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.

In business terms, price and quality are different variables. Otherwise the same item would gain quality by being sold at a lower price.

@allseeingskink. Another knight type model being in existence of subjectively higher quality does not mean the Knight does not have quality. You seem to confuse price with quality. There isn't really any other way to look at it in the terms you are using.

Quality is defined by the perceived (or actual) technical aspects of a model, you seem to confuse this with perceived worth.

 notprop wrote:
@allseeingskink. Another knight type model being in existence of subjectively higher quality does not mean the Knight does not have quality. You seem to confuse price with quality. There isn't really any other way to look at it in the terms you are using.

Quality is defined by the perceived (or actual) technical aspects of a model, you seem to confuse this with perceived worth.

The first thing that comes up when you google "define: quality"...

1.
the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something.

"of similar kind" is one of the main benchmarks by which we can measure quality.

Saying something is high or low quality relative to products which are similar and of similar price is a valid way of looking at things.

So not cost mentioned in the googled definition then?

Now you could argue you can get more quality for less cost but that doesn't diminish the quality of the object you are comparing to.

 notprop wrote:
@allseeingskink. Another knight type model being in existence of subjectively higher quality does not mean the Knight does not have quality. You seem to confuse price with quality. There isn't really any other way to look at it in the terms you are using.

Quality is defined by the perceived (or actual) technical aspects of a model, you seem to confuse this with perceived worth.

There is nothing subjective about a big robot model with fully articulate legs being superior quality to one in the same material with static legs.

 notprop wrote:
So not cost mentioned in the googled definition then?

Now you could argue you can get more quality for less cost but that doesn't diminish the quality of the object you are comparing to.

This is just getting in to a semantic debate. Quality as a comparative measure requires similarity, there's no point saying saying an Imperial Knight is poor quality relative to a Rolls-Royce Pegasus.

If you don't like using cost as a point of similarity, fine... all GW models are terrible quality because Tamiya and Bandai exists, end of story

@jonolikespie - the problem with the debates on quality is that you can't have an objective comparison of two items without defining "quality". It's even tougher because people weigh the importance of different aspects of quality differently.

There's quality of cast, consistency, fit, durability of the material, ease of customizability, sharpness of tooling, detail per square inch of plastic, and on and on. Some of these may be of value to some hobbyists or gamers, and be of little or no value to others.

In some cases, like 2015 devastators vs 2005 devastators, the models are *clearly* a better quality, in every measurable way. But in other cases, it's just not nearly so clear.

To me, "quality" in the most subjective sense is things like the cast being free of imperfections and artifacts, the material being free of blemishes, and how the final model reflects the intention of the sculptor, For instance, if the sculptor intended a sorcerer to hold a perfect cube, all of the angles should be exactly square. If a vehicle is tracked, every link in the tread should be identical. Every piece in the model should fit perfectly.

Technically, fully articulating limbs is a feature (perhaps a great one), not an aspect of quality. In the same way that being able pose a model, or select one of 5 weapons, or treat the figure like an action figure. Feature set is distinct from Quality, as is evidenced, for instance, by Chrysler cars, which on paper have every feature you can imagine, but are a piece of junk as an automobile. In comparison, some Toyotas may have a lot less on the feature sheet, but the *quality* of the car is much higher, because people weigh highly attributes like reliability, low maintenance, few repairs, longer lifespan, and so on.

For some people, and in some contexts, things like posability or articulating parts may be very important, and to other people, or in another context for another person, they may not be.

For me personally, articulation post-modelling is undesirable, as it just messes up the paint job. It's not even a feature, because if it's offered, in the modelling process, I'll glue it shut. Examples on GW models are like drop pod doors - yeah, it's cool, in that the drop pod can be open or closed (and I model them both ways), but articulation is pointless, because it just wears off paint at the joints.

An example of poor quality on GW's part is *some* of their Chinese manufactured terrain. The quality of the plastic is *obviously* inferior to similar kits produced in the UK. That doesn't make the Chinese manufactured terrain bad, and after it's all painted, maybe nobody can tell. But it's still objectively inferior.

