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.

Looking back at my posts in this thread, I think that the tangents may be obscuring my main point. So, to reiterate as plainly as possible;

I want More.

Simply put I want more diversity: more body types for males, more for females, more styles, more degrees of realism and more flights of fancy. Because ultimately I think that the way to grow the hobby is by having something for everyone that is at all interested in miniature games.

I contrast this against the people that are arguing for Less. Let's make no mistake, there are plenty of people arguing in good faith that the way to expand the hobby is to decrease diversity, to implement some sort of test for what can and cannot be put out. Go back to my first big post in this thread and you'll notice that I am specifically reacting to someone (in a published article) that was looking at Kingdom Death and saying 'isn't it a shame that this thing is being sold?' Well, No.

I think what has happened here, especially between Ash and myself, is she has mistaken my hostility to her political stance, with a hostility to the practical outcomes she prefers. As an aside, given that both of us seem to have had an ash blond female death knight on an RP server in World of Warcraft, my guess is our aesthetic sensibilities are likely a lot closer then one would initially imagine.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
No, the size of the niche is what makes it negligible; taking you at your word leads to the conclusions that a negligable number of people are motivated to buy based on the factors you've mentioned.

No, I said that a negligible amount of people are willing to buy based ONLY on if it's a reasonable sized female. IOW, it needs to be a suitable model in other respects as well, which I think is fairly reasonable.

I really hope I emphasised it enough this time.

 Ashiraya wrote:
To me, a female model is important because it is easier to identify with, not to show it off as obviously cheesecake-female.

What exactly do you 'identify' with from say, Sisters of Battle? Is it their religious fervor? Is it their racism and xenophobia? Is it their willingness to kill for an unquestionable authority? Is it their fondness for burning heretics alive? Their belief in Thoughtcrime? Is it some other aspect of Imperial culture you feel resonates within you? Please tell me it's not as simple as them having the same hypothetical genitals as you?

Can you imagine how it feels to enter the hobby as a woman, look around at the available options, see that people offer mostly male-only ranges, a few ranges where the women wear combat bikinis emphasising the T&A, and then be told that without emphasis on the T&A you may as well just make it a man instead?

So step up and make it yourself. Or pay someone else to do it. When I wanted a colour scheme for my DoW marines the game didn't support I remapped the textures. When I wanted a Transformers miniature game I made rules and then models. When I wanted to play Warmachine with my friend who lives 2,500km away I learned to use Blender and made the models for Tabletop Simulator. When my friends and I wanted to use their 40k models with Warmachine rules I made over 200 unit cards up.

If you want something people aren't making- and you feel there's a market for it- why aren't you making it?

 Buzzsaw wrote:
I want More.

Considering the immense amount of energy you spend trying to stomp down my posts - which only want more of some of the least prevalent designs in all of miniature gaming - I am not sure why you are so inconsistent on what you actually want. Do you concede your point or why do you suddenly agree with me?

If you do want diversity, why are you making long-winded oversized posts about why diversity wouldn't sell?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kojiro wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
To me, a female model is important because it is easier to identify with, not to show it off as obviously cheesecake-female.

What exactly do you 'identify' with from say, Sisters of Battle? Is it their religious fervor? Is it their racism and xenophobia? Is it their willingness to kill for an unquestionable authority? Is it their fondness for burning heretics alive? Their belief in Thoughtcrime? Is it some other aspect of Imperial culture you feel resonates within you? Please tell me it's not as simple as them having the same hypothetical genitals as you?

If my miniatures are something I would feasibly want to be myself - well, if we discard the whole thing with me not wanting war - then sure, it helps. I guess you could look at it like the way a little boy looks up to a space marine, at its core, except I have nothing to look up to in bikiniplated combat prostitutes.

If you want something people aren't making- and you feel there's a market for it- why aren't you making it?

I take it you are the type who visits movie critics and tell them to shut up and make their own movies instead?

You can have an opinion even on things that are not your profession.

@Dark Severance: I found your perspective quite interesting. What kind of sets do you intend to release? Resin, metal or injection plastic?

How would it work out commercially if you have a mixture of genders in your units? So instead of six male poses, you have three each. In theory the costs should be the same, assuming you have more than one pose.

Naturally that will not work for single miniatures, but I don't see why one could not have female and male bodies on one sprue.

On the subject of identifying with your miniatures: I find the idea that one has to be able to identify with the miniatures or army quite important. However, I don't think it has to be one single factor alone, such as gender, ethnicity or aesthetics. In the end it will be a mixture of things that I like potentially enhanced by the fact that sensible female miniatures or sensible male miniatures are featured, my own ethnicity is featured etc. but naturally that only applies to human forces.

