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.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Given how low wastage metal casting is (almost 0%) it must have been a genuine attempt, otherwise they would have thrown the metal back in the pot and cast something else.

What I mean is that they didn't take a look at the collector market, ask themselves "what would these people want", and produce a product line that met those desires. They just took a bunch of models that had previously been released as the same kind of game pieces as all of their other game pieces and stuck a "collectors" label on them. Yeah, it probably had at least some benefit for collectors who wanted to maintain access to older sculpts that could have been considered obsolete, but it wasn't a serious investment in the "collector" market.

 Toofast wrote:
I have heard rumors that they are re branding their models as collectors items for IP protection. Game pieces can only be copyrighted for so long. Rules for a game can't be copyrighted at all (Which is why it's silly that we can't post actual rules text or point cost on this forum, THEY AREN'T SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT LAWS BECAUSE THEY ARE RULES FOR A GAME!) If GW says over and over again that the models are "collectible" rather than labeling them as simply game pieces, they can use those years of (totally BS) quotes from their own company in court. I have talked to both managers of the local GW about the whole gamer vs collector thing. They both said that out of 50 or so regular customers (people they know on a first name basis who come in and actually spend money), at least 40 are primarily gamers. Then there's 5-7 who primarily paint and don't play much. The remaining few buy a lot of black library novels but don't buy models very often, or ever. Also, the average gamer has 30-100 tactical marines, 6-8 pods or rhinos, etc laying around. Someone who is simply a collector will most likely just buy 1 kit. Gamers most likely outnumber collectors and are far more profitable, so I'm not sure why GW has developed this insistence on making collectors items.

I think this related to Design Rights law in the UK, and if so they're still getting comically terrible legal advice because they can say "collectors" as much as they want, whether something will fall under that definition if they're ever challenged in a UK court will be established based on the facts, and the facts are straightforward: GW mass-produces kits in plastic, their stores actively promote the sale of those models in the context of a game, and specifically encourage and target teen kids. A judge will take one look at GW and conclude "Toys, Design Rights apply, your Space Marine designs are now public domain, bugger off I have important things to rule on".

@PsychoticStorm: i love my Forge World Marines, for sure ...
Jehan-reznor was speaking of GW touting their plastics as the best in the business, which was why i asked the question...

if i had to choose between GW plastics, and FW resins, i would choose FW every time...
i am a fan of what you call the overboard characters, though...
the Primarchs and 30K character models are perfect for my taste, as well as the 40K Marine special characters...
mkiv and mkv armor from FW are really cool, too...
the bolter variants, the melee weapon kits...i could go on and on

i am a huge fan of Infinity, and many other lines of minis, so it is not as if i am a slave to one type of model...
unfortunately, painted Infinity minis don't sell as well as painted Marines, so i don't get to paint them as much as i would like to...
this is my livelyhood, so i have to go where the money is...
i consider myself lucky that my favorite plastic minis also happen to be my best earners...
if Infinity models did well enough to pay the bills, i would be happy with that, but i would still paint Marines on the side...
instead i make a living from Marines, and paint the odd Infinity mini on the side...

on the other hand, i am working on a few Finecast Marines for a commission right now, and the quality is horrible...
i can honestly say that i will not be buying any Finecast Marines for myself...
so it is not as if i am a blind devotee of GW...
they only get my money when i really like what they produce, like the plastic Marine infantry...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
I consider myself a collector first and gamer second, that is why i don't understand jah that he only returns to his space marines to paint, got a lot from different makers mostly SF stuff and i am painting them all.

But because i am a collector, i don't need 6 imperial knights, only the bare necessities to field. and because i am a collectors i pass on some designs, i hated the design of those bulky contemptor thingies or what they are called and use models from different company as substitute, for company that says they are the best in plastic mini's they don't understand their collecting clientele, there is so much stuff out there that is as good as (or better) in quality as GW.

i guess i did not make myself very clear...
have a look in my gallery to see the variety of minis that i paint...
i have painted for four different companies in the industry, and collect minis from almost every company on the market...

i am saying that what inspires me most are Space Marines...
i love their art, fiction, and minis more than any other range...
i don't know why they appeal to me more than other models, settings, or fictional characters, they just do...
there are many more inspiring Chapter schemes that i have yet to paint...
maybe one day i will have gotten it out of my system, but for now, i daydream about all of the Chapters' schemes, and Marine minis, that i haven't painted yet...

on top of that, 90% of my clients hire me to paint Space Marines...
it's a win-win for me...
who makes a better plastic Space Marine than GW???

cheers
jah

If that's what you enjoy, that's what you enjoy. Personally I loved the Big hat Chaos Dwarfs and Squats , however most people seem to have a strong dislike to them.