Posability and customization is a feature very important to me where there are many copies of the similar models (like infantry squads), because I don't want every soldier to be identical, especially if I have 50, 100, 200. It's much less important to me if it's a named model, because I'm only going to have one. And because I'm only modelling one, if I decide I want some other pose, I am willing to go the extra mile and do it the hard way. Generally speaking, in the case of such models, I would prefer a very cool single pose, than the ability to pick between more generic poses.

Also, good quality doesn't have to mean good design. For example, a terribly designed robot that is unnecessarily hard to assemble and really hard to transport might be a lousy design, but still be a good quality model.

Are you honestly defending monopose legs on the kmights compared to gundams or dreamforge leviathans?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 notprop wrote:
So not cost mentioned in the googled definition then?

Now you could argue you can get more quality for less cost but that doesn't diminish the quality of the object you are comparing to.

This is just getting in to a semantic debate. Quality as a comparative measure requires similarity, there's no point saying saying an Imperial Knight is poor quality relative to a Rolls-Royce Pegasus.

If you don't like using cost as a point of similarity, fine... all GW models are terrible quality because Tamiya and Bandai exists, end of story

Feller, you feel te need to quote dictionary definitions. Maybe your next search should be pedant.

I don't mind cost for comparison but clearly it is not useful when talking about quality. Obviously googling a word does not lead to understanding it.

One thing the tamyia comparison always fails to reflects is that wargaming companies create simplified models for wargamers who want something reasonably accurate without the need for all the sprockets and rivets to be individually cast and built in. Take a look at PSC, Armourcast or Rubicon for example. I've seen lots of those make the gaming table never a Tamyia. They're a fraction of the cost of similar Tamyia models but no less quality (Armiurcast excepted ).

 notprop wrote:
Feller, you feel te need to quote dictionary definitions. Maybe your next search should be pedant.

Feller, get over it, the use of quality as a comparative requires some measure of similarity and cost is clearly a useful similarity, if you've got a problem with that then I can't help your narrow mindedness. If you don't want to use it that way then fine, I really don't care that much.

Regardless, my meaning was clear and I have nothing to add, little fella. I think we can get by without the semantic discussion.

One thing the tamyia comparison always fails to reflects is that wargaming companies create simplified models for wargamers who want something reasonably accurate without the need for all the sprockets and rivets to be individually cast and built in. Take a look at PSC, Armourcast or Rubicon for example. I've seen lots of those make the gaming table never a Tamyia. They're a fraction of the cost of similar Tamyia models but no less quality (Armiurcast excepted ).

Tamiya simply doesn't make models for wargaming, but they still show how a big expensive kit can be done. Very fine mouldings with sharp details, very little clean up work needed, the kits I've seen have very little in the way of mould lines, slide casting and part design ensures there's not areas missing details, the fit is flawless, even on things like aircraft models where you often need to fill every joint, the Tamiya kits go together with little to no join lines, not to mention extras like magnets for removable panels and metal bits where appropriate and stuff like landing gear that can be represented up or down without any compromise to the model's visuals.

They aren't appropriate for wargaming because they are expensive kits with accurate (thus very fine and delicate) details. Rubicon and PSC simplify a lot of that detail away to make the models more durable which is not something Tamiya are interested in doing, but it doesn't take away from the other aspects I described.

For the most part wargamers are interested in cheap and durable, but since I was specifically talking about the Imperial Knight which is not all that cheap, it puts it up in to the price range of Tamiya's higher end kits.

@Talys,

Yes, in some ways quality can be subjective but not when you're asking if the company in question is using the most modern techniques, materials, and processes to create their product. Does the product provide the largest consumer audience with an experience at least comparable to what they will receive from competitors for a similar good?

The easiest comparison for objectivity's sake is to compare technical aspects of models. GW will excel in some regards and fail in others just as their competitors will also fail and excel.

The comparison that I make often is between the DFG Leviathan and the GW Knight. I own 1 Leviathan and 7 Knights (4 of which are forgeworld) and the Leviathan wins hands down, mainly because it's a "master" level model vs the Knight which appears to have been designed so that a half-blind orangutan can put it together. So, in this regard they're a bit like comparing a $10 Gundam and a $90 Gundam, the master-level Gundam kit is technically far superior to the toy, $10 kit.