 Ashiraya wrote:

I take it you are the type who visits movie critics and tell them to shut up and make their own movies instead?

You can have an opinion even on things that are not your profession.

I'm not questioning your opinion on existing models. You have every right to that.

In the case of movies, if I had the funds to make them yeah, I absolutely would. The thing holding me back there is practicality, not motivation. But anyone can learn to sculpt, like anyone can learn to paint. It doesn't take tens of millions of dollars like a movie does.

Yes and no, the cost are double since you need artwork and a 3D sculpt for both genders, it might be cheaper if units designed are variants so a basic sculpt can be used for variant units.

IIRC he will cast in metal, metal is an ideal material for new companies it allows flexibility and cheap manufacturing, resin is another more expensive solution if the company does not want huge runs.

Plastic is ill advised for new companies, too expensive, needs huge volumes to make it worth and it is inflexible, it denies the companies the chance to be flexible and adapt.

Ash, I say this as gently as I can: you simply don't understand the implications of what I'm saying. This is a great example of that;

Ashiraya wrote:

Spoiler:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
No, the size of the niche is what makes it negligible; taking you at your word leads to the conclusions that a negligable number of people are motivated to buy based on the factors you've mentioned.

No, I said that a negligible amount of people are willing to buy based ONLY on if it's a reasonable sized female. IOW, it needs to be a suitable model in other respects as well, which I think is fairly reasonable.

I really hope I emphasised it enough this time.

At this point, I'm going to have to rely on your signature line at this point and just chalk it up to English not being your first language. This quote isn't disagreeing with my point, it's in complete agreement. You're simply agreeing with me aggressively.

Ashiraya wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
I want More.

Considering the immense amount of energy you spend trying to stomp down my posts - which only want more of some of the least prevalent designs in all of miniature gaming - I am not sure why you are so inconsistent on what you actually want. Do you concede your point or why do you suddenly agree with me?

If you do want diversity, why are you making long-winded oversized posts about why diversity wouldn't sell?

Well, first, apparently my posts aren't long winded enough to avoid your misunderstanding my points, but let's put that to the side. More importantly, you've been asking questions: 'why are the things you want not being made?'

There is an answer to that: the particular subset of diverse models you want aren't being under-produced as part of some conspiracy, but because they are profoundly limited in commercial appeal. You don't have to believe me, Dark Severance has laid it out with much greater first hand detail then I ever could.

The big problem is that it seems every time someone disagrees with you, you treat it as if they're attacking you. I'm not attacking you, I'm trying to answer your question. The fact that you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's not true. With that, I'll be honest and say I think I'm going to lay off responding to you (Ash) for a while. It's just so frustrating having my own points repeated back to me as if I'd never thought of them.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
I'll be honest and say I think I'm going to lay off responding to you (Ash) for a while.

Thank you, I really appreciate it.

I would continue to argue but it is clear I am not getting through to you. So leaving it seems indeed like the best choice.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
The big problem is that it seems every time someone disagrees with you, you treat it as if they're attacking you. I'm not attacking you, I'm trying to answer your question.

Though I would like to point out, you are not exactly the victim here. You are just much less subtle with your dirt-throwing, such as equating the realistic female models I push for to bad-tasting hamburgers.

 DaggerAndBrush wrote:
@Dark Severance: I found your perspective quite interesting. What kind of sets do you intend to release? Resin, metal or injection plastic?

How would it work out commercially if you have a mixture of genders in your units? So instead of six male poses, you have three each. In theory the costs should be the same, assuming you have more than one pose.

Naturally that will not work for single miniatures, but I don't see why one could not have female and male bodies on one sprue.

I would love to do plastic. However the cost in that is fairly big (for the molds) so that probably will not become an option until many years later. We did start with metal but increased costs in metal, we have found that resin has ended up being more inexpensive long term for us. It allows us to initially outsource initial production runs and then continue casting in-house. We have the experience with resin casting and are already set up for it currently so that makes it easier. At some point we would love to get equipment for metal casting but we are not at that stage yet.

We haven't settled how we'll package that particular unit yet. We created them as a fireteam of 5 members, 3 male and 2 female. We created an alternate torso/head and arms (different weapons/pose) but utilized the same legs, so each miniature has 2 head/torso, 4 arms/weapons, 1 leg with how they were cut. That basically gives 10 different dynamic miniatures of the same design, 6 male and 4 female. If we mixed things up a bit we could probably double that, just depends on how we package them. I won't be able to finalize that until I get final production cost breakdown and mess with them a bit. At the very minimum I would like to do 2 separate fireteams (3 male, 2 female). We thought about doing singles as well but they are designed to work as a fireteam and they have mixed teams. We figured if someone wanted to make a all female or all male, they could probably trade around.

