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.

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's possible, but not on anything near a consumer level (the level we're really getting at here) as far as I am aware.

The tools (hardware and software) used to create that model are not exactly what you would consider "consumer" but they are probably under the $5000 mark total. (I am not totally sure about the scanner technology but I am pretty sure it is not super expensive.)

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
Short answer, no. Long answer, noooooooo.

It's going to be a long time before 3D printers are capable of rivaling the material quality, smoothness, and level of detail of injection molded plastic models at a comparable price, much less a cheaper one. The ones you see being used to print masters for resin casting, for instance, still require extensive cleanup after to improve surface finish, and are very, very expensive.

If printers were somehow truly a threat, it would probably force GW to lower their prices (which would be a good thing). And that's a war they would win, thanks to the benefits of mass production. Injection molded plastic models really are so cheap to make, especially when you own your own tooling and production facilities like GW does, that I fail to see how 3D printers could really compete on price if GW chose to lower prices to compete.

Not to mention if printer technology did advance sufficiently to be truly disruptive, you'd still need talented 3D modelers to actually make the model files. GW already has these artists, and they already have the 3D models. Nothing would stop them from buying industrial versions of the same printer technology and cranking out 3D printed copies on demand, again for cheaper than you could at home.

This argument is basically analogous to the book publishing industry. Are bookstores obsolete now that we all have inkjet printers? No. Bookstores are in trouble because of e-books, which is more like GW being in trouble because of video games.

To be fair about that last point, the last time I played a game of 40k was a year or two ago, and in that interval I've put in thousands of hours on games like World of Warcraft, Star Trek Online, and Planetside 2, and a big part of it is because after playing WH40k for an hour or two, I'm left feeling stiff, sore, and sweaty, whereas all those video games are things I can play while sitting down. (at one point a year or so ago I added up the time I've spent playing all of my World of Warcraft characters since I started in 2007, and it came out to 444 days to the hour. That's over 15% of the previous 6 1/2 years spent sitting in front of a computer doing nothing else but playing World of Warcraft. Only the gods know what my armies would look like if I enjoyed painting as much as I do video games.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Da Stormlord wrote:
To be honest, I don't want them to be 3d printed. Mainly because it will be harder to do conversions.

Not if you can 3D print the sprue

Mmm, copyright infringement... Harsher penalties than if you'd just stolen the sprue itself from a GW store.

 Wulfmar wrote:
Eventually, maybe, if prices do not lower

Spoiler:

They have more competition from China recasting, where no one seems to care about Copy Right of Intellectual Property.

There have been crackdowns on that lately too. The Chinese government has been doing a strong job of closing websites and taking recaster's molds away from what I've heard. It doesn't completely stop them but it slows them down.

Da Stormlord wrote:
To be honest, I don't want them to be 3d printed. Mainly because it will be harder to do conversions.

3D printing does away with conversions. Just print it off how you want it, pre-converted.

The issue isn't consumer grade 3D printers. The issue is that more and more studios can now completely design their models in software and reprap them to see the finished product. Essentially, the production cycle is a fraction of the time it was 10 years ago. The traditional sculpting route is going the wayside - sculpting is now a phase 2 component for adding/fixing detail before the final part goes to the molding process -- if that step even occurs.

Mark's DreamForge Games is a perfect example of this. Designed completely in software, printed for testing on commercial grade, transformed into metal cnc molds + injection for finished product.

That is the biggest threat to GW. Their IP will only carry them so far as more and more "new kids" emerge with *very* good product for the money. It's harder and harder to justify dropping GW prices when there are so many really great sculpts out there for half the cost.

The real threat has been touched-on:

- Take an established large IP with all kinds of variety.
- Create "good" rules for a table-top game to attract competitive and RPG-ish elements.
- Use the new fast and dirty methods of miniature sculpture.
- Pump-out many cheap models.
- Make a pretty package with lots of supporting stuff.

Imagine the detail of a FFG game meant for more than just a board, X-wing for little men.

Bonus points:
- Put out all kinds of free scenarios, tips, painting guides, have customer votes on what they want to see next.

All the "new kids" are beginning to find the happy place for gamers (Conan is looking awfully nice) it will not be too long where there will be too much out-shining GW more than 3D printing their stuff would ever do.

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:
Sure GW is in trouble...if there ever emerged a market for minatures with crappy detail.

Well, people still buy chaosmarines

 ncshooter426 wrote:
The issue isn't consumer grade 3D printers. The issue is that more and more studios can now completely design their models in software and reprap them to see the finished product. Essentially, the production cycle is a fraction of the time it was 10 years ago. The traditional sculpting route is going the wayside - sculpting is now a phase 2 component for adding/fixing detail before the final part goes to the molding process -- if that step even occurs.

