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.

The day GW releases digital versions of miniatures to print at home on an iPrinter is the day I start giving them my money again.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 doc1234 wrote:

And honestly there is a small amount of difference there, many of us prefer not using fancy new smart phones for a variety of reasons, cost being only one of them.

Cost is a reason not to get a smart phone? I've yet to actually buy one, they've all been free with my contract renewals(albeit, I tend to wait until Black Friday to renew ).

Someone further up raised price as an issue with it i believe, just put it to tie it in :p

 Bull0 wrote:

You're being ridiculous. Smartphones are far more ubiquitous and inexpensive than wargaming materials. It is definitely unusual if you don't have a phone that's capable of reading an eBook. But no you're right, I guess my butler lied to me over kristall and caviar last night

Smartphones are crazy expensive. You just don't notice because you're paying in 24+ monthly installments, probably without even realizing it. Go look at how much they cost without a contract. We're talking high-end PC price range for the kind of device typical highschoolers walk around with.

Teen in a GW store:"Can I have a demo game?"
Redshirt: "Get a job!"

BTW what if redshirts in one-man-stores don't earn enough so that they can't afford a smartphone or iPad?

 Bull0 wrote:

You're being ridiculous. Smartphones are far more ubiquitous and inexpensive than wargaming materials. It is definitely unusual if you don't have a phone that's capable of reading an eBook.

I don't have one, and I sure as heck am not going to buy one just to read eBooks, if I don't need it for anything else, and I don't. Guess I am unusual.

A smartphone just to read eBooks nope

A basic eReader like a Kindle or Kobo can be picked up for £70 new or a lot less second hand so maybe (Well I've already got one but you see what I mean)

I've managed a one man store for GW and the redshirts aren't making millions but they aren't starving either. As a family man I couldn't afford a smart phone but a single man running a store could afford one if they chose to and with their 50% discount they could get all the digital suplements they could ask for if they wished to buy those products.

Backfire wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:

You're being ridiculous. Smartphones are far more ubiquitous and inexpensive than wargaming materials. It is definitely unusual if you don't have a phone that's capable of reading an eBook.

I don't have one, and I sure as heck am not going to buy one just to read eBooks, if I don't need it for anything else, and I don't. Guess I am unusual.

With the greatest of respect, yes, that is unusual. And yeah, I'm still not proposing that buying a smartphone just to read digital codexes is a good idea - I'm saying most people already have one, so the arguments of "You have to buy a new device!" carry a lot less weight than people seem to be throwing behind them. I can't believe how specific I have to be, just run with it for god's sake

The problem here is the formatting. Unless you're an iSheep, you get a flawed document. GW digital rules products in non-iBook form have a poor track record as far as page formatting. It's probably just growing pains or that they just haven't asked the people that do the formatting for the black library books to help them out yet instead of scanning something and calling it good.

An earlier poster mentioned the Privateer Press app; this should be the model. Instead of creating two different versions of a product with varying levels of quality, make one, under your own app and sell it that way. I know, this makes too much sense for GW and if they actually had people working for them with business sense they'd be running the world instead of the insane hermit kingdom they are quickly becoming (et tu Kim Jung Kirby?)

 MagickalMemories wrote:
I don't think it would happen but, if it did, that would be the end of my dysfunctional relationship with GW.

Eric

Ditto here ... the end of physical media would make it very difficult for me to continue with the game, as i don't have nor want a smart phone or tablet. *shrug*

I like me my physical books, dammit.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:

You're being ridiculous. Smartphones are far more ubiquitous and inexpensive than wargaming materials. It is definitely unusual if you don't have a phone that's capable of reading an eBook. But no you're right, I guess my butler lied to me over kristall and caviar last night

Smartphones are crazy expensive. You just don't notice because you're paying in 24+ monthly installments, probably without even realizing it. Go look at how much they cost without a contract. We're talking high-end PC price range for the kind of device typical highschoolers walk around with.

I don't know what you call a high end pc...