The other sets are all scifi based, with one of the faction that could probably be used for modern units as well. The factions and units that are created are based on the faction and lore for them. We didn't pick male or female because we wanted something sexy or was specifically looking for a particular market, those were the designs for those universes. The UR although evenly populated is largely a male military, there are females that tend to hold rank and command spots so some of the Lieutenant and Sergeant single models may be female. The EC are psionic users and mostly female with a few men. The Cyberoids although initially human, don't have a male or female version and are unisex. We have tossed back and forth on if we'll do a female version or not. Honestly though we plan to let the gaming community weigh into determining some direction in some cases.

The cost to do a male and female version is basically double, if you want it to be of similar design. For example the male and female that I showed look very similar. The female has a slightly thinner ankles and waist. If we cut corners we could have essentially duplicated the male sculpt, touched up the face and chest. If you are an experienced sculptor it doesn't take that much time, although in most cases contract-wise you'll still pay the same as if you had 2 created from scratch. Consequently the majority of costs wasn't actually the sculpting but the cutting, cleanup after the cuts afterwards. Basically what I paid I could have created 2 completely separate units, closer to 3 if I hadn't done the alternate poses creating more cuts.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I feel my points are left unaddressed, at least I get support in what I said from Dark Severance.

I was hoping that a different perspective or look at it might help highlight some other points. It is not simply just about male vs female. These things cost money to sculpt, manufacture and produce... so ultimately it comes down to how big a risk someone wants to take vs a known market.

 Ashiraya wrote:

Though I would like to point out, you are not exactly the victim here. You are just much less subtle with your dirt-throwing, such as equating the realistic female models I push for to bad-tasting hamburgers.

... that is not what he meant... (and by far he is not the victim here)

It was a direct comparison on people saying they want something and not giving money when what they said they wanted was given to them.

I can argue that is it because of execution and not because of people not giving money for things they thought they want, but the message was quite clear.

I must agree with him though that I too feel that you treat any reasonable (or not) argument that is against your perception of correct as an attack and ignore points that you do not want to acknowledge.

You asked what is your contribution here, to be fair it is a counterpoint on the debate, an alternative viewpoint if you will, it is much appreciated, but I would appreciate it more if you was more willing to debate on the hard points and be more interactive in the facts you do not want to hear.

It is not as you describe it I say X they say me X is not possible.

It is you say X, I say X is not possible or not doable or whatever for Y reasons and wait a counter argument from you, or at least a solution on the problems I show on you.

Somebody said something about 'monster rape' with Kingdom Death. I don't see a monster as capable of rape. Monsters are as capable of rape as humans are capable of being an actual monster. Monsters are not like humans, that's what makes them monsters. Eating people or doing whatever freaky monster thing isn't the same as a human committing what we know of as a punishable offense. If a monster rips a chuck of meat out of you and offers you a piece b/c it's the sweetest part, does it truly understand what it did ,as you do?

Talking about fictional monsters like they are people is absurd. Do we not kill fantasy monsters on sight(it at least pops into your head quickly as a valid option)? can you say that about fantasy people?

Whoever made that baby-thing knew what they wanted to achieve by selling that thing into the population. I guess a lot of people can't see past their own tastes to see the meaning. What playing with something like that in 'polite society' was intended to do. Just look at the material it's based off of. If it is abhorrent to look upon, that's the feeling your supposed to have as a basis for the encounter. Imagine how the people fighting for their lives feel. Pathos or something. Man, some people are just already dead.

Edit-I suppose to each his own, or I'll be my own monster.

 Dark Severance wrote:

Spoiler:

 DaggerAndBrush wrote:
@Dark Severance: I found your perspective quite interesting. What kind of sets do you intend to release? Resin, metal or injection plastic?

How would it work out commercially if you have a mixture of genders in your units? So instead of six male poses, you have three each. In theory the costs should be the same, assuming you have more than one pose.

Naturally that will not work for single miniatures, but I don't see why one could not have female and male bodies on one sprue.

I would love to do plastic. However the cost in that is fairly big (for the molds) so that probably will not become an option until many years later. We did start with metal but increased costs in metal, we have found that resin has ended up being more inexpensive long term for us. It allows us to initially outsource initial production runs and then continue casting in-house. We have the experience with resin casting and are already set up for it currently so that makes it easier. At some point we would love to get equipment for metal casting but we are not at that stage yet.

