complaint and I think, as a customer, I'm entitled to be pissed off about it, I'm also, as a human, likely to want to share my thoughts with other likeminded individuals who share my interests, that occurs on these wonderful forums every day.

Now, lets take a look at pricing for a bit. We know, as long term customers, that the following has occurred:

1. Metal miniatures became suddenly and greatly increased in price due to the 'tin crisis', this was openly admitted to by GW, followed by a statement that the price would likely fall again once the 'tin crisis' was over. That reduction never happened.

2. This was followed by an increase in the prices of plastics, stated by Kirby and Co in the investors report as due to feeling that the plastics were now of a similar quality to the metals and should therefore be brought into line with the pricing for the metals (you know, the pricing that got elevated due to the 'tin crisis' several years before).

3. This was followed by the metals being replaced, largely, by the finecast resin, a substance that is openly stated by other manufacturers to be considerably cheaper than 'white metal'. This should absolutely alleviate the elevated prices brought about by the tin crisis, also it's even cheaper than the original metal prior to that calamity...

4. We are then told that the 'transition process' was labor intensive and costly, so the prices should remain high. Transition processes are, by nature, temporary and yet the price remains higher than when the models were created by 'tin crisis' white metal...

5. Now, we are beginning to see plastic character models in new ranges, beginning to replace the finecast minis, likely due to the absolutely dire implementation of finecast (you remember, the implementation that was so intensive and thorough it caused an increase in price, despite moving to a cheaper medium). The plastic minis are now being released to a higher cost than the finecast...

ALL of this to a background wherein Kirby openly admitted in the investor's report that the customers of GW's product will 'tolerate a great degree of price elasticity', which if you're having trouble interpreting the corporate jargon, means 'will put up with a good degree of fleecing and still buy this stuff'.

Given all that I have listed above, I have zero problem with people who've been in this hobby for a while and invested years to collecting, modelling, painting and gaming, feeling somewhat disgruntled about their treatment. I certainly have little to no support for GW's pricing policies given what I've witnessed with the above evidence.

If you can see something I've missed in the above, all historically provable btw, then do please show me the side of that that's 'just business' and not 'cynical exploitation of the hobbyist's love of the games and background'.

Amaya wrote:Arguing with MGS is a lost cause. He is only concerned with emotion.

You gain experience +20

No, I said that you are entirely disregarding it in your argument and to disregard the emotions of the consumers is fatal in business. Your definition of what 'actually is' fair vs what someone else believes is fair is pointless in the discussion of the reasons people complain to one another about their experiences.

Edited by Manchu

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
He is correct about that. Complaints about GW's clandestine secrecy over upcoming releases, nerfbatting old models, overpowered new models, and slow updates for certain armies would also be valid. I'm sure there are some other valid criticisms that I haven't thought of as well.

But hanging up on the price issue and not admitting that it just comes to people not liking it is foolish.

The reason why people are getting hung up on the pricing for this stuff relates to every "valid criticism" you listed. Don't know what we're releasing until 2 weeks before we release it? can't save up some cash to pay for their high prices, nerfing all my old models? Now I have to buy your high priced new models. Overpowered new models? Now I have to buy your high priced new models. Slow updates for armies are probably the only thing that isn't directly related to pricing...

If they didn't nerfbat old models in order to sell new models then this wouldn't be an issue. Personally, I'd be more annoyed that my already painted, customized, and based model is no longer useful at all then that there is a general price increase.

 Amaya wrote:
He is correct about that. Complaints about GW's clandestine secrecy over upcoming releases, nerfbatting old models, overpowered new models, and slow updates for certain armies would also be valid. I'm sure there are some other valid criticisms that I haven't thought of as well.

The rotation of units in rules from must haves to dead ducks according to new minis and the cycle of purchasing is something I got very used to years ago, it's part of the contract between GW and I that I understand, they sell new minis to remain in business, it's something I've never minded.

Slow updates for certain armies is certainly a very valid cause for complaint, it creates a tiered system of service from the company to the purchaser, you get higher level of service if you have marines vs if you have wood elves... However I do feel GW have made great strides here lately, what with necrons and dark eldar, and I remain hopeful they will pick up the pace for all the currently 'out in the cold' armies. Credit where it's due.