Now with the abomination that 9th is becoming they will never ever return (big hats) so the company can make more Space Marines.

I used to play but now I just try to make themed stuff. My Skaven are Undersea Pirates, my Carnival of Chaos are multi God themed ( which is my latest project) I was going to make an Amazon Army or a khornate SoB using Valkia at one point but I just don't have the heart. And over 12 pounds just to make Rank and file troops seems excessive.

@migooo: i hear you, man...
i have a bunch of Squats, and painted many a Big Hat for a friend's army...
i actually started collecting minis with a blister pack of the original Chaos Dwarfs, before Big Hats, back in 1985...
i like the short, bearded bastards, being bearded, and not very tall myself...

i like the themes...
have you posted picks of your undersea Skaven???
that sounds very cool...

i was sad that Valkia came out in Finecast only:(...
i really liked her since reading her description when she first appeared in the Chaos Army Book, and loved her novel...
i have been thinking about making a plastic version of her with the DE Scourge and Bloodletter kits...
one day i will get the free time to do it!!!

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:
@migooo: i hear you, man...
i have a bunch of Squats, and painted many a Big Hat for a friend's army...
i actually started collecting minis with a blister pack of the original Chaos Dwarfs, before Big Hats, back in 1985...
i like the short, bearded bastards, being bearded, and not very tall myself...

i like the themes...
have you posted picks of your undersea Skaven???
that sounds very cool...

i was sad that Valkia came out in Finecast only:(...
i really liked her since reading her description when she first appeared in the Chaos Army Book, and loved her novel...
i have been thinking about making a plastic version of her with the DE Scourge and Bloodletter kits...
one day i will get the free time to do it!!!

cheers
jah

Ill certainly post some if you're interested, I like the way you do lava and metals if I may could I ask for some pointers?


Her novel was fantastic. Truly was. Haha were both not very tall, however no beard here.

I honestly wonder what Ian Livingstone thinks of all this.

It has felt, for the last few years, like the game has been getting watered down with each version. I get that they may want to make one balanced version for everyone and then focus on models, but I think that they would end up losing a very large block of customers. Everyone I know, who loves the model making, loves it because of the look once fielded. Without the game there is no draw to the models for me. This may be a slightly off topic point, but I also feel like the fluff and the actual game grow apart when they drop a new codex. That's just an opinion and it was formed around my main army (CSM) so take it for what it is I guess.

 Toofast wrote:
I have heard rumors that they are re branding their models as collectors items for IP protection. Game pieces can only be copyrighted for so long. Rules for a game can't be copyrighted at all (Which is why it's silly that we can't post actual rules text or point cost on this forum, THEY AREN'T SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT LAWS BECAUSE THEY ARE RULES FOR A GAME!) If GW says over and over again that the models are "collectible" rather than labeling them as simply game pieces, they can use those years of (totally BS) quotes from their own company in court. I have talked to both managers of the local GW about the whole gamer vs collector thing. They both said that out of 50 or so regular customers (people they know on a first name basis who come in and actually spend money), at least 40 are primarily gamers. Then there's 5-7 who primarily paint and don't play much. The remaining few buy a lot of black library novels but don't buy models very often, or ever. Also, the average gamer has 30-100 tactical marines, 6-8 pods or rhinos, etc laying around. Someone who is simply a collector will most likely just buy 1 kit. Gamers most likely outnumber collectors and are far more profitable, so I'm not sure why GW has developed this insistence on making collectors items.

This is fine idea, but statements about 'collectors' pieces can't really compete with 25 years of using the word "toys" to describe the products. The company is called Games Workshop.

I am not saying you are wrong, merely that if you are right it is a ridiculous plan.