We haven't settled how we'll package that particular unit yet. We created them as a fireteam of 5 members, 3 male and 2 female. We created an alternate torso/head and arms (different weapons/pose) but utilized the same legs, so each miniature has 2 head/torso, 4 arms/weapons, 1 leg with how they were cut. That basically gives 10 different dynamic miniatures of the same design, 6 male and 4 female. If we mixed things up a bit we could probably double that, just depends on how we package them. I won't be able to finalize that until I get final production cost breakdown and mess with them a bit. At the very minimum I would like to do 2 separate fireteams (3 male, 2 female). We thought about doing singles as well but they are designed to work as a fireteam and they have mixed teams. We figured if someone wanted to make a all female or all male, they could probably trade around.

The other sets are all scifi based, with one of the faction that could probably be used for modern units as well. The factions and units that are created are based on the faction and lore for them. We didn't pick male or female because we wanted something sexy or was specifically looking for a particular market, those were the designs for those universes. The UR although evenly populated is largely a male military, there are females that tend to hold rank and command spots so some of the Lieutenant and Sergeant single models may be female. The EC are psionic users and mostly female with a few men. The Cyberoids although initially human, don't have a male or female version and are unisex. We have tossed back and forth on if we'll do a female version or not. Honestly though we plan to let the gaming community weigh into determining some direction in some cases.

The cost to do a male and female version is basically double, if you want it to be of similar design. For example the male and female that I showed look very similar. The female has a slightly thinner ankles and waist. If we cut corners we could have essentially duplicated the male sculpt, touched up the face and chest. If you are an experienced sculptor it doesn't take that much time, although in most cases contract-wise you'll still pay the same as if you had 2 created from scratch. Consequently the majority of costs wasn't actually the sculpting but the cutting, cleanup after the cuts afterwards. Basically what I paid I could have created 2 completely separate units, closer to 3 if I hadn't done the alternate poses creating more cuts.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I feel my points are left unaddressed, at least I get support in what I said from Dark Severance.

I was hoping that a different perspective or look at it might help highlight some other points. It is not simply just about male vs female. These things cost money to sculpt, manufacture and produce... so ultimately it comes down to how big a risk someone wants to take vs a known market.

First, thanks again for the great insights!

Second, I wonder if you can answer a question that has been bouncing around for a while: what is causing the sudden proliferation of PVC sculpts moving into the Table Top game market? It's my impression that board games have long used PVC and other, similar low fidelity plastics. I understood that this was due to the pliability these plastics had, so they could be used with molds with more aggressive undercuts then HIPS.

That is, because HIPS is more or less rigid as soon as it's cool enough to remove from the mold, you basically cannot have any undercuts or the sprue will be damaged when removed. PVC is more... forgiving, I am led to believe, and can be removed from the molds without being completely cool and rigid.

Now, that's what I've been led to believe, but it doesn't really seem to answer why we have seen the move of PVC from board games to table top: the most explicit example off the top of my head being C'MoN's Wrath of Kings, which used PVC for most pieces (using some harder plastics for things like blades and weapons).

If you don't mind saying, when you talk about 'resin', I assume you mean polyurethane resin? I'm a little surprised that resin is a cheaper solution then metal, if only because it seems that metal can be very forgiving when you are starting out.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
First, thanks again for the great insights!

I wouldn't claim it is a great insight, it just happens to be something that I deal with and have to consider. That may or may not necessarily mean it is the correct method or there aren't other ways, just my experience so mileage may vary.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
what is causing the sudden proliferation of PVC sculpts moving into the Table Top game market?

I can't really answer that since that isn't an area that I'm deeply familar with. I do know that overseas production tends to be cheaper for plastic not necessarily because of cheaper labor but because they have better/newer equipment that utilizes better methods for production and providing more options. I would speculate that a few of these are using a few of the same companies and that word tends to spread. When I'm at Game Conventions board game companies tend to talk quite a bit, good and bad experiences. You also now have agents for these overseas companies, for example last Origins Game Fair we had a rep from Panda stop by the booth I was working at and going from booth to booth talking to company owners/reps.

That is however speculation like I said but I was surprised to find out how much the machinery factored into choosing which factory to produce something. When I did look at a company in the US compared to a company in China for manufacturing tokens, the equipment was different.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
If you don't mind saying, when you talk about 'resin', I assume you mean polyurethane resin? I'm a little surprised that resin is a cheaper solution then metal, if only because it seems that metal can be very forgiving when you are starting out.

That is comparing metal manufacturing in the US vs resin manufacturing in the EU. Originally I was trying to keep everything in the US if I could for control reasons.