Details on the model are a bit subjective and depend completely on the design. Yes, GW make use of massive amounts of sundry "details" like skulls, purity seals, and other bits and doo-dads but that's due to their "fluff" and not really a requirement when determining technical quality of product. It's almost a shame that GW don't do historical because I'd love to see their take on a Panzer II vs Revell, Tamiya, or Zvezda; this would allow for a real "apples to apples" comparison.

Some things that I don't know. Does GW use the latest techniques to create their models? Sliding molds for exampled to reduce parts volume.

NonSeeingSkink wrote:

 notprop wrote:
Feller, you feel te need to quote dictionary definitions. Maybe your next search should be pedant.

Feller, get over it, the use of quality as a comparative requires some measure of similarity and cost is clearly a useful similarity, if you've got a problem with that then I can't help your narrow mindedness. If you don't want to use it that way then fine, I really don't care that much.

Regardless, my meaning was clear and I have nothing to add, little fella. I think we can get by without the semantic discussion.

Awww, did the nasty man upset you by pointing out quoting dictionaries as a call to authority doesn't really work when you get it wrong.

For the most part wargamers are interested in cheap and durable, but since I was specifically talking about the Imperial Knight which is not all that cheap, it puts it up in to the price range of Tamiya's higher end kits.

Your cheap may be differant to mine then.

You also deliberately ignore that gamers also want cool looking models and/or plastic over resin.

So really it comes down to whether they like the IK, and after many and various posts of your holding up the extremely good selling IK kit as one you don't like I can confirm we understand. Please can you change the record.

The problem with quality is it's 100% subjective. If your definition of quality is GW-esque aesthetics (e.g. aquila, skulls, power armor, Tau cloven hoofs, Eldar cone helmets, etc.) then nothing is going to meet your definition of quality except GW models, and then there's no point in having a discussion.

Jah, for example, likes the GW aesthetics, as he points out all the time. There's nothing wrong with that, but it also means that nothing else is going to qualify as being "quality" because it's not the aesthetic he's looking for. Sculpting-wise, a Perry ACW miniature might be as detailed or more detailed than a Space Marine, but Jah isn't interested in ACW so no matter how good it is, it's useless to him and he'll say the GW model is better quality. That's not to pick on him, but that's basically the crux of his argument - GW > all because nothing looks like GW figures look, and he likes how GW figures look.

That's the problem with these talks. If you like GW's Elves, then Mantic Elves aren't going to be "quality" to you because they don't look like GW's elves, even if the figures themselves are of comparable sculpting/molding quality.

It's a useless argument because it's 100% subjective and can't be discussed.

That's aesthetics, not quality or technical achievement. It is possible to compare two separate infantry models, for example, and compare the techniques used to create the model, the material used in its production, and manufacturing techniques and equipment used. All such a conversation needs is the metrics used in the comparison and a modicum of objectivity.

It's fine to say that all you like is one manufacturer's products but it's willfully ignorant to state that a comparison is impossible.

@jonolikespie, skink, and wayne -

See, I think Wayne has it precisely right. Let's look at the dictionary definition of qauality:

1.the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something

2.a distinctive attribute or characteristic possessed by someone or something.

The problem with #1 and #2 is WHAT quality are we talking about? Production quality? Sculpting quality? Feature set? Technical difficulty?

GW is second to none, for example, at making tabards, cloaks and cables on infantry sized models that are technically difficult to produce. You have amazing use of negative space and staves and cables that run between other model pieces that make me ask, "how did they do that" when I see the finished model (before seeing the sprue). Yet some other people will go, "who cares? that's just a pain to paint."

To Skink's point, there are certainly technical deficiencies that you can point out in a model and say, this isn't a high quality kit because [...]. But looking at two great kits, it's much harder to say, "this one is poorer quality", because often it's a statement colored by preference in what's important to an individual.

Regarding gundams and leviathans - I just don't like Gundams; I've given them much consideration, looked at $50 intermediate and $200 master kits, and decided against buying them for reasons other than cost. I don't like the colored plastics, the simplistic outer armor panels with virtually no details etched in them, and the action-figure nature of the finished product. All of the things which are great features for some people are poor features for me; it's just a product produced for a market other than mine.

