Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

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?

Somewhat related to points B and C is something that became very apparent during my RPGing days. I played with a lot of different people, a lot of them girls too. And in any sci-fi based RPG we played like Shadowrun, Paranoia, Gurps, etc. If you ask the girls to describe their character they will pretty much be an exact clone of 90% of the Infinity more sexualized character models. Probably not the girl in the tee shirt and mini skirt, but almost always tight form fitting body armor, tight leather pants, long coat, great hair, perky boobs, and tight butt. Never once has a girl said her fantasy character had sagging C cups and wore hospital scrubs. In fantasy based games like D&D its was always accenting leather corsets and/or fitted plate.

Girls liked their characters to be tough, skilled, deadly, and sexy. I think its why low model count skirmish type games have the models that they do have. Because we are playing in a fantasy world where we don't want to be ourselves. We want to be sexy, alluring, and feel empowered when our team is out kicking ass. And I think mini manufactures make their models to reflect this ideal.

As a diorama maker, I'm glad some manufactures do make the everyday salary man to accompany the background. But a slightly chubby meter maid will probably never be the star in any ones fantasy game.

But when your looking at 40K level of games where there are 60 - 100 or so infantry models on the table, even if half of them are female, even with nice sculpts, I don't really think its that big of deal to most people. When you have 60 guys, any female model pretty much just becomes another model, one to get swept off the table as a casualty. In my DE army, all my wych units use the female torso. And I'm glad I was able to do it. However, when I played against other DE players who used the male wych models and our two units clashed I can honestly say the main thing that made it apparent which was which was the color scheme and not the breasts. But when your whole force is only 10 guys. Now each and every model has an important roll to play. Each models details seem much more important to the narrative your trying to play out. Now you want those ten guys or gals to represent this elite team of badasses and they very much should look the part. And in my experience, that look is tight armor, flowing coats or cloaks, awesome magic halos, and healthy well endowed sexual characteristics from both the male and female participants.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
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).

Use that quote next time when Talys makes an argument for high GW prices ("that's the niche they aim for", "more profitable per unit, looking for their whales", whatever) instead of the usual "Don't care. Got mine." But somehow you still manage to complain about it every time. Where's your attitude of "demographics, or a company being able to decide and do stuff their own way" when they raise prices? What's so different this time that arguing now about it should be taboo? Why should companies only see your criticism and ignore the rest?

And why does the economic argument only go one way? Lucas (for example) can drop Ewoks and Jar Jar into Star Wars and he's a sellout. People write pages of blogs and forum threads about how he destroyed Star Wars (and nobody cares about the creator or what they wanted) but someone just tries to advocate for better representation of women in games (or any other media) and suddenly the serious economic burden kicks in and on top of that the creator's vision is sacrosanct and not to be argued against because the smallest of criticism could somehow lead to them censoring their work and changing stuff. Of course if a company diversifies their work they are just succumbing to SJW pressure and pandering, not trying to reach other markets.

It's the same bs every time just sprinkled with enough logic to sound nice and correct on the first read but otherwise pushed aside if another point has to be made.

Apples, oranges and salads?

Ultimately GW prices are what they are and their business decision and the risk taken is theirs, one can criticize their practices and compare them with their competitors but one cannot demand GW to lower their prices, they can suggest it they can analyze the visible effects but in the end, its GW's decision and they shoulder the effects of their decisions.

In this case though there is a direct comparison and a visible economic effect in the company.

On the miniatures we discuss there is a direct comparison as Reaper said and many others accepted sexy models sell more, so there is an economic impact in deciding otherwise, there is also at least DFG precedent that the effort is not worth the investment (on Buzzsaws account), but I would argue that you can have sexualised and not sexy miniatures like victorias or CBs (though CB has a lot of lovely sexy models too) and sell well.

On the other em you went off too much, but let me try and help you, most of the outcry Lucas has been called for killing the extended universe which was what starwars really was and mind you this was licenced and theoretically approved from him, yes he is a creative and yes he can and did rip the entire (imaginary) cosmos apart and yes, he got the same backlash GW got from AoS.

Advocate a better representation of female according to whom? who makes one individuals opinion better than others, why their vision is the proper and not the others? were is the golden standard of how things should be?

I am not against variance and if some individual wants to make a company selling realistic non sexualised female miniatures more power to them, I am not fond of people demanding other expressions to stop because their vision is the only proper.

Lastly before you start flinging the BS argument, review your post or else you may fall in the same category.

 Dark Severance wrote:
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.

Spoiler:

Calypso:


Nyx:


Themis:


Lamia:

I think that you've hit on what I've been saying, and the new renders show it well: the problem never really were about the nudity, but much more anodyne elements like proportion, pose and style. The first miniature shows how off some of the proportions were to begin with: I think this is especially noticeable in the torso of the first miniature (Calypso). Her torso is almost completely turned into a cylinder by the armor, which is not a good look. Her limbs are sculpted with weight and heft, while her torso is... it's like a stack of books, and she would need some serious corset training to ever fit in such armor. It just doesn't (to me) work on an sculptural level.

I think that both of the demon sculpts are now well within the realm of acceptable, and I would go so far as to call them good. I also think that the main problem with the 'shield and shotgun' miniature (Themis) lies in the heroic scale they are using; that gun is (as in keeping with the source material) just silly.

How is what I said even related to GW's prices, Mario?

If you think I'm wrong that's fine, but if you're going to attempt a counter-argument at least be coherent.

Or just read PsychoticStorm's post above mine. It's far more eloquent than any reply I could be bothered to muster at the moment.

Back to Daredevil...

 Buzzsaw wrote:
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.

Yeah, I backed it. Can't wait to get my hands on my half-orc.

 Kojiro wrote:
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.

Whatever happened to that?

 Kojiro wrote:
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.