I don't have the ability to cast on demand metal, which means I'm reliant specifically for molds and casting to whatever company I use. I don't have a spin caster, furnace or vulcanizer. I could create a spin caster and furnace, buy a used vulcanizer but I've also only done limited casting with experienced people. If I purchased new equipment, there is training provided but then I'm still looking anywhere from $5-10K. The main importance is molds, having someone experienced in molds is important for good quality casting. I could pay a company to do it but at a higher cost since they aren't casting them for me. If I had a spare $5-10K then it becomes do I get equipment or instead utilize that to expand the miniatures.

For resin casting although I'm reliant on the initial company doing the bulk, I can duplicate and cast everything on demand for resin in-house. We have experience with resin casting. I can and or create molds fairly easily with a higher degree of quality control. If for whatever reason something comes up, I can still outsource out casting but not dependent on a large run.

For example when I looked a Pig Iron Miniatures to purchase the line, all their molds are with Griffin. Either I have to have Griffin do casting or bring them overseas for a cost for whatever company would do casting here. If I decided to move operations for resin casting I can finish whatever casting for the current mold, have productions shipped fairly inexpensively and create a new mold. I just have more options available to me at a much lower cost.

 Kojiro wrote:
But anyone can learn to sculpt, like anyone can learn to paint. It doesn't take tens of millions of dollars like a movie does.

Man are you kidding me? Don't you have a smartphone with a camera? Ah, I guess you are all set for making a movie then.
What, it's not going to be a blockbuster if its only you making a movie with your smartphone, with you as the only actor?
Pretty sure if Ashiraya sculpt some models, they won't be featured in White Dwarf either.
And it will only cost her hundreds of hours! Who can't afford that?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

And it will only cost her hundreds of hours! Who can't afford that?

So, it is ok to for you you ask (or demand) somebody else to shoulder the bill and the risk of creating something you want, but it is not right for somebody else to say to you put your money where your mouth is?

Sorry, creating of miniatures has dropped significantly so that anybody with drive and passion can hire enouph talent relatively cheaply to bring their vision to the market if they so wish, the cost is incomparable to making a blockbuster movie, it even gets cheaper if said individual can handle some parts of the creation, but it is not needed.

Want something to happen, you can make it happen, don't want to take the risk? at the very least acknowledge the concerns of those involved since it is their money and their risk.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:
But anyone can learn to sculpt, like anyone can learn to paint. It doesn't take tens of millions of dollars like a movie does.

Man are you kidding me? Don't you have a smartphone with a camera? Ah, I guess you are all set for making a movie then.
What, it's not going to be a blockbuster if its only you making a movie with your smartphone, with you as the only actor?
Pretty sure if Ashiraya sculpt some models, they won't be featured in White Dwarf either.
And it will only cost her hundreds of hours! Who can't afford that?

Actually sculpting one off models is incredibly accessible for the average hobbyist.


If you can afford GW/WMH/ect models you can afford some wire, green stuff, and the basic hand tools needed. Art takes time, everyone has 24 hours a day to spend, if you can watch a couple seasons of TV then you have time to sculpt.

One doesnt have to look far to find people like victoria lamb or anvil industries that crank out top notch models from a very basic operation.

My models never got featured in white dwarf... along with 99% of all models. Much in the same way that everyone can run, but 99% of them wont make the olympics, it doesn't mean its not accessible or worth while.

I appreciate that there is so much diversity in models these days and while I in particular prefer the realistic non sexualized models (male and female, I hate the steroid muscle bound sexualization of male models and the big boob bimboization of females).

That being said I would never chide anyone for having a preference different to my own.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
So, it is ok to for you you ask (or demand) somebody else to shoulder the bill and the risk of creating something you want, but it is not right for somebody else to say to you put your money where your mouth is?

Yes.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Sorry, creating of miniatures has dropped significantly so that anybody with drive and passion can hire enouph talent relatively cheaply to bring their vision to the market if they so wish, the cost is incomparable to making a blockbuster movie

If you want to comparison to a blockbuster to hold any ground, you'll need way, way more than what you are describing. Currently what you describe is more akin to, say, making this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoeuPWCCvtk
or maybe this:
http://www.ourrobocopremake.com/

 easysauce wrote:
Art takes time, everyone has 24 hours a day to spend

Not everyone has the same amount of free time, no.

I am sorry you can start a miniatures line with a few K euro, it will not be many, but you can do it, you can, maybe buy the snacks used into making a blockbuster with that money.

