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.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Why is the price of a WW2 tank irrelevant? Aren't they roughly equivalent (similar size, similar sculpting)? Both are model kits, no? Both are tank model kits?

The argument is this: the price isn't relevant, because the person who's going into a store to buy a Sherman probably isn't going to walk out buying a Predator, regardless of the price; and the person who's going to buy a Voidraven probably isn't going to buy a F-16, regardless of the price. They don't really compete with each other.

They serve two different types of hobbyists. Is there crossover? Yes, of course. But a lot of people interested in one aren't really interested in the other, so the products are priced based on their independent markets. I'm pretty sure that Revell tries to get as much for its models as it can, too.

On the other hand, someone looking at space marines might go over to the Cyngar shelf and buy those instead.

By the same token, it's unlikely that someone who's looking for a 24" model of the Millennium Falcon is going to instead buy a B-1 bomber because it's cheaper, so they too do not directly compete. The decision the person who's after the Millennium Falcon might be that, an A-Wing, or nothing.

Finally, a lot of gaming stores don't sell historical models, and a lot of places that sell Tamiya and Revell don't sell Games Workshop. That's not an absolute, but it's true of many gaming stores -- they're more likely to sell Magic the Gathering and Yu-Gi-Oh than they are Sherman tanks.

I think it will be very interesting to see if GW backs off their price increase strategy on new releases. The Fyreslayers are roughly at par with previous releases. New players, once they get past the "start collecting" bundles are going to wonder WTF the new Fyreslayer Magmadroth is 30% more expensive than a Carnosaur (2013), and 185% more expensive than a Stegadon (2008). They won't know about the pricing exercises that GW's gone through... they'll only know that current pricing is a mess and makes no sense.

 keezus wrote:
I think it will be very interesting to see if GW backs off their price increase strategy on new releases. The Fyreslayers are roughly at par with previous releases. New players, once they get past the "start collecting" bundles are going to wonder WTF the new Fyreslayer Magmadroth is 30% more expensive than a Carnosaur (2013), and 185% more expensive than a Stegadon (2008). They won't know about the pricing exercises that GW's gone through... they'll only know that current pricing is a mess and makes no sense.

I totally agree that GW's pricing strategy has major MPD going on.

The Fyreslayers are more expensive than Tau, which came out, like one month before. But the Tau are cheaper than Stormcast, which came out before that. Which are more expensive than Skitarrii which were before them. Which are cheaper than Harlequins...

I think they maybe roll dice to figure out pricing

Vulkites: $6 ea.
Fire Warriors: $5 ea. plus free drones!
Liberators: $10 ea.
Vanguard: $3.90 ea.
Troupe: $6 ea.
BA Tacticals: $4.30 ea.

Maybe price per model = 2D6?

200 figures is about average for an Ancient/Mediaeval army for rules like WRG and FoG.

 Talys wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Why is the price of a WW2 tank irrelevant? Aren't they roughly equivalent (similar size, similar sculpting)? Both are model kits, no? Both are tank model kits?

The argument is this: the price isn't relevant, because the person who's going into a store to buy a Sherman probably isn't going to walk out buying a Predator, regardless of the price; and the person who's going to buy a Voidraven probably isn't going to buy a F-16, regardless of the price. They don't really compete with each other.

What about someone who just wants a tank to paint? Or isn't interested in WW2 but is curious as to why the Sherman on the next shelf is half the price of the Predator? Maybe they'll just proxy it in; 40K tanks are ripped straight out of WW1/2 anyway. There's no way a Land Raider was designed without the designer knowing what a MK IV was, for instance.

You can argue that there's only miniman crossover because they are for different genres of game, but you have to admit that their mere presence in the same store / mindshare makes GW's pricing look bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Its artificially a different market, largely due to GW and its 'hobby' fabrication. Its little plastic or metal men, designed and made using the same methods, for use in games which are designed and built using the same methods.

Its analogous to genre A of books somehow being 3, 4 or 5 times more expensive (if not more) than genre B despite both being printed on the same paper, in the same printing press and often written by the same author.