Yeah, a high end PC is around $3000. An iPhone is worth about $600. Not even close. It is close to a lower-middle laptop (mine cost $400 two years ago and has all basic needs). We have the tech usually available to use it, and everyone has at least something they CAN read it on (desktop, laptop, kindle, iPad/iPhone, etc). Not everybody wants to read it on a screen, and nobody will bring their desktop along to game. Printing it out costs even more to do on top of the digital cost. This is a losing strategy no matter what. Offering in both mediums is the right call. I have nothing against GW digitals, as long as they're in paperback/hardcover too. Digital only is bad. Mantic offers both (I know I'm plugging them here, sorry, it's a valid point): digital and paperback. Kickstart backers got free digital with their pledge, others can buy the digital PDF. I have both because I kickstarted. I use the PDF version on my kindle, but it's no replacement for the paperback. If I had to pick only having one, I'd keep my paperback.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:

You're being ridiculous. Smartphones are far more ubiquitous and inexpensive than wargaming materials. It is definitely unusual if you don't have a phone that's capable of reading an eBook. But no you're right, I guess my butler lied to me over kristall and caviar last night

Smartphones are crazy expensive. You just don't notice because you're paying in 24+ monthly installments, probably without even realizing it. Go look at how much they cost without a contract. We're talking high-end PC price range for the kind of device typical highschoolers walk around with.

Yea, they're insane. The look on peoples' faces when they find out that an iPhone costs $600+ is interesting.

it isn't the 00s any more, you can get a high spec pc for £400, which is iirc around the price of an ipad.

Though tesco sell tablets for £120 and i'm sure there's other cheap ones out there.

A friend of mine told me that using a Codex on a tablet is very awkward compared to using a paper one: Flipping through the pages takes forever even on good ones. Not to speak of the usual hazards around gaming tables, were things always get soaked by beer or fall off the table or suddenly disappear without a trace. So you will need several tablets/smart phones per year for this.

BTW: The plural of codex is codices.

Codexes in this context is an established and widely accepted alternative.

If we were talking the olde worlde word for books, you'd be correct.

 azreal13 wrote:
Codexes in this context is an established and widely accepted alternative.

If we were talking the olde worlde word for books, you'd be correct.

I say "Codices", but I don't shout at people who don't.

Naw Kroot, they're fine, it's GW's formatting that generally stinks. The iBook forms are great, bookmarks and all of that but the ebooks for non-apple people suck. Privateer Press does it right, GW does it wrong....yet again.

 Kroothawk wrote:


BTW: The plural of codex is codices.

But not the only one.

Codexes is a perfectly correct plural for a non-scientific use in regular English.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/codex

And yes, the same applies to Apex, Index, Matrix, whathaveyou...

From the Dictionary of Modern English Language

- The line just avoides the apexes of the hills, but The shells have their apices eroded.

- Six patients had their appendixes removed, & I hate books with appendixes, but The evidence is digested in five appendices.

- A dial like a clock face with two indexes, but Integral, fractional, & negative indices.

- A heap of old stereotype matrixes, but Some of the species of whinstone are common matrices of agate & chalcedony.

- Arrange the trestles with their vertexes alternatively high & low, but In the vertices of curves where they cut the abscissa at right angles.

- Whirlpools or vortexes or eddies, but The vortices of modern atomists.

It follows that for colloquial, rather than scientific use, -xes is an appropriate pluralization of Codex.

Example

- GW is a gaming company that has published several codexes for its best-selling wargame, but The Codices Palatini germanici are collected at the University of Heidelberg.

ped·ant·ry
ˈpedntrē/Submit
noun
1.
excessive concern with minor details and rules.

 Zweischneid wrote:
And yes, the same applies to Apex, Index, Matrix, whathaveyou...

It always bugged me that everyone seemed to consider that the correct plural for vertex (in computer science at least) was vertices, but my spell-checker would always consider it wrong, and would propose vertexes.
So now, thanks to you, I know it's a general difference for plural forms of Latin-influenced words between scientific and colloquial uses !

 agnosto wrote:
ped·ant·ry
ˈpedntrē/Submit
noun
1.
excessive concern with minor details and rules.

i'm generally unconcerned with minor details of grammar, but as someone who has studied antiquarian grammar to a small extent (mainly greek but the rules are very similar to latin) the insistance of some people in saying 'codicies', as if they know some super cool secret knowledge that none of us do, is irritating. There is no reason whatsoever to use that word in day to day conversation, any more than one would say 'democratous' as a plural of democracy, or 'biblous' as a plural of bible.

Using the original plural is only generally acceptable in obscure and unkown words. Given that codexes are ubiquitious in 40k it seems appropriate to use the english plural, not the latin one. Though of course a piece of writing about medieval manuscripts - often referred to as codexes - would be entirely appropropriate to use such a word.

xruslanx wrote:
... the insistance of some people in saying 'codicies',...