For example, colored plastics make it harder to basecoat with airbrush, as you need to prime the whole thing black, instead of being able to use colored polyurethane primers. You can't use a red airbrush primer on blue, gold, and white plastic, because those pieces will look different afterwards. Therefore, a feature to one person is a negative attribute to another.

This isn't black and white though. There are certainly features in the design of a Gundam kit that appeal to me, like really nice "insides" (the detail behind the armor plates).

Agnosto, with respect to the leviathan being a master-level kit, and a Knight being an easier to assemble: you could say the same thing about your FW kits versus your GW kits, and to me, this comes back to the same question of "what are you looking for?" For me, all of the fun in a kit comes in the painting stage: I am not really fond of the assembly and prep, and I therefore prefer the kit that goes together perfectly rather than the one that requires fiddling. Since time is a finite resource, I want to spend more of my time painting, and less of my time building. But if you find your fun in the build process, then that's different.

From a practical perspective, GW is making kits that appeal to GW customers. They're not looking to attract people who like Gundam kits or Privateer Press kits: they're happy not to compete in that market. For better or worse, their design, pricing, aesthetic and focus is narrowly targeted at a specific niche, and for this niche, the feature set is perfect. Hence, folks like jah and me who look at them, and say, "yeah, this is what I want to model today". And again, it's not black and white. It doesn't mean that I don't like *anything* out of other kits, or wish some of those features were in GW kits, or that I think that other kits are of poor design, aesthetic or quality.

 Talys wrote:
I think a lot of people overthink it. GW decides what it's going to make based on what sells: they make more of the stuff that people buy, less of what people don't.

GW has no idea what its customers want. It has operated from a position where they thought they could dictate to the customers what they should buy. Their release schedule is merely hurling a gakload of stuff against a wall to see what sticks. The incredibly short preview window doesn't even let them make course corrections. Sure, they'll produce less of the stuff that doesn't sell... but they've already sunk the resources to make that non-selling gak a reality.

 Talys wrote:
Look at fullsize SUVs and luxury crossovers: man, these vehicles are hot... ...The right thing to do would be to make a lot less SUVs, make cars out of lighter and more fuel efficient materials, and stop pumping out 5L (and larger) V8s in favor of fuel efficient 4-cyls. Instead of pouring R&D into heads-up displays, panoramic roofs, radar-based safety features, and nav computers with ever-more humongous screens that you can see in direct sunlight, increase fuel efficiency and reduce production costs for cars targeted at the masses. But car manufacturers aren't going to do that. All their R&D goes into awesome new SUVs with super high tech gadgets and big price tags.

You are entirely incorrect about fullsize SUVs and crossovers being top of the heap. There is a growing segment, even in North America, for well built, well featured small cars. The GMs and Fords of the world can't leave that pie to the Koreans/Japanese anymore, which is why they've been forced to compete with small vehicles that don't suck. There's a reason why all the luxury car makers have entered the compact market. This has been the case for some time in Europe and Asia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
GW is second to none, for example, at making tabards, cloaks and cables on infantry sized models that are technically difficult to produce. You have amazing use of negative space and staves and cables that run between other model pieces that make me ask, "how did they do that" when I see the finished model (before seeing the sprue). Yet some other people will go, "who cares? that's just a pain to paint."

I assembled my first kingdom death mini. Other than one very annoying gap in a recess, the kit had insanely high tolerances for fit and finish.

I have to disagree regarding the tabards. I feel that the GW add on tabards always look like a chunk of plastic glued on, even if you shave it down a bit. They always look rubbish compared to the ones that are moulded onto the torso and/or greenstuffed on.

Since it's totally off topic, I'll just surrender the whole SUV analogy. I was simply using it because I went shopping (and purchased) a very high end luxury crossover, but I looked at/considered both luxury sedans and sports cars too. I thought the amount of new technology crammed into cars is shockingly little compared to the amount of technology crammed into the latest top-end SUVs in the vehicles that I checked out. When you include the lower end stuff, the number of new crossover and small SUV models is crazy, and car magazines routinely talk about the super hot crossover segment.

But anyhow, it's definitely NOT the best example of us (humans) doing things for profit's sake while ignoring what's good for us in terms of a habitat for our species. I'll leave everyone to just fill in that spot for themselves, and if they don't think that we're wrecking the Earth (and I'm just as guilty of contributing to it), at least in the short term, for the sake of profit, well, it's just too far a viewpoint from mine for me to debate.