Your analogy is apt. If an author writes a college textbook, it can be $50-$100. if the same author writes a nonfiction book for general consumption, it can be $15.

If an author wrote a college textbook with the sort of quality that goes into a GW book they'd be chased out of their publishers office with a broom. College textbooks are expensive (maybe too expensive) but they are expensive to produce and are held to a much higher standard, generally by an expert in that field.

 Talys wrote:

Look, if you want to play Malifuax on an 8x12, great. If you want to play 40k with 300 points, fantastic. But this is not generally how these games are played, which makes finding play partners much harder. The games aren't written for these scenarios, the mechanics are not ideal for that, and so on and so forth.

And yet, privateer press releases rules for playing large, epic battles of warmachine. They have a whole format devised for it, specifically written to cater to it so yes, by definition the game is written for these scenarios. Stop spreading misinformation.

 Talys wrote:

You can do whatever you want with your models, buy as many as you want and play them any way that's fun, but to say that 200 model WMH games on 8x12 tables are a thing is just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

moving goalposts again mate. Please don't. What you said was:

 Talys wrote:

No, you can't really play a WMH or Malifaux game on an 8x12 table with 200 models to a side. More to the point... you'll never find anyone else who does.

'You can't really play wmh on an 8x12 with 200 models to a side'. Yes, yes you can. Stop spreading misinformation.

'You'll never find anyone else who does'. Yes, you can. Me and my mates would. Stop spreading misinformation.

 Talys wrote:

Besides, if you played WMH with 200 models, it wouldn't be any cheaper than playing 40k with 200 models. If you play 40k with 30 one and a half inch-tall models, it wouldn't really be any more expensive than playing WMH with 30 one and a half inch-tall models.

Never really the point though, was it? Nice red herring by the way. You're good at them! The point was refuting your asinine assertion that you can't play big games of wmh or no one plays them.

 Talys wrote:

Is this really that controversial? Is this worth arguing about?!

Saying this bit below is controversial and worth arguing about, since it is spouting rubbish and spreading misinformation. The rest was a red herring with the aim of distracting folks from pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Not falling for it mate.

 Talys wrote:

No, you can't really play a WMH or Malifaux game on an 8x12 table with 200 models to a side. More to the point... you'll never find anyone else who does.

 Talys wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
So you've established that a mass produced, machine cast, low cost material product has the same approximate cost (at RRP I assume) as metal and resin, hand cast product from smaller companies that benefit from far fewer economies of scale.

But I don't care what it costs someone to make something. I only care about what I pay out of my pocket. If GW or PP finds a way to make a model cheaper, good for them. If it costs them more, tough luck -- not my problem. I don't expect anyone to pass savings on to me because they saved some money, and if prices are raised beyond the point I'm willing to pay, I don't care if there's a perfectly good explanation for it; I just won't buy the product.

If I'm buying something that's expensive to make (like low run resin mini's) then I'm a lot more forgiving of a higher price than, say, injection moulded plastic. Because I know the resin probably cost 2 orders of magnitude more to make than the plastic did, fixed costs excepted.

I don't mind paying $30 for a boutique resin mini (I've paid more), but I probably wouldn't pay more than $20 for a metal one (easier to work, re-usable) and twitch at the idea of paying more than $10 for a plastic one. Malifaux has been the exception, where I've gone to maybe $20 for a plastic mini because I only need 5.

Herzlos wrote:

 Talys wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Why is the price of a WW2 tank irrelevant? Aren't they roughly equivalent (similar size, similar sculpting)? Both are model kits, no? Both are tank model kits?

The argument is this: the price isn't relevant, because the person who's going into a store to buy a Sherman probably isn't going to walk out buying a Predator, regardless of the price; and the person who's going to buy a Voidraven probably isn't going to buy a F-16, regardless of the price. They don't really compete with each other.