The clandestine secrecy is fething weird, I don't get it. I understand how they have to do it for NLC stuff, LotR and hobbit, but don't understand it one bit for the rest of their ranges. I'd have thought hype and greens and occasional puzzle shots would whip the customers into a frenzy? My suspicion is that they just employ a blanket silence covering all minis because it's easier than picking out the LotR/Hobbit stuff from their own range stuff. Perhaps it's to demonstrate to NLC that they can now keep a lid on things... Who knows...

 Amaya wrote:
But hanging up on the price issue and not admitting that it just comes to people not liking it is foolish.

I'm temperamental but I've never considered myself foolish...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mattyrm wrote:
Aye, the flier gripe is definitely a fair gripe.

Still, at least they are consistent! No need for the incessant crying though is there? As I said, do what I do. Buy feth all.. But don't sob online all day, you just look like a sucker for punishment.

Matty, understand the difference between commenting on something and crying or sobbing. I can pass comment on what GW's doing because I have a computer and an opinion, I'm further more likely to because I'm a hobbyist with 25 years of gaming and a room given over to my toy soldiers. My chosen system for about 22 of those years have been GW's. This notion that people should suddenly drop everything and leave 'the hobby' because their pissed at 'the gw' is bs.

Also, as I've said before, I've got little to no actual beef with the design team, I still love that GW, quibbles with rules editions aside.

I do have a strong dislike for the other GW, Corporate GW.

So basically this wife analogy you used, I still have to deal with her, despite Thomasina going back to her maiden name of Kirby, because we need to make arrangements to see the kids, I still want to have little Jes, Matthew, Phillip et al, even tiny Jervis, despite his allergies, because I'm still fond of them and I've spent years of my life raising them.

ALL of this to a background wherein Kirby openly admitted in the investor's report that the customers of GW's product will 'tolerate a great degree of price elasticity', which if you're having trouble interpreting the corporate jargon, means 'will put up with a good degree of fleecing and still buy this stuff'.

Given all that I have listed above, I have zero problem with people who've been in this hobby for a while and invested years to collecting, modelling, painting and gaming, feeling somewhat disgruntled about their treatment. I certainly have little to no support for GW's pricing policies given what I've witnessed with the above evidence.

Makes perfect sense. I think this is where we really start to see the difference between a private and public company rear its ugly head. As much as we don't want to believe it, that's a big part of the equation. It's at odds with the entilement and closeness of input people in this hobby typically want and are used to, as (and correct me if I'm wrong) GW is the ONLY miniatures wargaming company that is public.

The only response to this, really, is to stop buying the items that are outliers to what the price elasticity will allow. I haven't bought as much, but it's been more a product of not wanting as much of it, or not wanting to start a new army. I already warned my wife that whenever the Space Wolves HH book comes out from forge world, she wont see me for a few weeks and she won't be getting any new purses

With that in mind, I think more of my $$ has gone to FW or BL than GW main lately.

 cincydooley wrote:

ALL of this to a background wherein Kirby openly admitted in the investor's report that the customers of GW's product will 'tolerate a great degree of price elasticity', which if you're having trouble interpreting the corporate jargon, means 'will put up with a good degree of fleecing and still buy this stuff'.

Given all that I have listed above, I have zero problem with people who've been in this hobby for a while and invested years to collecting, modelling, painting and gaming, feeling somewhat disgruntled about their treatment. I certainly have little to no support for GW's pricing policies given what I've witnessed with the above evidence.

Makes perfect sense. I think this is where we really start to see the difference between a private and public company rear its ugly head. As much as we don't want to believe it, that's a big part of the equation. It's at odds with the entilement and closeness of input people in this hobby typically want and are used to, as (and correct me if I'm wrong) GW is the ONLY miniatures wargaming company that is public.

The only response to this, really, is to stop buying the items that are outliers to what the price elasticity will allow. I haven't bought as much, but it's been more a product of not wanting as much of it, or not wanting to start a new army. I already warned my wife that whenever the Space Wolves HH book comes out from forge world, she wont see me for a few weeks and she won't be getting any new purses

With that in mind, I think more of my $$ has gone to FW or BL than GW main lately.