So no I think it is incomparable as I said, you need a fraction to deliver a well done miniature line in contrast to a blockbuster movie.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
Art takes time, everyone has 24 hours a day to spend

Not everyone has the same amount of free time, no.

Odd how having 100+ hours to watch TV is easy but to have that time for sculpting? Impossible!

The claim that everyone has the same amount of free time was not made, so your point is irrelevant and tangential as it addresses an argument that was never even made.

The fact is there are 24 hours in a day and last I checked no one charged you for it.


The simple fact is that people want to buy things, some of these things are sexy.

Its no more/less inappropriate to buy a sexy figure then it is to buy a dildo, nor is it different to "clutch at your pearls" when someone buys a model you personally dont like vs those opposed to sextoys/pornography/ect.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I am sorry you can start a miniatures line with a few K euro, it will not be many, but you can do it

You can also make a movie with a few K€.
It won't be a blockbuster, but it will be a movie.
Yeah, usually movies are more expensive than just a few K€. But for reference, a commercial, and quite polished movie like The F.P. had a 45,000$ budget. It's a full movie, not a short. I looked at Kingdom Death and saw 2,049,721$, with a minimum funding still set at 35,000$. Raging Heroes got 698,548$ and 801,057$ for their TGG, with TGG2 having a minimum funding goal of 30,000 $…
The Man from Earth, one of the best movies ever, was on a 200,000$ budget…

 easysauce wrote:
The claim that everyone has the same amount of free time was not made, so your point is irrelevant and tangential as it addresses an argument that was never even made.

I did not make the claim everyone has the time to watch 100+ hours of TV.
That certainly did not stop you from making your own irrelevant and tangential points.

Ok then, so it is doable to make your vision as a movie too.

Though blockbusters have been used as a mention to the extend of polish and detail.

What I said is you can achieve a high level of detail with not that much money investment, as far as miniatures are concerned.

Demanding others to put the money effort and risk on something you are not prepared to do yourself is at the very least wrong.

At least accept the valid concerns of the ones that are in line and offer valid suggestions and counterpoints.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Though blockbusters have been used as a mention to the extend of polish and detail.

Hence why using them to compare to “low-level” miniature line is not accurate.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Demanding others to put the money effort and risk on something you are not prepared to do yourself is at the very least wrong.

I guess people asking GW to make Mechanicus or Cult Genestealers were very wrong then. I guess a whole lot of people are very wrong about movies and music and TV shows and tons of other stuff. And most of all, so many people are wrong about governments! So many people unwilling to the government job and yet asking them to do stuff!

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
At least accept the valid concerns of the ones that are in line and offer valid suggestions and counterpoints.

Which concern did I reject exactly?

I do want female minis that don't have their boobs hanging out and I put my money where my mouth is.

Do I need a lot? Hell no. and maybe that's not enough to support a company to make female minis that aren't endowed better than most porn stars. I only need a couple for my D&D campaigns and a Rogue Trader campaign. I'm fortunate enough to game with two female RPGers, and I know what I want. If a company doesn't make it, I won't settle on crap.

That's just me, but I can't be alone in this.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Ok then, so it is doable to make your vision as a movie too.

Though blockbusters have been used as a mention to the extend of polish and detail.

What I said is you can achieve a high level of detail with not that much money investment, as far as miniatures are concerned.

Demanding others to put the money effort and risk on something you are not prepared to do yourself is at the very least wrong.

At least accept the valid concerns of the ones that are in line and offer valid suggestions and counterpoints.

I've pointed out many times this point you make: there has never been a better time for someone with a vision to get into the miniature game scene. There are two people in this very thread that either work miniature lines or are starting miniature lines.

Earlier I linked to Heroines in Sensible Shoes, a kickstarter campaign that made a few tens of thousands of dollars with less then a dozen sculpts, and is now getting their vision out into the marketplace. That campaign is by no means unique, I can think of perhaps a half-dozen more small makers that have either pursued Kickstarter or some other means, and now they are making miniatures. A lot of them focus on female miniatures (Bombshell, Junkrobot), almost all of them are single individuals or very small groups.

Dark Severance has a very nice blog on starting a miniature line here. Mindworm Games is basically chronicling how to make a game company from the ground up here. How many people did it take to start Victoria miniatures? How much support staff does Tre Manor have with him at Red Box Games?

The obstacles to getting in the game are not insignificant, but new technology and new systems have made it possible to overcome them in a way never before available. Kingdom Death? Adam Poots does not (to my knowledge) draw, he doesn't sculpt, yet he has one of the most exciting boutique lines on the market. This is possible because of a network of artists and digital sculptors, digital printing technology and a host of other things that simply didn't exist back when, say, GW was making miniatures for RPGs.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Though blockbusters have been used as a mention to the extend of polish and detail.