Codicies is only slightly better than Codexii
Now have fun with Astartesses and Sororitasses

 Kroothawk wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
... the insistance of some people in saying 'codicies',...

Codicies is only slightly better than Codexii
Now have fun with Astartesses and Sororitasses

Anyway, I thought it was "codexes" simply due to it being GW-speak and part of their "No no we own the word" thing. Doesn't it list the plural like that on their site?

Also this is getting a little off topic

 doc1234 wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
... the insistance of some people in saying 'codicies',...

Codicies is only slightly better than Codexii
Now have fun with Astartesses and Sororitasses

Spoiler:

Wouldn't mind me some Sororit-asses

Anyway, I thought it was "codexes" simply due to it being GW-speak and part of their "No no we own the word" thing. Doesn't it list the plural like that on their site?

Also this is getting a little off topic

lol, you sir win one internet; please redeem it at the door.

xruslanx wrote:
There is no reason whatsoever to use that word in day to day conversation

I have a good reason - it's the plural that I learned as a kid growing up. Perhaps it's regional but anyway, both are acceptable. Don't assu,e that just because someone learned / uses codices that they're trying to be arrogant. I use vertices too as that is also the word which I learned.

A slightly off topic question...

Are GW up for sale or in any form of financial bother?

With this and them getting rid of Finecast, it seems that they are downsizing some things that are costing them money.

The company I used to work for did the same. They sold of some valuable and not so valuable assets off to try and stay afloat... which didn't work as they then became insolvent and had to sell to China.

This made a lot of my former colleagues redundant recently... I jumped before getting axed as I wasn't going to get any compensation package.

I've just seen a lot of similarities.

There is no indication GW are under any immediate financial threat, while their numbers haven't been stellar over the last few years, their share price has been respectable and they have been making a decent profit.

As a PLC, they are always up for sale, that is the nature of that form of business organisation, the more pertinent, and harder to answer, question is if anyone is buying? Frankly, we wouldn't know until either a press release was published, or possibly if private shareholders were approached to sell their stake, and one of them decided to share.

Certainly a valid interpretation of GW's apparently counter-intuitive actions in recent history could be they are in negotiations for a takeover, and have to fulfil certain assurances as a result, but that isn't the only spin one could out on them.

 azreal13 wrote:
There is no indication GW are under any immediate financial threat, while their numbers haven't been stellar over the last few years, their share price has been respectable and they have been making a decent profit.

That's debatable.

They have been cutting expenses left right and center for a while now, which is why they love the limited editions and digital releases, same/no production costs with double the regular price tag/just shy of the regular price tag. The next logical step if they were to continue cutting costs is to remove the format that nets them the least profit, which is the regular books.
I'm not saying it will happen but with the amount of cost cutting GW is doing it's possible.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
There is no indication GW are under any immediate financial threat, while their numbers haven't been stellar over the last few years, their share price has been respectable and they have been making a decent profit.

That's debatable.

They have been cutting expenses left right and center for a while now, which is why they love the limited editions and digital releases, same/no production costs with double the regular price tag/just shy of the regular price tag. The next logical step if they were to continue cutting costs is to remove the format that nets them the least profit, which is the regular books.
I'm not saying it will happen but with the amount of cost cutting GW is doing it's possible.

No, at this moment in time those are indisputable facts.

There is no way for an outsider to distinguish between cost cutting in order to keep afloat and efficiencies that any sensibly run business will undertake if it spots the opportunity, at least not until the more drastic measures such as redundancies, store closures and profit warnings start to happen.

As consumers we do not have all of the facts, and as such cannot have a fully informed opinions. Now, personally, I think in some cases GW would benefit from better communication, both to help us understand where it's coming from on the more superficially bizarre actions, and also to get guidance from its customer base and respond, a la PP or similar, rather than telling us what we want.

But, for now, the latest official figures give no hint of imminent financial problems. If they continue as they are, with flat revenue in a growing market sustained by increasing prices, overpriced LEs and the digital micro transactions etc, then perhaps things will look different in 2020, but unless they utterly feth things up in the next year or two, they're fine.

I think the LE stuff is very poorly implemented, and while I don't begrudge anybody making a profit, I at least would like them to be clever about it, and at least pretend to try and justify the price, especially on a book that will be near worthless once the next edition drops. It isn't the price that offends me so much, it's the laziness of the offering! But then that's why I don't buy them.