Preface: I worked for several years as the complaint coordinator for a large, multinational, insurance firm - a public company. Working towards resolving customer complaints, business retention, root cause analysis/process improvement and keeping our company compliant with business regulation and governmental monitoring bodies. I worked with our customers to keep them onboard, I defended us against the regulators and I made us a better, more efficient company into the bargain.

If our brokers, their customer businesses or the larger businesses we dealt with directly, had any inkling we were manipulating our rates or their premiums along the lines I've just listed in the five points about GW I raised in my prior post to you, we would have been out of business in a month.

Your statement about private v public company only stretches halfway, but GW's guilty of behaving like a little private company, a corner shop owner pointing to his sign to say 'the management reserves the right to refuse custom', when it comes to their customer relations.

You say it's the difference because they are a public company, but look at how they conduct themselves, they are a multinational company with shareholders, who refuse to deal with the press, who pull all that smoke and mirrors bs with pricing that I listed. They want all of the benefits of being a big company and are utterly unwilling (or just incapable) of dealing professionally with the customer or with maintaining their profile as a big company.

There is, in my opinion, one factor saving GW from a really big reality check and that's the lack of a significant rival thus far. PP is still very small in comparison, it's IP far from as recognizable.

I do not think that state of affairs will last for ever, nor for that much longer. I welcome the change when it comes and as a business, GW should to, it will be the crucible that fashions it back into a capable company or kills it, allowing it's IP to be bought up by another to try the same thing with the opportunity to learn from their fatal mistake.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
There is, in my opinion, one factor saving GW from a really big reality check and that's the lack of a significant rival thus far. PP is still very small in comparison, it's IP far from as recognizable.

I do not think that state of affairs will last for ever, nor for that much longer. I welcome the change when it comes and as a business, GW should to, it will be the crucible that fashions it back into a capable company or kills it, allowing it's IP to be bought up by another to try the same thing with the opportunity to learn from their fatal mistake.

100% agree. I don't know how PP overcomes this, and again, until we have any real solid numbers as to their revenue, they may as well be a fart in the wind to GW.

Even more interesting than the price discussion is the Finecast stunt, that is a crystal clear example of no regards for their clients and IMO one of the biggest fiascos of GW in this Industry. ( No I'm not opening a door to debate that you think FC is uber good).

This is were a community has responsibilities, these issues should be flagged over and over again so that these actions are not left unnoticed and the less hobby experienced people are a bit more informed.

 cincydooley wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
There is, in my opinion, one factor saving GW from a really big reality check and that's the lack of a significant rival thus far. PP is still very small in comparison, it's IP far from as recognizable.

I do not think that state of affairs will last for ever, nor for that much longer. I welcome the change when it comes and as a business, GW should to, it will be the crucible that fashions it back into a capable company or kills it, allowing it's IP to be bought up by another to try the same thing with the opportunity to learn from their fatal mistake.

100% agree. I don't know how PP overcomes this, and again, until we have any real solid numbers as to their revenue, they may as well be a fart in the wind to GW.

Hardly a fart in the wind... You might have had a point several years ago, but PP is steadily increasing in clout and strength. When a computer game was made using their IP, GW's board of directors should have all collectively let out a high pitched panic-fart of their own... GW's made an army of independent store owners actively willing another company to rise up and take GW's mantle, the only thing holding PP back from that historically has been their gakky distribution methods. If they get their shiz together on the North American continent, they'll take GW down a dark alleyway and make it call them daddy...