There are plenty of better examples, like mountaintop removal and fracking that fall into the category of "give people what they will spend money on, not what's ultimately good for their ecosystem."

Regarding tabards and such -- okay, well, a lot of that goes back to preference, I guess. I think GW plastic characters are pretty awesome in the use of negative space.

Sigh.

Quality is neither aesthetics nor feature and is not judged by price.

Two companies can make cubes both can produce cubes that the variation is 0.00000001cm one sells them for X and the other sells them for 2X who has the best quality? none both are equal one is twice expensive though.


We are talking about toy soldiers here, what does quality mean?

Aesthetic is not it, love as much as you want GW aesthetics (or me CB) Aesthetics are subjective and meaningless in talking about toy soldiers quality.

Multi part, multi posed, posable, alternative parts, are features nice to have but not quality related.

Material used is not part of quality (not exactly) yes plastic is inferior to all for capturing details metal is the middle and resin is the king, but really at present technology level the differences are minor, plastic bonds best, resin is easy to assemble and metal is the least easy to glue together, but a top tech casting company can produce kits that "assemble themselves" in any medium.

So what determines the quality of a toy soldier?

The sharpness of the details, the mouldlines (the less the better), the ease of assembly and the robustness for tabletop usage and the casting methods used.

Bandai definitely uses better technologies than GW with no moldlines technology, sliding mould technology, precoloured plastics tecnology and has better assembly and sprew layout, but they do not produce toy soldiers, Personally I find GWs plastics quality lacking, they have in their arsenal far better tech (all the above mentioned) but do not use them, their detail can be sharper their sprew layouts and channels can be better placed and I am sure if they get their minds they can make the no mouldlines technology work for wargaming.

They just sit on their laurels making the same monolithic posed models increasing surface texture and call it detail.

But do they have the best quality out there? I don't think so, many miniature manufacturers can produce similar or better quality some in plastic most not. they are among the best though, the really sad part is they can do so much more.

Now since the whole thread is subjective I find their aesthetic boring and so stuck on the past that their models are completely indifferent to me.

 Talys wrote:
I just don't like Gundams; I've given them much consideration, looked at $50 intermediate and $200 master kits, and decided against buying them for reasons other than cost. I don't like the colored plastics, the simplistic outer armor panels with virtually no details etched in them, and the action-figure nature of the finished product. All of the things which are great features for some people are poor features for me; it's just a product produced for a market other than mine.

You should check out WAVE's Five Star Stories kits.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
Since it's totally off topic, I'll just surrender the whole SUV analogy. I was simply using it because I went shopping (and purchased) a very high end luxury crossover, but I looked at/considered both luxury sedans and sports cars too. I thought the amount of new technology crammed into cars is shockingly little compared to the amount of technology crammed into the latest top-end SUVs in the vehicles that I checked out. When you include the lower end stuff, the number of new crossover and small SUV models is crazy, and car magazines routinely talk about the super hot crossover segment.

Its not entirely off topic: GW is focused like a laser beam on the luxury market and letting all manner of little guys take over the "products for the unwashed masses" market. This works well if you know your target market well and luxury services is all the populace wants. When one is so focused, you can't see the rest of the market (like how in your search, luxury compacts didn't even enter the equation due to being not high end enough). If it turns out the marketing strategy is incorrect, they'll find thenselves way out of position to compete.

 Talys wrote:

Regarding gundams and leviathans - I just don't like Gundams; I've given them much consideration, looked at $50 intermediate and $200 master kits, and decided against buying them for reasons other than cost. I don't like the colored plastics, the simplistic outer armor panels with virtually no details etched in them, and the action-figure nature of the finished product. All of the things which are great features for some people are poor features for me; it's just a product produced for a market other than mine.

For example, colored plastics make it harder to basecoat with airbrush, as you need to prime the whole thing black, instead of being able to use colored polyurethane primers. You can't use a red airbrush primer on blue, gold, and white plastic, because those pieces will look different afterwards. Therefore, a feature to one person is a negative attribute to another.

This isn't black and white though. There are certainly features in the design of a Gundam kit that appeal to me, like really nice "insides" (the detail behind the armor plates).