They aren't known for having the sharpest legal/IP minds in their fields though.

weeble1000 wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
I have heard rumors that they are re branding their models as collectors items for IP protection. Game pieces can only be copyrighted for so long. Rules for a game can't be copyrighted at all (Which is why it's silly that we can't post actual rules text or point cost on this forum, THEY AREN'T SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT LAWS BECAUSE THEY ARE RULES FOR A GAME!) If GW says over and over again that the models are "collectible" rather than labeling them as simply game pieces, they can use those years of (totally BS) quotes from their own company in court. I have talked to both managers of the local GW about the whole gamer vs collector thing. They both said that out of 50 or so regular customers (people they know on a first name basis who come in and actually spend money), at least 40 are primarily gamers. Then there's 5-7 who primarily paint and don't play much. The remaining few buy a lot of black library novels but don't buy models very often, or ever. Also, the average gamer has 30-100 tactical marines, 6-8 pods or rhinos, etc laying around. Someone who is simply a collector will most likely just buy 1 kit. Gamers most likely outnumber collectors and are far more profitable, so I'm not sure why GW has developed this insistence on making collectors items.

This is fine idea, but statements about 'collectors' pieces can't really compete with 25 years of using the word "toys" to describe the products. The company is called Games Workshop.

I am not saying you are wrong, merely that if you are right it is a ridiculous plan.

Maybe it's why there Re branding it to Warhammer.

Ï thanked Rick Priestley for 40k personally once, just before i faced him in a game of Warmaster at a "Euro Get Together".
He gave me exactly the same answer: "no, thank you!".

But The Rogue Trader (1st edition 40k), was a different time and a different GW indeed. The game WAS important, but the miniatures were important too.
GW/Citadel had the best and above all most interesting miniatures and a game that i wanted to play. A perfect combination.

I have a lot of games.
But i have few miniatures that have no related game i play and i have no games and related miniatures of games i do not find good enough.

And GW has to watch for it that they still have a game...
Because without a game, the miniatures will not sell.

 Toofast wrote:
I have heard rumors that they are re branding their models as collectors items for IP protection.

That' a rather dubious stand, but it wouldn't surprise me. Thing is, unique sculpted shape *is* copyrightable, whether it's a game component or not. That's pretty much a given. Same with the rules language.

Generic model concepts and individual gaming mechanics are NOT copyrightable.

migooo wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
I have heard rumors that they are re branding their models as collectors items for IP protection. Game pieces can only be copyrighted for so long. Rules for a game can't be copyrighted at all (Which is why it's silly that we can't post actual rules text or point cost on this forum, THEY AREN'T SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT LAWS BECAUSE THEY ARE RULES FOR A GAME!) If GW says over and over again that the models are "collectible" rather than labeling them as simply game pieces, they can use those years of (totally BS) quotes from their own company in court. I have talked to both managers of the local GW about the whole gamer vs collector thing. They both said that out of 50 or so regular customers (people they know on a first name basis who come in and actually spend money), at least 40 are primarily gamers. Then there's 5-7 who primarily paint and don't play much. The remaining few buy a lot of black library novels but don't buy models very often, or ever. Also, the average gamer has 30-100 tactical marines, 6-8 pods or rhinos, etc laying around. Someone who is simply a collector will most likely just buy 1 kit. Gamers most likely outnumber collectors and are far more profitable, so I'm not sure why GW has developed this insistence on making collectors items.

This is fine idea, but statements about 'collectors' pieces can't really compete with 25 years of using the word "toys" to describe the products. The company is called Games Workshop.

I am not saying you are wrong, merely that if you are right it is a ridiculous plan.

Maybe it's why there Re branding it to Warhammer.

My point is that they can re-brand all they want, but just calling your products "collectibles" when you have called them "toys" for 25 years, and when you are still selling them as game pieces, and when your company is still called Games Workshop, is going to look like you are slinging BS. This is even more greatly undermined by the fact that GW has started including rules packaged with its model kits. So when the customer buys the product, the customer is literally paying for game rules. How can you call that a "collectible" with a straight face in a court of law.