What about someone who just wants a tank to paint? Or isn't interested in WW2 but is curious as to why the Sherman on the next shelf is half the price of the Predator? Maybe they'll just proxy it in; 40K tanks are ripped straight out of WW1/2 anyway. There's no way a Land Raider was designed without the designer knowing what a MK IV was, for instance.

You can argue that there's only miniman crossover because they are for different genres of game, but you have to admit that their mere presence in the same store / mindshare makes GW's pricing look bad.

Right: I'm not saying there isn't an argument for crossovers; the person who just wants to paint a tank of any type. I really don't think that this is that common, however; otherwise, most stores that sold GW stuff would also sell Revell and Tamiya, and, at least in my observation, that isn't the case. On the other hand, you see Privateer Press in most independent stores that sell GW.

Where I think you get more competition is someone who's new to the model hobby, and has to choose, for example, between 40k, scale models, and trainsets. Once someone becomes invested in a hobby, I think they tend to spend most of their time and money within that hobby. If one hobby is demonstrably cheaper than another, that might sway something. But emotional decisions are important too; someone is likely to look at a model, and if they think one is cool and one is not -- for example, if they like a Gundam robot or a Wraithknight, that may also sway their decision.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:
If I'm buying something that's expensive to make (like low run resin mini's) then I'm a lot more forgiving of a higher price than, say, injection moulded plastic. Because I know the resin probably cost 2 orders of magnitude more to make than the plastic did, fixed costs excepted.

I don't mind paying $30 for a boutique resin mini (I've paid more), but I probably wouldn't pay more than $20 for a metal one (easier to work, re-usable) and twitch at the idea of paying more than $10 for a plastic one. Malifaux has been the exception, where I've gone to maybe $20 for a plastic mini because I only need 5.

That's fair enough, and it's also the argument for Forgeworld pricing. Personally, I'm less forgiving. I won't pay more for a Forgeworld model just because it's low production resin; since there's more than I could possibly put together in 5 lifetimes in high production plastic, if the resin model isn't actually better, I'll just buy the cheaper plastic one, unless there's some special reason.

Like you, I do associate a little premium with metal models. Like you said, you can rework them, but there is a lot of nostalgic value to metal minis for me

 Talys wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Why is the price of a WW2 tank irrelevant? Aren't they roughly equivalent (similar size, similar sculpting)? Both are model kits, no? Both are tank model kits?

The argument is this: the price isn't relevant, because the person who's going into a store to buy a Sherman probably isn't going to walk out buying a Predator, regardless of the price; and the person who's going to buy a Voidraven probably isn't going to buy a F-16, regardless of the price. They don't really compete with each other.

They serve two different types of hobbyists. Is there crossover? Yes, of course. But a lot of people interested in one aren't really interested in the other, so the products are priced based on their independent markets. I'm pretty sure that Revell tries to get as much for its models as it can, too.

On the other hand, someone looking at space marines might go over to the Cyngar shelf and buy those instead.

By the same token, it's unlikely that someone who's looking for a 24" model of the Millennium Falcon is going to instead buy a B-1 bomber because it's cheaper, so they too do not directly compete. The decision the person who's after the Millennium Falcon might be that, an A-Wing, or nothing.

Finally, a lot of gaming stores don't sell historical models, and a lot of places that sell Tamiya and Revell don't sell Games Workshop. That's not an absolute, but it's true of many gaming stores -- they're more likely to sell Magic the Gathering and Yu-Gi-Oh than they are Sherman tanks.

If Games workshop was a gaming company, your point would be valid. You can't use a sherman tank for space marines. But they're not they're a model company, and comparisons of tank models is OK. Models are judged on visual looks and value for money,I know because I've bought both.

 Talys wrote:
Where I think you get more competition is someone who's new to the model hobby, and has to choose, for example, between 40k, scale models, and trainsets. Once someone becomes invested in a hobby, I think they tend to spend most of their time and money within that hobby. If one hobby is demonstrably cheaper than another, that might sway something. But emotional decisions are important too; someone is likely to look at a model, and if they think one is cool and one is not -- for example, if they like a Gundam robot or a Wraithknight, that may also sway their decision.