Yes, GW loves useless detail etched onto armor plates because that happens so much in real armored vehicles. I know that it's a fictional universe but, just like in movies, there has to be some level of suspension of disbelief to enjoy the material. I'm not sure where you're getting the difficulty to basecoat and airbrush thing; coloring the plastic doesn't change its nature at an atomic level and somehow make it a different material; it's the same plastic, the colored plastic doesn't add a layer so that priming it like you normally would results in loss of detail (outside normal goof-ups). This just tells me that you've never tried it; I have and it was a non-issue.

 Talys wrote:
Agnosto, with respect to the leviathan being a master-level kit, and a Knight being an easier to assemble: you could say the same thing about your FW kits versus your GW kits, and to me, this comes back to the same question of "what are you looking for?" For me, all of the fun in a kit comes in the painting stage: I am not really fond of the assembly and prep, and I therefore prefer the kit that goes together perfectly rather than the one that requires fiddling. Since time is a finite resource, I want to spend more of my time painting, and less of my time building. But if you find your fun in the build process, then that's different.

Yes, the FW kits were in the middle, between the "pants on head" stupidly easy assembly of the plastic knights and the utter joy of modelling that I got from putting the Leviathan together. Personally, I don't like the aesthetics of the Leviathan but that doesn't preclude me from recognizing the technical mastery involved in the creation of the kit. I don't like many Gundam models either but that doesn't stop me from appreciating the colored plastics, slide tool molding process and other techniques that result in a kit that fits together perfectly with no gaps or warpage, poseability, and nearly any other modelling checkbox; it's all there.

 Talys wrote:
From a practical perspective, GW is making kits that appeal to GW customers. They're not looking to attract people who like Gundam kits or Privateer Press kits: they're happy not to compete in that market. For better or worse, their design, pricing, aesthetic and focus is narrowly targeted at a specific niche, and for this niche, the feature set is perfect. Hence, folks like jah and me who look at them, and say, "yeah, this is what I want to model today". And again, it's not black and white. It doesn't mean that I don't like *anything* out of other kits, or wish some of those features were in GW kits, or that I think that other kits are of poor design, aesthetic or quality.

I'm sorry, but how can you say that and still attempt to have any credibility as someone who has worked in the business world; none of that makes any sense and you well know it so please don't speak to me like I'm an idiot or expect anyone to believe a word of that. Everyone is a potential GW customer and if they think differently, they deserve to continue their slide into obscurity. For too long they've not had to chase sales but now they have to and the current leadership in the company is not equipped to do so on a competitive level that grows their business and returns greater investment to their shareholders.

It's all well and good to love the current models but would you absolutely hate an Imperial Knight with fully articulated joints? I highly doubt it.

Would if murder GW's remaining market to have their snap-fit models precolored for those just starting out or with little interest in painting? Nope. Would it possibly attract more newbies? Possibly. They've tried it before but always limited and half-arsed and then just pointed at it as being not successful, even though they didn't really try to begin with.

Does GW make models for wargaming? I thought they made models for model collectors.

Touché

Their quality is abysmal for a "collectors model" and would not fit the criteria for base entry to that genre

I guess it is good its only their propaganda and not reality.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In business terms, price and quality are different variables. Otherwise the same item would gain quality by being sold at a lower price.

In business terms, both are part of a derived variable - perceived value - so they actually mesh pretty tightly.

The Auld Grump

@PsychoticStorm: how is their quality abysmal for a collectors model???
what is the criteria for base entry to that genre???

i collect models from nearly every wargaming company on the market, and there are no plastic minis out there that are any better in quality, nor worse...
every plastic kit that i have cracked open from a wargaming company has been on par with each other in casting quality...