'So let me get this straight, Mr. Jones. You sell a range of game-related products. You sell a range of miniature figurines that you direct customers to use in connection with your game-related products. You include game rules in the packaging with your miniature figurines. You separately sell a line of miniature figurines that you specifically label as "collectible," and yet you want me to believe that the primary function of this product is not as a game piece?'

If GW stopped developing rules for its products, then it would have an argument to make. Until then, GW is going to have a rough go of it in any UK-based court battle.

But at the end of the day, the bigger problem GW has with respect to UK law is mass-production. Once you mass-produce something in the UK it generally qualifies as an industrial design...because...you know...it is the product of industrial manufacture.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
I have heard rumors that they are re branding their models as collectors items for IP protection.

That' a rather dubious stand, but it wouldn't surprise me. Thing is, unique sculpted shape *is* copyrightable, whether it's a game component or not. That's pretty much a given. Same with the rules language.

Generic model concepts and individual gaming mechanics are NOT copyrightable.

That's the thing though, not if a UK court rules their products are a mass-produced product(which they are), then they would fall under Design Rights NOT "copyright"(which would only protect the actual design documents, and any specific examples of art or literature that are part of the same product as the design), and Design Rights only last for a few years after which time the design can be used freely by anyone. Space Marines and all their subtypes, Orks, Eldar, Tyranids; all derivatives of designs created by GW more than 15 years ago and so under DR unprotectable. Not just broad concepts like "Space Marine", but the actual physical design of GW's Space Marine armours, the various specific alien races, weapon designs etc etc. Of course it would have to be taken to court in the UK to get an actual ruling that they do fall under DR...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
I have heard rumors that they are re branding their models as collectors items for IP protection.

That' a rather dubious stand, but it wouldn't surprise me. Thing is, unique sculpted shape *is* copyrightable, whether it's a game component or not. That's pretty much a given. Same with the rules language.

Generic model concepts and individual gaming mechanics are NOT copyrightable.

Nope. Not in the United Kingdom.

Ninja'd by Yodhrin. But to add to what Yodhrin said, you don't really have to take it to a UK court. Chapterhouse took it to a US court, which decided to apply US law. However, the federal appellate courts in the US are split on this issue, i.e. there have been decisions at the appellate level that have gone both ways.

There is a persuasive expert report readily available on the public record in a US court case. And note that Judge Kennelly side-stepped the issue by applying US law as opposed to UK law. In other words, he decided a choice of law issue as opposed to ruling that the asserted works were protectable under copyright in the UK. In short, the issue is far from dead even in US federal court.

Can I be the first to call this the "rose by any other name fallacy?"

If it walks like a duck....

i am myself more of a collector than a player but playing is still think playing is still important. one thing i wish gw would do is to put more unique and fun amount of variation in the models (specifically space marines) and lower prices

jah-joshua wrote:
i am just sad to see so many gamers feel marginalized and driven away...

Most are driven away by a toxic community.

I personally, barely come to Dakka anymore because I can no longer tolerate the constant negativity. It's as if the GW Hobby is, according to the Dakka community, to hate on GW as much as possible. I picture it plainly... Two Dakka posters meet up for a game, pull their armies out of the case, deploy and then proceed to spend the next 2 hours whining & bitching about GW.

Toofast wrote:I have heard rumors that they are re branding their models as collectors items for IP protection. Game pieces can only be copyrighted for so long.

I can get behind this reasoning - It's logical and it makes sense.

notprop wrote:I get the impression allot of people don't like to be labelled collectors rather than gamers?

I think this is 99.9% of the crescendo of whining & bitching in this thread.

On a side note...

Toofast wrote:That's like buying a corvette, driving it 100mph, the engine blows, and the dealer tells you it wasn't supposed to be driven like that, just sit in the garage and look cool.

This actually happens. A LOT! Too frequently for comfort in fact. I personally know a few people that have bought high end sports cars where the motor's have blown and the manufacturer literally told them "The car isn't meant to be driven in xyz fashion" I know of a 2009 Subaru WRX STi, a 2010 Subaru WRX STi, a 2014 Ford Shelby GT-500 and a 2014 Nissan GT-R where this happened. Subaru, eventually helped albeit very little, but the GT-500 and GT-R went to litigation.

 oni wrote:

jah-joshua wrote:
i am just sad to see so many gamers feel marginalized and driven away...