Aesthetics will dictate which product (or product line) you are considering to buy. Budget determines whether you actually buy it. 40k, Scale Models and Trainsets are very different hobbies. It is highly unlikely that someone looking for a hobby is going to have those as competing choices, since Aesthetics dictates BEFORE budget.

@loki old fart - well, sure you can use Sherman tanks for space marines. I mean, why not, if it's about the right size.

My point is that regardless of whether they're a model or game company, the market for scifi models is different from the market for scale models. If there weren't different markets for both, GW wouldn't be selling hundreds of millions of dollars a year in scifi and fantasy models.

Because people would just go buy Sherman tanks and guys with M16s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 keezus wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Where I think you get more competition is someone who's new to the model hobby, and has to choose, for example, between 40k, scale models, and trainsets. Once someone becomes invested in a hobby, I think they tend to spend most of their time and money within that hobby. If one hobby is demonstrably cheaper than another, that might sway something. But emotional decisions are important too; someone is likely to look at a model, and if they think one is cool and one is not -- for example, if they like a Gundam robot or a Wraithknight, that may also sway their decision.

Aesthetics will dictate which product (or product line) you are considering to buy. Budget determines whether you actually buy it. 40k, Scale Models and Trainsets are very different hobbies. It is highly unlikely that someone looking for a hobby is going to have those as competing choices, since Aesthetics dictates BEFORE budget.

To a large extent, I definitely agree. For sure, this is why I would never paint a Sherman tank. I mean, if someone offered me one for free, I would tell them to donate it to a Christmas toy drive instead.

Actually that Sherman or whatever kit is relevant it creates a point of comparison to the buyer.

It might not suit the needs of the buyer but as a reference it allows comparison, you have heard many times about gundam sherman whatever cost its a reference, yes, a Gundam is not a knight or titan or whatever, but, its as big cheaper and technically superior crafting, completely useless if you want an Imperial Knight, but puts GW quality and price in a perspective, right? wrong? justly or unjustified? it does not matter the point of reference is there.

And this is one of the reasons GW does not want other games next to their, it creates comparisons and in comparisons you have to compete.

 Talys wrote:
@loki old fart - well, sure you can use Sherman tanks for space marines. I mean, why not, if it's about the right size.

My point is that regardless of whether they're a model or game company, the market for scifi models is different from the market for scale models. If there weren't different markets for both, GW wouldn't be selling hundreds of millions of dollars a year in scifi and fantasy models.

Because people would just go buy Sherman tanks and guys with M16s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 keezus wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Where I think you get more competition is someone who's new to the model hobby, and has to choose, for example, between 40k, scale models, and trainsets. Once someone becomes invested in a hobby, I think they tend to spend most of their time and money within that hobby. If one hobby is demonstrably cheaper than another, that might sway something. But emotional decisions are important too; someone is likely to look at a model, and if they think one is cool and one is not -- for example, if they like a Gundam robot or a Wraithknight, that may also sway their decision.

Aesthetics will dictate which product (or product line) you are considering to buy. Budget determines whether you actually buy it. 40k, Scale Models and Trainsets are very different hobbies. It is highly unlikely that someone looking for a hobby is going to have those as competing choices, since Aesthetics dictates BEFORE budget.

To a large extent, I definitely agree. For sure, this is why I would never paint a Sherman tank. I mean, if someone offered me one for free, I would tell them to donate it to a Christmas toy drive instead.

If your playing a game of 40k, you can use a sherman, with your opponents consent. BUT GW states it's a model company and that means it's products must be judged on looks, quality of construction, and value for money alone. They can't have it both ways. Games companies have more leeway, because the game is the product. (Not the model) Models are mere tokens needed to play.
Model company's product's are judged model by model.

 loki old fart wrote:

If your playing a game of 40k, you can use a sherman, with your opponents consent. BUT GW states it's a model company and that means it's products must be judged on looks, quality of construction, and value for money alone. They can't have it both ways. Games companies have more leeway, because the game is the product.
Model company's product's are judged model by model.