@Wayne: please don't think that i only us GW as the metric of quality, and thus nothing else will compare...
my metric for quality is how well a model is cast...
GW does plenty of things that i think could be better, and wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole, like Finecast, or switching paint lines way too often, and using pots that i think are horrible, or moving to nearly all synthetic brushes...

if you honestly feel that i don't think anything on the market will measure up to GW, then you need to read what i write better...
i love PP minis, as long as they are not restic, and just bought two Extreme Khador 'Jacks last week...
i love CB's minis, and buy Infinity stuff all the time...
i loved Confrontation, and bought at least half of Rackham's entire line before they went pre-painted plastic...
i buy Helldorado, Soda Pop, GF9, and many others, too...

the thing is, people aren't starting threads about how horrible PP minis are, or CB minis, or Warlord and Perry minis...
you see a lot of complaints about Mantic's quality in their thread, but people don't start a new thread about how rubbish they are every week, so the voices are not as prominent...
people complain about restic in PP and Mantic threads, but in a GW thread about sales, or anything else GW related, it always comes down to the same people on both sides having the same tired arguments...
i am just as sick of it as everyone else...

basically, show a GW kit that has replaced an older plastic kit in the last five years, and point out where it isn't an improvement on the previous iteration...
that is my point, and why i defend GW quality...
they make new kits that improve the previous kits, and i give them immense credit for that...

i am still looking for examples of where you guys feel that the recent plastic kits are lacking in quality...
which kits are not good casts???
are there kits that don't go together well???

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:
@PsychoticStorm: how is their quality abysmal for a collectors model???
what is the criteria for base entry to that genre???

i collect models from nearly every wargaming company on the market, and there are no plastic minis out there that are any better in quality, nor worse...
every plastic kit that i have cracked open from a wargaming company has been on par with each other in casting quality...

These are toy soldiers,they are not collectors models.

 jah-joshua wrote:


aesthetic appeals aside, my question is, where are the recent GW HIPS kits lacking in quality???
is the plastic bad???
are the moldlines excessive???
are the details shallow???
does the material warp???
are miscasts common???

cheers
jah

Its not so much the GW kits are bad, Its that the level of detail on Tamiya/Hasegawa etc. kits is much higher. The detail on a modern Tamilya/Hasegawa tank kit engine deck is mind boggling. Makes you wonder how they were even able to machine details that small. Details are very crisp, and deep if necessary, corners are sharp both inside and outside. Scribe lines are beautiful. A Tamiya produced Space Marine figure would have mind boggling sharp detail compared to current GW product. Really can't appreciate the detail until you actually see a well done kit in person.

Tim

@PsychoticStorm: so, what qualifies something as a collectors model???
this is what i am trying to get to the root of...

@timd: i don't disagree with you...
if i was a fine scale historical model collector, i would be all over Tamiya...
all i'm saying is that the new GW SM kits blow GW's own old SM plastic kits out of the water...
compare the new squad boxes to the old squad boxes, and you see that they do up their game with each new iteration...

the whole point is that wargaming miniatures are what we should be using as a comparison, rather than fine scale models...
i don't walk into a model shop looking for a Wave Serpent, and walk out with an Apache instead, because it had more interior detail, and cost less...
i am a helicopter nut, but when i build and paint a mini, i want something that could not possibly exist in our real world, but something that only lives in the imagination...
that is the appeal of miniatures, for me...

cheers
jah

 agnosto wrote:

 Talys wrote:
From a practical perspective, GW is making kits that appeal to GW customers. They're not looking to attract people who like Gundam kits or Privateer Press kits: they're happy not to compete in that market.

I'm sorry, but how can you say that and still attempt to have any credibility as someone who has worked in the business world; none of that makes any sense and you well know it so please don't speak to me like I'm an idiot or expect anyone to believe a word of that. Everyone is a potential GW customer and if they think differently, they deserve to continue their slide into obscurity. For too long they've not had to chase sales but now they have to and the current leadership in the company is not equipped to do so on a competitive level that grows their business and returns greater investment to their shareholders.

It's all well and good to love the current models but would you absolutely hate an Imperial Knight with fully articulated joints? I highly doubt it.

Would if murder GW's remaining market to have their snap-fit models precolored for those just starting out or with little interest in painting? Nope. Would it possibly attract more newbies? Possibly. They've tried it before but always limited and half-arsed and then just pointed at it as being not successful, even though they didn't really try to begin with.

I can say that precisely because I've operated in the "business world" for nearly my entire adult life, with, I think, pretty decent success (At least with enough success to buy as many GW models as I want ). At some point, it's not uncommon for folks who are successful and fully busy doing things they love to say, "Gee, doing only the things I love and that I think I'm good at, I'm making more money than I and all the people who started up with me can spend in their entire life. Do I want to try out other stuff and make even more, or just be content working on my core competencies and stay within my happy zone?"