Most are driven away by a toxic community.

I personally, barely come to Dakka anymore because I can no longer tolerate the constant negativity. It's as if the GW Hobby is, according to the Dakka community, to hate on GW as much as possible. I picture it plainly... Two Dakka posters meet up for a game, pull their armies out of the case, deploy and then proceed to spend the next 2 hours whining & bitching about GW.

I don't find Dakka toxic at all, although I don't post in the GW sections of the forum so no idea at all what those are like.

There are a few individuals who would complain if the ghost of HG Wells came down from heaven and presented them with mana in 28mm form, for free, but then if you spend any time on here at all you recognise that and hey that's what the ignore feature is for.

It's become a really wide-reaching, multi-system forum here. You can get news on the latest stuff coming along, and the Infinity and historical sections are really cool. Painting and modelling sections are great as well (although, an issue from my perspective is that you have to often go sifting through to find threads that aren't space marines!)

 oni wrote:

jah-joshua wrote:
i am just sad to see so many gamers feel marginalized and driven away...

Most are driven away by a toxic community.

I personally, barely come to Dakka anymore because I can no longer tolerate the constant negativity. It's as if the GW Hobby is, according to the Dakka community, to hate on GW as much as possible. I picture it plainly... Two Dakka posters meet up for a game, pull their armies out of the case, deploy and then proceed to spend the next 2 hours whining & bitching about GW.

Obviously, experiences will vary... But in 20 years of playing, I've known guys to quit because of GW's prices, because of edition changes, because they got sick of the patchy state of the rules, because they just got bored with it, because they didn't have the time to play, and because of GW's business practices.

I've never met anyone who quit because people were complaining about GW on Dakka...

lower prices, improve kits and all will be solved

 the clone wrote:
lower prices, improve kits and all will be solved

That doesn't fix the broken rules.

@Oni.
Well perhaps if GW plc actually communicated with its customers in a meaningful way.The way all of its competitors do, may be there would not be so much negative feeling to wards GW plc corporate management?

If they felt that their customers were worth listening to,and conducted proper market research , to grow their market share, like their competitors do.
They would appeal to a much larger market, and not have to raise prices to compensate for falling sales volumes year after year.

But while the man in charge of GW plc believes 'his customers' are wiling to pay any price for any thing GW plc makes , no matter what the price. because GW plc makes it.
Sales volumes will continue to fall, retail prices will continue to rise , and people who actually care about the long term future of GW plc and the games they make, will continue to be concerned.

When all the evidence from GW plc financial reports are showing GW plc is loosing market share, sales volumes and profit ,in a growing market.
When they had the best start and the most resources and capital to invest.

Just wallet raping the few remaining customers to pay Tom Kirby another few million pounds in share bonuses before he retires,is difficult to put a positive spin on.IMO.

Can you link to a post where some one was just spouting irrational and unsupported negativity towards GW ?

As most of the posts I have read have been mostly constructive critique, what they think GW is getting wrong, and what they could do to fix it.

The people trying to defend GW plc seem to work on the rather simple view, I like it and can afford it , so what is the problem?
(Even though fewer and fewer people find enough value for money in GW products, to buy them year after year.)

I find very little negativity on Dakka Dakka forums that have nothing to do with GW 'rules' or 'general shenanigans'.

And the actions of GW plc corporate management drives away far more actual and potential GW customers , than any negative comments on any particular web site.

 oni wrote:

jah-joshua wrote:
i am just sad to see so many gamers feel marginalized and driven away...

Most are driven away by a toxic community.

I personally, barely come to Dakka anymore because I can no longer tolerate the constant negativity. It's as if the GW Hobby is, according to the Dakka community, to hate on GW as much as possible. I picture it plainly... Two Dakka posters meet up for a game, pull their armies out of the case, deploy and then proceed to spend the next 2 hours whining & bitching about GW.

Spoiler:

Toofast wrote:I have heard rumors that they are re branding their models as collectors items for IP protection. Game pieces can only be copyrighted for so long.

I can get behind this reasoning - It's logical and it makes sense.

notprop wrote:I get the impression allot of people don't like to be labelled collectors rather than gamers?