As I keep saying, scifi models are a different market than scale models. X-Wing fighters aren't priced based on how much an F-22 is. They're priced based on how much a Star Wars fan is willing to pay for an X-Wing model.

But anyways, since you're so insistent:

The games are a key part of both our Hobby and our business model.

http://investor.games-workshop.com/our-business-model/

Talys, nevermind the miniature scale being epic, this image is a summary of you in this this thread!

You are a machine.

@Pacific - LOL

 Talys wrote:
The games are a key part of both our Hobby and our business model. http://investor.games-workshop.com/our-business-model/

I wouldn't use that document if I were you... it contains lots of "not practicing what they preach"... a veritable view into the eye of terror itself:

The products we make for our customers are the best in the wargaming world. This is because everyone at Games Workshop is passionate about our Hobby. - The products they make are the best in spite of the fact the creative team is tightly under the control of management. Its hard to be passionate when you have no control. Proper rules writing (in this case, lack thereof) isn't a real concern because...

Every year we seek new and better ways of making our products and improving the quality. This is not simply a personal obsession; it also makes good business sense. We know that, for a niche like ours, people who are interested in collecting fantasy miniatures will choose the best quality and be prepared to pay what they are worth. - While this is true to an extent, as long as the fantasy models (a) fit their aesthetic preferences and (b) fit their budget... It also shows incredible hubris and lack of market awareness. Now that there is more choice than ever, GW is doubling down on their house style instead of evolving with the times. Their technical innovation is good, but creatively, frankly speaking, many of their revamped model lines are almost parodies of their old designs.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Actually that Sherman or whatever kit is relevant it creates a point of comparison to the buyer.

It might not suit the needs of the buyer but as a reference it allows comparison, you have heard many times about gundam sherman whatever cost its a reference, yes, a Gundam is not a knight or titan or whatever, but, its as big cheaper and technically superior crafting, completely useless if you want an Imperial Knight, but puts GW quality and price in a perspective, right? wrong? justly or unjustified? it does not matter the point of reference is there.

And this is one of the reasons GW does not want other games next to their, it creates comparisons and in comparisons you have to compete.

I don't buy that. IMHO, people who are browsing for "models" are browsing (usually) with a particular model/aesthetic/whatever in mind. If I'm a scale modeler, I'm not even batting an eye at GW or PP or any "sci-fi" stuff. unless I'm looking for Gundams. And if I'm a Gundam fan, I'm not even bothering with Riptides or whatever, the aesthetic is totally different. I might look at "gundam-esque" models, and compare prices there, but it would never even be a decision between Bandai and GW. Totally different animals.

And you have to take into consideration development costs. A historical model has some, but I'd argue not as much as a company that has to develop concept art/drawings, background/fluff, the game that goes along with it, etc. Historicals don't have the same development cycle - hence why historical models hover around $1 a piece, or less if you're a discerning (read: cheap) historicals buyer. Anyone can put out a WW2 GI, do their research online and in the history books on the "look" and the armanent, and then pay someone to sculpt it. You can't get the same with a space marine. The space marine is going to cost you more to develop (I'm not talking a one man shop here, either, with glacial releases).

Its apples and oranges as a price point comparison between scale models, scale models with laser etch brass upgrades, historical tabletop miniatures, sci-fi table top miniatures, etc.

 keezus wrote:

 Talys wrote:
The games are a key part of both our Hobby and our business model. http://investor.games-workshop.com/our-business-model/

I wouldn't use that document if I were you... it contains lots of "not practicing what they preach"... a veritable view into the eye of terror itself:

The products we make for our customers are the best in the wargaming world. This is because everyone at Games Workshop is passionate about our Hobby. - The products they make are the best in spite of the fact the creative team is tightly under the control of management. Its hard to be passionate when you have no control. Proper rules writing (in this case, lack thereof) isn't a real concern because...