The right answer is different for everyone, but as a personal matter I would rather take the certainty and $2 million dollars a year than try to compete on all sorts of other things and maybe make $20 or $200 million a year. Why? I can't even spend $2 million a year, so effectively, $200 million a year is just money I'm going to give away anyhow. In other words, having millions in the bank, to me, is effectively the same as having billions in the bank, because I'm not going to do anything with most of either. There are many people that share my view: do what you're great at, be exceptional at it, and charge top dollar -- so long as there's a surplus of demand, just take the customers you want, and let the others that you don't go somewhere else.

The other thing, too, is that you only have so much time and focus, and it's easy to lose yourself (and that profitable niche) if you expand beyond to other things, botch it, and also botch up your cash cow that you used to really enjoy, because your eye was on something else. It's not always easy to just hire people to take care of another business unit.

So long as GW is profitable and the board is happy, they can afford to just do the things they want to do, and ignore market segments that don't appeal to them, whether it's the tournament scene or finescale models. I'm not saying this is what they SHOULD do, it's just that they have the luxury of choice, and they can do whatever pleases the board. Who knows, maybe next year the board will decide they want to compete in the tournament segment and make a real push for it, and great on them if they choose to do so, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jah-joshua wrote:
compare the new squad boxes to the old squad boxes, and you see that they do up their game with each new iteration...

This is something that's a no-brainer to people who are going to spend money with GW; but with many others who see them as nothing more than game pieces... well, do you remember how many posts there were when Devastators or ASM came out that the new boxes were essentially exactly the same as the old boxes? >.<

I mean, I posted pictures of the legs side by side, with differences as clear as day, and there were people who STILL went, well, that's just useless greeble.

They just sit on their laurels making the same monolithic posed models increasing surface texture and call it detail.

Exalted just for that.

GW seems to go for the old chestnut that quantity has a quality all it's own.

If I had to venture a guess, a collector's model could be anything, but "collecting" for display purposes would be the end use. Whether or not the model is used for another purpose would be irrelevant. I think items like busts and all non-gaming miniatures falls into this category.

I think from a "collector" perspective, Games Workshop product is expensive on a per model basis. While I don't disagree that the tooling on their kits is impressive, especially the larger ones - in game power, and often, the necessity to buy in multiples due to packaging levies a "game" tax on the models that you might not find in a pure collector's range like Reaper, Andrea, Nocturna, Dark Sword etc. In addition, GW's decision to go forward entirely in plastics is in some ways limiting. Resin and metal can hold finer detail than plastic, though in many ways, certain details are quite a bit more durable in plastic. GW is really losing out by not embracing hybrid kits in their mainstream line. That way they could have the benefits of all the materials...

A generic fantasy infantry sized character is $6-8USD from Reaper. Dark Sword ones are on average $10USD. I looked at the "Boutique" style models from Nocturna. Even the 30mm resins have insane detail. They are very pricy at 15EU though. The Kingdom Death models, also targeted at "Boutique" style buyers are also very expensive but come with lots of "collector" targeted extras like nice packaging, art cards etc, that make the model feel more "exclusive" somehow... (if you're into that thing). The "naked" minis-only packages are quite a bit more affordable, and IMHO, speaks to where GW's pricing might sit without the trappings of the game system.

Pricing is the biggest hurdle for me for Games Workshop. Now that I don't play their games any more, I look at their products from a purely modelling and painting perspective. Games Workshop infantry heroes are anywhere from $10usd for old mail order ones to $30+ for the newest (and most awesome) releases. Size nor material is a factor in the price since the Slaughterpriest is more expensive than the Exalted Deathbringer, older mounted metal and finecast heroes and strangely, even the SEEKER CHARIOT OF SLAANESH. IMHO, I don't have many complaints about the technical aspects of GW's new models. I'm not a huge fan of the aesthetics of the Stormcast, nor the new overly gribbled chaos. I think that the ever escalating price with each new release needs to halt however. Every time I look at a Games Workshop piece, the first thing that runs through my head is that I'd need more parts to finish the project, and the base kit can fund 1.5-3 of my other planned projects. This very much makes GW a non-starter from my non-gaming perspective.