I think this is 99.9% of the crescendo of whining & bitching in this thread.

On a side note...

Toofast wrote:That's like buying a corvette, driving it 100mph, the engine blows, and the dealer tells you it wasn't supposed to be driven like that, just sit in the garage and look cool.

This actually happens. A LOT! Too frequently for comfort in fact. I personally know a few people that have bought high end sports cars where the motor's have blown and the manufacturer literally told them "The car isn't meant to be driven in xyz fashion" I know of a 2009 Subaru WRX STi, a 2010 Subaru WRX STi, a 2014 Ford Shelby GT-500 and a 2014 Nissan GT-R where this happened. Subaru, eventually helped albeit very little, but the GT-500 and GT-R went to litigation.

Well, it's a well understood phenomena that people tend to seek out sources of information that agree with their own preconceptions about a subject, so I assume you spend a lot of time on Warseer other sites we're not supposed to be mean about?

 insaniak wrote:

 oni wrote:

jah-joshua wrote:
i am just sad to see so many gamers feel marginalized and driven away...

Most are driven away by a toxic community.

I personally, barely come to Dakka anymore because I can no longer tolerate the constant negativity. It's as if the GW Hobby is, according to the Dakka community, to hate on GW as much as possible. I picture it plainly... Two Dakka posters meet up for a game, pull their armies out of the case, deploy and then proceed to spend the next 2 hours whining & bitching about GW.

Obviously, experiences will vary... But in 20 years of playing, I've known guys to quit because of GW's prices, because of edition changes, because they got sick of the patchy state of the rules, because they just got bored with it, because they didn't have the time to play, and because of GW's business practices.

I've never met anyone who quit because people were complaining about GW on Dakka...

I agree and I've seen the same, but we're not discussing those points specifically. My comment is based more in generality, but I do know people who have quit because they bought into the negative diatribe on Dakka and on a side note, a price increase does not require one to quit.

I find that online forums can be a catalyst for negativity and hate, it's influx of new users traumatically bonding with it's existing user base; falsely taking on their views and opinions of negativity because it's all they're exposed to - this can happen within a gaming community too (the old Dice Like Thunder podcast is a perfect example). I've watched it happen more than once; it's disappointing, sad and infuriating all at the same time. Take for example fresh new players who say they dislike Ultramarines... Ask them why they dislike Ultramarines; and if they manage to give you an answer I can almost guarantee that answer will be nothing more than regurgitated drivel they heard from another person or read on a forum - new players have not yet developed enough within the hobby to formulate such a negative opinion. If one reads or hears hatefulness towards GW enough, eventually they will start to believe it themselves. It's akin to propaganda.

...but I don't care to exhaust any additional time and energy on this post. The bottom line here is that there needs to be a fundamental change in the community as a whole.

Balls.

There is no hate, other than in a minority of individuals, hate implies a certain lack of rationality.

"It's too expensive for me."

Is not irrational.

"I find the games just aren't fun because the rules mean I can't have a fair game."

Is not irrational.

"I love the universes GW have created, and I'm frustrated that their actions seem to actively impair my ability to enjoy them."

Is not irrational.

Blaming the community for the reactions created by GW is utterly, utterly wrong.

You can also counter it by looking at the things that GW does well, praise is often just as forthcoming as condemnation, it is just that it happens much less often.

 oni wrote:


...but I don't care to exhaust any additional time and energy on this post. The bottom line here is that there needs to be a fundamental change in the community as a whole.

Oh the positivity... complaining about complaining does not make a positive. Generalizing about the entirety of the dakka community while lamenting "propaganda" seems pretty weak sauce.

I keep getting sucked into this conversation...

Lanrak wrote:@Oni.
Well perhaps if GW plc actually communicated with its customers in a meaningful way.The way all of its competitors do, may be there would not be so much negative feeling to wards GW plc corporate management?

If they felt that their customers were worth listening to,and conducted proper market research , to grow their market share, like their competitors do.
They would appeal to a much larger market, and not have to raise prices to compensate for falling sales volumes year after year.