Mark's DreamForge Games is a perfect example of this. Designed completely in software, printed for testing on commercial grade, transformed into metal cnc molds + injection for finished product.

That is the biggest threat to GW. Their IP will only carry them so far as more and more "new kids" emerge with *very* good product for the money. It's harder and harder to justify dropping GW prices when there are so many really great sculpts out there for half the cost.

This, a thousand times.

Whenever threads like this pop up, I think what the OPs (and many other posters) have in mind is not the increased perfection of 3D printing technology, but the advent of some sort of technological utopia that would shatter not only GW's marketing plans but the foundations of capitalism as a whole. See, kids, that future peer-to-peer paradise where legions of philantrophic tech geniuses share their creations free of charge and everyone's a Bitcoin millionaire will never come to being outside sci-fi books and the minds of a couple Boing Boing editors.

Truth is, 3D printing tech is evolving, and maybe one day it will revolutionise manufacturing and retail as we know it. But when (if) that fateful day arrives, someone, somewhere will still be spending hours in front of a computer, away from friends and family, making meshes in a hurry to meet a deadline, and will probably still expect a fair retribution for it. Intellectual Property will still be a thing, and corporations and governments will enact laws and develop safeguards to prevent and punish misappropiation. IP enforcement is currently going through an impasse, as certain startup nations favor a "softer" approach to it in order to bridge the knowledge gap with the rest of the industrialized world, but it is by no means the end of it. As soon as they catch up, they'll start prosecuting IP theft as harshly as their counterparts in Europe and America do today. This and other factors prevent 3D printing from ushering in the post-capitalist age of plenty tech gurus dream about.

Businesses small and large will rise and profit from 3D printing. Established corporations will adapt. Others will (why not?) stay retro. Whatever the case, 3D printing is no more no less than a manufacturing tool. The moniker of "disruptive" is more a marketing catchphrase than a real attribute of any given technology. In the end, 3D printing threatens GW (and any other manufacturing corporation, for what matters) as much as power looms threatened the weaving industry in the mid-1800s.

 Peregrine wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
When I put this model down on the table most people have no idea it is a 3d print unless I tell them.

Then stop showing it to people who don't know what a 3d-printed model looks like. The print lines are incredibly obvious, and anyone who knows about 3d printing is going to recognize it. And even people who don't know the signs of a 3d printed model can recognize that it's a badly done copy of a LRBT, even if they aren't sure what method was used to create it.

Makes sense to me and the quality is good enough for me.

Sure, but that just means you have low standards. People who want a nice model aren't going to be 3d printing anything in the foreseeable future.

A little more abrasive than I would put it, but amazingly, I completely agree with Peregrine. Not only are 3D models expensive in time and materials, but they look only slightly better than a mock up. It would be far less painful to just buy a knockoff, and considering the time and energy to paint a model, it doesn't come close to making any sense.

If you love the game but hate the price, and/or the modeling effort, just cut up paper triangles with pictures of the model, tape it onto the correct sized base and play with friends who don't mind.

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
Intellectual Property will still be a thing, and corporations and governments will enact laws and develop safeguards to prevent and punish misappropiation.

But how are more laws going to stop something that's already illegal? We've already seen with music/movie/game piracy that the government can't do anything to stop it. Even when, at great effort, the government manages to shut down one source of pirated material the next one replaces it before the ink is dry on the "we stopped the pirates" news article. And trying to sue the pirates in civil court is no better. If/when 3d printed models become desirable enough obtaining them will be just as easy as pirating the new game you want. And it's probably going to be the same case in every other industry.

Established corporations will adapt.

Just like how GW adapted to the existence of the internet? The only reason GW doesn't have to worry about 3d printing is that they've got much bigger problems to worry about right now and may not even survive to see 3d printing become a serious threat. If you magically skip 3d printing technology ahead to the point where it can match GW's quality I see no reason to believe that they could adapt to deal it.

I have 2 3D printers -- a Prusa I3 and Mendel. Both are lots of fun, but even with printing + acetone baths for smoothing, I couldn't make "production" quality stuff. Then again, that is not their focus.

Good rules, good fluff, and solid ground-level communication with your clients is the key to good hobbies. Look how the guys at PP grew their market share. Those are the kinds of folks I want to support. Hell, still *love* the Heavy Gear universe, and am excited to see plastic gears now -- but they need more exposure (and the rules re-write/consistency) to really compete.