Every year we seek new and better ways of making our products and improving the quality. This is not simply a personal obsession; it also makes good business sense. We know that, for a niche like ours, people who are interested in collecting fantasy miniatures will choose the best quality and be prepared to pay what they are worth. - While this is true to an extent, as long as the fantasy models (a) fit their aesthetic preferences and (b) fit their budget... It also shows incredible hubris and lack of market awareness. Now that there is more choice than ever, GW is doubling down on their house style instead of evolving with the times. Their technical innovation is good, but creatively, frankly speaking, many of their revamped model lines are almost parodies of their old designs.

in my experience, the creative team is very passionate about their work...
they are proud of what they create, even if what they work on is dictated to them by management...
that is the difference between being an employee, and being your own boss...
there may seem to be less compromise with the guy that is his own boss, but the financial instability is the trade-off...
GW provides the creative team with a guaranteed salary, at the cost of doing what the boss tells you to do...
if they are happy working within the GW aesthetic, what is not to be passionate about???

cheers
jah

Rick Priestley and Andy Chambers being the notorious exceptions?

Cruentus wrote:And you have to take into consideration development costs. A historical model has some, but I'd argue not as much as a company that has to develop concept art/drawings, background/fluff, the game that goes along with it, etc. Historicals don't have the same development cycle - hence why historical models hover around $1 a piece, or less if you're a discerning (read: cheap) historicals buyer. Anyone can put out a WW2 GI, do their research online and in the history books on the "look" and the armanent, and then pay someone to sculpt it. You can't get the same with a space marine. The space marine is going to cost you more to develop (I'm not talking a one man shop here, either, with glacial releases).

On the other hand, as folk have already said, historical dress, equipment, army composition, battlefield role, vehicle specifications etc. etc. can take a fair bit of research and the information is not always easy to find or interpret, depending on specific points and locations in history. Whereas - if you really want to go with the "you can just take a quick look online" bit - you can just take a quick browse through deviantart to see what fantasy designs the 'kids' are going for these days. Probably something with huge ridiculous pauldrons. Or ponies.

I have almost half a bookshelf on anatomy and basic figure sculpting alone, let alone the other stuff. (the nearest Ikea should grin when they see me coming) Based on that little microcosm of amateur interest, no, research is not as simple as you make out.

I'd argue about how much gruelling, innovative design GW does, anyway. I've no doubt someone's getting paid for fuzzy wacom sketches every couple of months when there's a new SM codex, but 40K designs all but ground to a halt years ago. Most new minis since about 3rd ed or before, are variations on a, has to be said, fairly stagnant theme, once certain looks became established. Jes Goodwin's plastic marines, Brian Nelson's orks, the then-fresh and brand-spanking-new tau, the increasingly xenomorph-alike tyranids...
(I still remember rumours of the plastic carnifex. 'Looks like a big termagant!' they said. Not half. And then every assault spawn eventually ported over from Epic was turned into one, too.)

 Pacific wrote:
Talys, nevermind the miniature scale being epic, this image is a summary of you in this this thread!

You are a machine.

You sure its not the weight of his own cognitive dissonance that he's trying to hold up?

 Pacific wrote:
Talys, nevermind the miniature scale being epic, this image is a summary of you in this this thread!

You are a machine.

Fixed that for you.

Is probably closer to the truth at this point.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Rick Priestley and Andy Chambers being the notorious exceptions?

in my experience with Andy, he has very fond memories of his time at the studio, and is very happy for the notoriety that he gained from his time there, which allowed him to go on to bigger, better, more independent things...
the same goes for Rick, Alessio, Paul, Ronnie, and everyone else who has made their name at GW, and then moved on to do their own thing...
there is nothing wrong with moving on, but don't underestimate the cache that being a former studio member has given these guys...
they are also from the old days, when things were much different, so it is not a surprise that they would chafe at outsiders coming in and taking control, and thus want to move on to do their own thing...

since we are in the here and now, i was actually referring to the current studio members...
sure, some of them would rather be working on things other than Space Marines, but then they have to weigh that against being a starving artist versus being gainfully employed in the world of wargaming miniatures, which is the passion...
if GW is that avenue, and they can handle the corporate culture, then it's win-win...

having worked as a painter for four different companies, including PP, i can tell you that the boss dictates the models you paint, and the schemes you will use, which does limit creative freedom somewhat...
on the upside, it does provide a paycheck, and the chance to work on some cool projects...
it sure beats working at Taco Bell...

cheers
jah

Rick Priestley left because he felt his creative freedom was being stifled, not because he was unhappy working with the GW aesthetic.