 Tigerone wrote:
Some of the most vocal "bashers" have not spent 200 a year on GW. They spend more time on Dakka than they ever have or will painting or playing.

why would I support a company I don't like
I have a Warriors of Chaos army on the go, bought right here on Dakka
only money of mine that goes to GW is for paint, but sometimes I buy other companies' paints, depends on the colours I need

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 Tigerone wrote:
Some of the most vocal "bashers" have not spent 200 a year on GW. They spend more time on Dakka than they ever have or will painting or playing.

why would I support a company I don't like
I have a Warriors of Chaos army on the go, bought right here on Dakka
only money of mine that goes to GW is for paint, but sometimes I buy other companies' paints, depends on the colours I need

Yeah, that statement doesn't make too much sense tigerone, RD has it right... why would I drop 200 of my precious hard earned dollars on a company who's practices I don't agree with?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Hardly a fart in the wind... You might have had a point several years ago, but PP is steadily increasing in clout and strength. When a computer game was made using their IP, GW's board of directors should have all collectively let out a high pitched panic-fart of their own... GW's made an army of independent store owners actively willing another company to rise up and take GW's mantle, the only thing holding PP back from that historically has been their gakky distribution methods. If they get their shiz together on the North American continent, they'll take GW down a dark alleyway and make it call them daddy...

I didn't realize that game had come out already? I mean, I know they did an E3 trailer like, 2 years ago? But after some rudimentary googling, it looks like their website hasn't even been updated in over a year....are we sure this game even still exists?

And we'll really have no idea as to PP's actual "clout and strenght" until we see some solid revenue numbers, which they aren't required to provide, as they're not a public entity.

I admit I don't play, cause I think the rules are gak and codex's overpriced (here and there I might play fantasy but I am hard pressed to play against a non broken codex) I am a painter and modeller first, going on Dakka and looking at other peoples' work often inspires me to start painting or gives me little ideas

2011 had me spending close to $1000 on GW products.
2012 had me spend close to $1000 as well as another $1000 to attend a convention for the sole purpose of playing a GW game.

2013 had me spending $5 for a bottle of wash so far.

"Bashers who don't spend money" used to be loyal customers.

To be fair MGS, I'd feth Jervis off for adoption.

 d-usa wrote:
2011 had me spending close to $1000 on GW products.
2012 had me spend close to $1000 as well as another $1000 to attend a convention for the sole purpose of playing a GW game.

2013 had me spending $5 for a bottle of wash so far.

"Bashers who don't spend money" used to be loyal customers.

Yup, 2011 I spent roughly at least 750 on GW models, not to mention codices, rulebook, and paints

2012 I bought only paint, VC armybook, and a few VC models (including a terrorgeist), a chaplain in termy armor and the Empire Witch Hunter...

2013 has been GW free so far...

 mattyrm wrote:
To be fair MGS, I'd feth Jervis off for adoption.

I still want Alessio back from his exchange student holiday and Ricky back from his spin off series, 'Priestly's Luck'...

 cincydooley wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Which, in the category of the ethics of GW, means that GW is trying to obtain rights by misstatements, in a sense trying to steal from their own former artists. That is, because the art in question was done on commission without assignment of rights outside of a right of first publication, after these works appeared in White Dwarf once, they were the property of the artists. In order to sue, GW needs the assignment... which means they need to negotiate an entirely separate contract, and pay the artists. Which, one notes, they seem to be doing all they can to avoid.

That is all a bit longer then I originally intended, but I hope that it answers some questions.

So in order to have the assignment of rights outside of first publication, it needs to be explicitly stated in the contract, is that correct?

That is correct: an assignment of copyright needs to be explicit.

 cincydooley wrote:
And based on Chaulk's declarative statement, it appears that the 'standard quo' for commission work of this type was for rights to only be held by the commssioner on first publication.

So GW is basically trying to convince Chaulk and other artists to sign over their complete publication ownership rights on some of these commissioned works without offering to pay them for it, which they 'should' be doing?

Why did you put "should" in ''? Assuming, arguendo, that the two artists with nothing to gain are being truthful in their independent statements, the following is what is going on;

1) GW does not now have, nor did it have at any previous point in time, assignment (which is to say ownership in the lay sense) to certain copyrights, at least some of which are the basis for suit against CHS.

2) The artists have the ownership of the copyrights.

3) GW attempts to obtain the artists signatures on documents with 2 material untruths;
- That the copyrights are assigned to GW. Untrue, Chalk and Nichols are quite clear that no such assignment was ever made.

-That the assignment was contemporaneous with the work being done (that is, GW has held ownership for the last 30 odd years). Again, flatly contradicted.