But while the man in charge of GW plc believes 'his customers' are wiling to pay any price for any thing GW plc makes , no matter what the price. because GW plc makes it.
Sales volumes will continue to fall, retail prices will continue to rise , and people who actually care about the long term future of GW plc and the games they make, will continue to be concerned.

When all the evidence from GW plc financial reports are showing GW plc is loosing market share, sales volumes and profit ,in a growing market.
When they had the best start and the most resources and capital to invest.

Just wallet raping the few remaining customers to pay Tom Kirby another few million pounds in share bonuses before he retires,is difficult to put a positive spin on.IMO.

Can you link to a post where some one was just spouting irrational and unsupported negativity towards GW ?

As most of the posts I have read have been mostly constructive critique, what they think GW is getting wrong, and what they could do to fix it.

The people trying to defend GW plc seem to work on the rather simple view, I like it and can afford it , so what is the problem?
(Even though fewer and fewer people find enough value for money in GW products, to buy them year after year.)

I find very little negativity on Dakka Dakka forums that have nothing to do with GW 'rules' or 'general shenanigans'.

And the actions of GW plc corporate management drives away far more actual and potential GW customers , than any negative comments on any particular web site.

Very well constructed retort. Seriously. And I do not disagree. I find your statement "The people trying to defend GW plc seem to work on the rather simple view, I like it and can afford it , so what is the problem?" particularly interesting. The idea behind this statement as I see it, is a conflict that has been present in society since the very beginning. The 'have's' vs. the 'have not's'. This conversation topic will certainly digress into petty insults and name calling so we'll just leave it at that.

Azreal13 wrote:

 oni wrote:

jah-joshua wrote:
i am just sad to see so many gamers feel marginalized and driven away...

Most are driven away by a toxic community.

I personally, barely come to Dakka anymore because I can no longer tolerate the constant negativity. It's as if the GW Hobby is, according to the Dakka community, to hate on GW as much as possible. I picture it plainly... Two Dakka posters meet up for a game, pull their armies out of the case, deploy and then proceed to spend the next 2 hours whining & bitching about GW.

Spoiler:

Toofast wrote:I have heard rumors that they are re branding their models as collectors items for IP protection. Game pieces can only be copyrighted for so long.

I can get behind this reasoning - It's logical and it makes sense.

notprop wrote:I get the impression allot of people don't like to be labelled collectors rather than gamers?

I think this is 99.9% of the crescendo of whining & bitching in this thread.

On a side note...

Toofast wrote:That's like buying a corvette, driving it 100mph, the engine blows, and the dealer tells you it wasn't supposed to be driven like that, just sit in the garage and look cool.

This actually happens. A LOT! Too frequently for comfort in fact. I personally know a few people that have bought high end sports cars where the motor's have blown and the manufacturer literally told them "The car isn't meant to be driven in xyz fashion" I know of a 2009 Subaru WRX STi, a 2010 Subaru WRX STi, a 2014 Ford Shelby GT-500 and a 2014 Nissan GT-R where this happened. Subaru, eventually helped albeit very little, but the GT-500 and GT-R went to litigation.

Well, it's a well understood phenomena that people tend to seek out sources of information that agree with their own preconceptions about a subject, so I assume you spend a lot of time on Warseer other sites we're not supposed to be mean about?

Very true. I do not however visit Warseer.

I agree with oni that the negativity towards GW can be stifling sometimes. It doesn't have to be someone ranting and raving irrationally. It's everything from conspiracy theories (they did this because they are corporate money-grubbers, etc) to constant back-and-forth sarcasm and joking about everything they do, to finding negative spins on every piece of GW news if at all possible. It's not always what you say, but how you say it, which very much applies to Azreal13's examples. Most people do not express themself in the neutral, measured way you present. Obviously this does not apply to every poster on here, far from it, but It fosters a certain climate for sure.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 oni wrote:


...but I don't care to exhaust any additional time and energy on this post. The bottom line here is that there needs to be a fundamental change in the community as a whole.

Oh the positivity... complaining about complaining does not make a positive. Generalizing about the entirety of the dakka community while lamenting "propaganda" seems pretty weak sauce.

Apparently I struck a chord with you. My comments hit a little too close to home for your liking? I'm being playful of course (and maybe just a little petty - all in good humor though I promise).