Hence why using them to compare to “low-level” miniature line is not accurate.

You can create high level miniatures affordable, hiring all the talent you need including concept art, 3d sculpting, printing and casting so the comparison is quite good, while it is impossible to get to the high end polish of a blockbuster in a one persons budget, it is possible to do it to create a few miniatures open a shop and expand from there if your product succeeds.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Demanding others to put the money effort and risk on something you are not prepared to do yourself is at the very least wrong.

I guess people asking GW to make Mechanicus or Cult Genestealers were very wrong then. I guess a whole lot of people are very wrong about movies and music and TV shows and tons of other stuff. And most of all, so many people are wrong about governments! So many people unwilling to the government job and yet asking them to do stuff!

Nice attempt to throw the discussion off track, I will not bite, in principle GW is the same case, you cannot demand, you can suggest and if you get a reasonable negative response you either have to make a well researched counterpoint/ suggestion to fix the proposed problems or accept it, criticizing a work is different from demanding someone to make something and demanding a government to do the work it is both elected to do and is payed to do is another entirely different thing.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
At least accept the valid concerns of the ones that are in line and offer valid suggestions and counterpoints.

Which concern did I reject exactly?

The most reasonable concerns are the following.

A) A realistic female model in combat gear has little or no difference in 30mm from a male model (especially if it and will be confused as a male because a combatant is a male in the collective consciousness, so why a company should spend the resources to do so?
B) There is no data to suggest that the sexualised miniatures is the primary barrier for female wargamers to enter the hobby, there is enouph data to suggest other societal reasons are the main barrier, on top of that there are empirical evidence for and against the choice of females and the sexuality of their avatars for both sides of the debate to make it a nautral point.
C) Even if the above is correct, there is no evidence that there is a sufficient buyers base that would support such a product, moreover if the above mentioned DFG sales data are true then there is at least one attempt that did right and was not supported.
D) What would be the purpose of creating variant models for a unit that do not look different, especially if the purpose is to show female troop representation?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
I do want female minis that don't have their boobs hanging out and I put my money where my mouth is.

Do I need a lot? Hell no. and maybe that's not enough to support a company to make female minis that aren't endowed better than most porn stars. I only need a couple for my D&D campaigns and a Rogue Trader campaign. I'm fortunate enough to game with two female RPGers, and I know what I want. If a company doesn't make it, I won't settle on crap.

That's just me, but I can't be alone in this.

Isn't this one of the base of our debate?

 Ashiraya wrote:
Can you imagine how it feels to enter the hobby as a woman, look around at the available options, see that people offer mostly male-only ranges, a few ranges where the women wear combat bikinis emphasising the T&A, and then be told that without emphasis on the T&A you may as well just make it a man instead?

Who cares?

I'm sorry if that sounds overly harsh, but I'm being deadly serious: Who cares?

Demographics exist for a reason, no one is forcing anyone to take part in something they don't choose to take part in, and there will always be aspects of life that aren't built for who you are. These things should not be changed to cater to other people. They can be added to, by expanding and diversifying products/ranges/etc., but if a company doesn't see it as being worth the risk, then that's their choice. There's no ulterior motive behind it. It's just economics (and a fear of risk, prudent or otherwise).

This isn't a female issue, and it isn't a male issue. You don't think there are some areas that a man might be interested in that are seen as being typically "girl centric", and how entering into that area would be quite uncomfortable, or confronting or, yes, even hostile (from those involved who see someone who isn't "one of them" joining in)?

Some people like things that aren't specifically made for 'them', and that's totally fine, but that means that things they don't personally like will come with the territory. We don't always get to have everything the way we want it to be, and perhaps in situations like this the best way to change something is not to remove that which you don't like, but rather bring in more things that you do like and let everyone pick from what they want.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
There is an answer to that: the particular subset of diverse models you want aren't being under-produced as part of some conspiracy, but because they are profoundly limited in commercial appeal.

Couldn't agree more. That's what always annoys me with these sorts of discussions, and it cross all forms of media. People are far, far, far too quick to ascribe motive. Oh it's because they devalue women! Oh it's because they don't like black people! Oh it's because [bad thing] towards [group x]! There's always some force acting from the shadows, that has some weird agenda to "oppress" certain groups.

When really, a lot of the time - hell, I'd even say most of the time - it's just because we live in a system that wants to get the most return for the least risk. If a company is making a product for a specific demographic and it is bringing them a good return, and they know that another type of product won't, then what reason do they have to make that other product? Some high-minded (and misguided) attempt at "diversity". "Inclusiveness"?