Just pointing out that liking the GW aesthetic isn't enough for everyone to be passionate. Rick Priestley is a game designer who for a long time wasn't allowed to design games, during the period when GW was scrapping specialist games and doubling down on its core 3.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Rick Priestley left because he felt his creative freedom was being stifled, not because he was unhappy working with the GW aesthetic.

Just pointing out that liking the GW aesthetic isn't enough for everyone to be passionate. Rick Priestley is a game designer who for a long time wasn't allowed to design games, during the period when GW was scrapping specialist games and doubling down on its core 3.

again, i was speaking of the people that i know working in the current studio environment, not the old guard, who where there in the halcyon days gone by...
as i said, Rick was right to leave, and is now doing some fun stuff, but he is still buoyed by the title "creator of Warhammer 40,000", which i'm sure is not something that keeps him up at night fretting over...

plenty of people have come and gone through the studio over the last 4 decades...
all i'm saying is the the artists that i know in the studio right now are very happy to have their jobs, and get paid to play with toys all day...
not that that is unique to GW, but is pretty much industry wide...
who doesn't love getting paid to play with toys

cheers
jah

 loki old fart wrote:

 Talys wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Why is the price of a WW2 tank irrelevant? Aren't they roughly equivalent (similar size, similar sculpting)? Both are model kits, no? Both are tank model kits?

... ...
Finally, a lot of gaming stores don't sell historical models, and a lot of places that sell Tamiya and Revell don't sell Games Workshop. That's not an absolute, but it's true of many gaming stores -- they're more likely to sell Magic the Gathering and Yu-Gi-Oh than they are Sherman tanks.

If Games workshop was a gaming company, your point would be valid. You can't use a sherman tank for space marines. But they're not they're a model company, and comparisons of tank models is OK. Models are judged on visual looks and value for money,I know because I've bought both.

Well you can. I bought all historical kits for my SM army and IG army, because of looks and price, though I chose modern vehicles like M113s and M1117s. No reason you couldn't use Shermans, though. The running gear is distinctive and is shared by a number of designs including the Lee/Grant, the Priest SPG and the Canadian Sherman based APC , so there's good scope for modelling all the Rhino variants.

As far as modelling goes as a hobby, many modellers specialise in one format, like tanks, or biplanes, or naval models, so if you wanted to specislise in GW models your only problem, apart from price, would be lack of variety and detailing kits. Most modelling skills are transferable to other fomats. Even something like rigging biplanes can be transferred to rigging ships.

On top of that, a Deimos pattern predators kind of look like a Sherman tanks

 jah-joshua wrote:

in my experience, the creative team is very passionate about their work...
they are proud of what they create, even if what they work on is dictated to them by management...
that is the difference between being an employee, and being your own boss...
there may seem to be less compromise with the guy that is his own boss, but the financial instability is the trade-off...
GW provides the creative team with a guaranteed salary, at the cost of doing what the boss tells you to do...
if they are happy working within the GW aesthetic, what is not to be passionate about???

cheers
jah

I can see your point: alternatively, overly strong direction can really damage the enthusiasm of creative types. It'd be like if I was commissioned to paint an Ultramarine army for someone and the customer came back and asked all the Aquila to be repainted pink, that each model be carrying a bolter in each hand and that every right leg needed to have orange hazard stripes... the customer / boss is always correct since they are paying the bill - its this forced compliance that saps the passion from the team.