If we accept the statements of the artists as true (and the available evidence provides no reason to doubt them), then GW may be, in strict terms, crossing from unethical into criminal in two possible ways;
-The first is fraud in the inducement: " The heart of this type of fraud is misleading the other party as to the facts upon which he/she will base his/her decision to act"; let's be very clear, an assignment of rights is a piece of property. Obtaining property without payment is an act with a name, we call it theft, and when it's accomplished with misleading statements it's fraud. Forgive the big letters (but perhaps we can distract for a moment from the interminable debate over pricing), reduced to the simplest formulation, if you believe the sworn declaration of G. Chalk,

Games Workshop is lying to artists in an attempt to steal their property.

-The document that GW wanted signed, that would have been an assignment of rights, would not only have deprived the artists of their (intellectual) property, but they would have been offered into evidence. That is, the artists would have put their names on legal documents prepared by GW that misrepresent material facts. Facts like who owns what, and as of what date that ownership commenced are very important facts in a legal controversy.

 cincydooley wrote:
And because the letter indicates that they're trying to 'shore up records that may have been lost' and that the letter is actually an outcome of the Chapterhouse lawsuit, they're not providing the artists with the 'true' picture of why they need it, thus making them deceptive and unethical?

While all the time, GW could have just as easily said, "we're involved in a lawsuit, we'd like to buy from you the rights for these items as they're subject to copyright infringement in this suit" which would have been completely forthcoming and more ethical/fair?

Is that about right?

Well, no. The reason for asking for the documents isn't particularly important, the problem with the "shore up records that may have been lost" assertion is... the records weren't lost, they never existed.

It's also important to note that while they need to offer to buy the assignments (as opposed to obtaining them by fraud), there are potentially a lot of reasons why they can't do that: offering to buy the assignments is an admission that they don't currently, and didn't previously, own these rights. Which could potentially mean big trouble for any previous filings and representations they have made.

 cincydooley wrote:
Is legal attitude questionable. I guess. They send C&D letters and (thanks Buzz) have been somewhat disingenuous and unethical in how they're trying to get info from past artists for the CHS case. Okay. The means rarely justify the ends and they don't IMO in this case, but that hardly affects my everyday experience with GW. I find the bad-faith request for Amazon to take down gaks the Space Marine in poor taste by GW, but just as much by Amazon's lack of due diligence. I'm still going to patronize Amazon. And for me, the fact that GW keeps jobs in the UK and doesn't outsource to China for their production (this could very well solve a lot of #1, mind you) tells me that, while they're clearly lacking in judgement in the legal department, they're concerned about their native land, at least a little bit.

And again, my direct interactions with GW personnel has always been positive and courteous. There are few to no people that actually have anecdotal evidence of being directly mistreated by GW other than the aforementioned three items.

"gaks the Space Marine"? (Please note that Cinc did not use the word "gaks".) So, a woman writes a book, using terms that are completely generic and have been in use since before the second World War. Games Workshop misuses a legal filing in an attempt to improperly increase their IP and destroy this random woman's livelihood, and and in the interest of fairness you insult her?

"poor taste by GW, but just as much by Amazon's lack of due diligence"? Again, Amazon should have done more diligence, but their ultimate failing is they believed that GW was being truthful. GW's actions "in poor taste" were willfully misusing the law in an attempt to increase their portfolio and coincidentally deprive someone of income, someone they knew or should have known did not have the financial means to fight GW's blatantly unethical and improper filing.

In all seriousness, you say "I hope GW smashes [Chapterhouse Studios] into tiny pieces and bankrupts the company, if only because of Chapterhouse's arrogance in their exploitation of GWs IP", but when faced with evidence that GW is misusing the legal process, filing false statements with the courts, attempting to defraud independent authors and stomping on random people... you "guess" GW "have been somewhat disingenuous and unethical"?

It seems almost incomprehensible how you are able to reconcile these beliefs. GW isn't in breach of some petty, corner case legalities here, they are violating bedrock principles of law and order: seriously now, thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not swear falsely are... not new ideas.

Warhammer 40k feels like it could play the exact same, but instead of having squads of 10, just have one model with 10 wounds, and so on.

I don't love GW, but I side with them in the Chapterhouse case. They are profitable because of a GW product. It seems unfair they pay them feth all.