What nonsense.

 Dark Severance wrote:

I don't have a spin caster, furnace or vulcanizer. I could create a spin caster and furnace, buy a used vulcanizer but I've also only done limited casting with experienced people.

You CAN get ROOM TEMPERATURE VULCANISING rubbers for casting - even metal-safe ones. If I can get them in the antipodes, you should be able to get them in the US or Europe (well, maybe not Europe, mine uses MEK as the catalyst).
I've also gravity cast (ie NOT spin cast) metals, so spincasting isn't a requirement for starting out. It takes more work on the mould making though (more thought as to where to put the vents and gates).
Spincasting is great for doing multiples models at a time, though.

Done my time with resin and metal casting (switched from white-metal-alloy casting to bronze 15 years ago). Nowadays, I'm special order custom only.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:
But anyone can learn to sculpt, like anyone can learn to paint. It doesn't take tens of millions of dollars like a movie does.

Man are you kidding me? Don't you have a smartphone with a camera? Ah, I guess you are all set for making a movie then.

Absolutely I could make a movie. It would reflect the resources I have, which is a smart phone.

But if I was passionate about making movies, if I was really invested in doing it and wanted to see my vision made into a movie I'd spend my time and money gaining access to better resources. Or I'd spend my money to hire someone who already had the resources.

What, it's not going to be a blockbuster if its only you making a movie with your smartphone, with you as the only actor?

Doubtful, but then there was The Blair Witch. But even if It wasn't a blockbuster, so what? I've still made my movie. To suggest that I'm owed quality in my movie- the same way you seem to think Ash is deserving of quality in her miniatures- is to suggest the studios with the resources and skills to make said products somehow owe. I've as much right to demand a movie how I want it as she does a miniature.

Pretty sure if Ashiraya sculpt some models, they won't be featured in White Dwarf either.

So what?

Here's a Bumblebee a friend and I made for our Transformers game. Is it brilliant? No. Is it something other people would pay money for? Almost certainly not. But no one was making the models we wanted.

And it will only cost her hundreds of hours! Who can't afford that?

Who do you presume should be paying this cost then, on her behalf and why?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I looked at Kingdom Death and saw 2,049,721$, with a minimum funding still set at 35,000$. Raging Heroes got 698,548$ and 801,057$ for their TGG, with TGG2 having a minimum funding goal of 30,000

There is a difference between a full game, full game with stretch goals and a full miniatures line with hundreds of miniatures. You don't need that much to do a few miniatures or a line.

It takes about $500-$2000 to 3d sculpt anywhere from 1-10 different miniatures depending on pose, complexity that are retail quality. It will be about $100 per miniature for a 3d master. Then depending on if you do metal to resin it can be as little as $0.10-0.50 to $1-$2 per cast. The more inexpensive $0.50 is about $250-500 for a master mold but it will cast anywhere from 8-12 miniatures and last for roughly 150 spins, creating more than a thousand miniatures. Although cheaper per miniature break down, usually want a larger run of 50+ spins so usually at least a few hundred just depends on what their minimum order quantity is. You can do resin molds at anywhere from $0.75-$2, depending if you do them yourself or pay someone else. The mold lasts for about 40-50 casts so a smaller run for $100 total.

 chromedog wrote:
If I can get them in the antipodes, you should be able to get them in the US or Europe (well, maybe not Europe, mine uses MEK as the catalyst).
I've also gravity cast (ie NOT spin cast) metals, so spincasting isn't a requirement for starting out. It takes more work on the mould making though (more thought as to where to put the vents and gates).
Spincasting is great for doing multiples models at a time, though.

I am familiar with RTV molds, there is a higher cost. I haven't done gravity cast and not familiar with it. But most of the issues with that comes with making the molds, even with spin casting that is where the importance of mold making comes in handy. The advantage of working with metal is any bad casts or failures can be melted down. But it is a learning process vs what we already have in place. We may look at expanding into new things but we feel it is best to start out with something we know and are familiar with.


To kindof bring us back to some of the miniatures that spawned this thread. I'm interested if these new PG13+ versions they've done are considered good or not. Although I like the direction they have gone unfortunately I still have issues with the sculpting/modeling on the non-demon versions, again like the original not because of sexualization but because proportions and sculpting isn't good. It isn't about the detail as the detail is great as it is the sculpting. I can't entirely tell you for sure what it is that isn't good other than the proportions seem off. I will say though that judgement can be hard to make when looking at renders vs having the actual miniatures in your hands though.