I cannot tell anymore what is stopping you. Is it that you lack the motivation, or that you lack the funds? Or did I just catch you contradicting yourself for rhetorical purposes?

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
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.

So, what's a one person budget?
And more importantly, why are you comparing “the high end polish of a blockbuster” with “a few miniatures” rather than with “whole armies along with a complete game, surrounded by all the marketing than a blockbuster can afford”?

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
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?

So, let's say that one makes female troopers by
1) sculpting some female heads if the units include helmet-less miniatures, and
2) referring to some (or all) of the troopers with female pronouns in the lore for the games, and having explicitly female special characters.
As far as I can tell, the amount of resources needed to do that is negligible (you will have to sculpt some heads anyway), so your A) is irrelevant. B) and C) seems irrelevant, as I doubt this would push anyone out of the game, and many people have claimed they wanted female miniatures in sensible armor, so even if it is a very small gain, it comes at a negligible cost. As for D), I don't understand the question. The aim is clear: have female models with sensible armor. That's the purpose. The result of the sensible armor is that they look very similar to male model, but since it is a direct consequence of the aim… it's not a problem.

 Dark Severance wrote:
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.

Yeah, but why do you assume Ashiraya or I just wants “a few miniatures” rather than a full army for a complete game?

 Dark Severance wrote:
I'm interested if these new PG13+ versions they've done are considered good or not.

I really like Themis. Well, the paintjob makes her a little too much WonderWoman-y for my taste, but that's not part of the model proper .
Calypso is not bad but I am not found of her head.
Not interested in the daemons.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Whatever happened to that?
.....
I cannot tell anymore what is stopping you. Is it that you lack the motivation, or that you lack the funds? Or did I just catch you contradicting yourself for rhetorical purposes?

What you caught was yourself in an intellectually dishonest attempt to equate the difficulty and cost of making a few models with making a multi-million dollar movie.

Ash wants female models made to her liking. This is within most people's capacity to manage with effort. This has been demonstrated in the thread by actual model makers. I have shown you myself doing this very thing.

As I said in my first post on the movie subject I'd need tens of millions of dollars. Specifically I would like to make blockbuster super hero/sci fi movies. This is not within most people's capacity to do regardless of effort. As I said in my first post on the movie subject I'd need tens of millions of dollars. Oh did you think I had some interest in making smart phone movies? Nice try but I'm afraid you're mistaken.

Now I notice you completely skipped over the example I gave of models I have made, because I wanted them and no one was making them. And I note you equally failed to answer the question: Who do you presume should be paying this cost then, on her behalf and why? Or will you meet my expectations and dodge the question?

Because you do not need a game to have miniatures, you can make miniatures for a game.

but if your solution is to have female heads on a male body or referring to troops with female names, combine staturesque heads with cadian bodies or refer to your DKOK as females and you are all set.

It is completely irrelevant and not comparable to a company doing that.

Why I compare a "few miniatures" with a blockbuster? I found the comparison, not done by me, good enouph and run with it, if it confuses you Ill make it a bit plainer.

At this point in time you can, with a budget that a single person can afford, create a miniature line hiring all the talent needed, especially with 3D sculpting the cost for making variations of the same basic sculpt have dropped, you only need to do the creative input and money.

Since we talk from a business point of view you can do a few models and if there is enouph interest expand from there.

You don't need many models if you aim for a mass combat game like 40k anyway, you need more if your aim is skirmish level game, but still it is affordable.

You can go full and create your own wargame if you want, it will cost more and its complications will be more in the fluff than the miniatures and the rules (so much) but why bother really? there are many systems out there and the thread is for miniatures and how they are represented, many companies out there work by creating miniatures to be used in other systems.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 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?

And my answer to you was in that post:

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

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
So, what's a one person budget?

The sky is the limit as we've seen Kickstarter and other crowd funding engines allow for this for anyone on almost any budget. It does take work, time, dedication and an initial investment to get the ball rolling. Just like Raging Heroes or Heroes in Sensible Shoes was created to create their own visions.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Yeah, but why do you assume Ashiraya or I just wants “a few miniatures” rather than a full army for a complete game?

It is because when tasteful ones or methods to create ones that are available, the discussions go back to GW. The only reason to bring up GW is because that someone is actively playing it, or wants something for that universe especially when SoB keeps being brought up about having something to identify with.

It isn't really that someone wants realistic miniatures, it is that they don't exist with the game system that person is playing. That means either using proxies, modifying existing ones to kitbash, or trying to rally and show there is support for these things to those companies.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Calypso is not bad but I am not found of her head.

I think the head looks strange because of the other things I have an issue with, which is her overall shape. I can forgive her arms being longer than they should because I'm thinking those are more like power fists, her hands aren't in the fingers of the glove so it would be longer. Her waist doesn't work, unless she is doing corset training, it needs to be bigger. I know the shoulder-pads are because of it being not-GW, but without a helmet with sensors and optics, she has a lot of blind spots. The shoulder pads should be lower.

 kronk wrote:
maybe that's not enough to support a company ... but I can't be alone in this

If it isn't enough to support a company or it is too much of a risk, then why would you expect any company to do create it? Even if you weren't alone on this, if there isn't enough of people that couldn't support the cost of creation, marketing and selling then it is a real poor business decision to make.

 Kojiro wrote:
What you caught was yourself in an intellectually dishonest attempt to equate the difficulty and cost of making a few models with making a multi-million dollar movie.

I am going to consider this way to avoid answering my question as an acknowledgment I caught you contradicting yourself .

You don't need tens of millions of dollar to make a movie. Even a super-hero movie. There is nothing preventing you from doing it except investing enough of your money and time into the project. Again, you can do a pretty good Sy-Fy movie with a 45 000$ budget, I have provided evidence of this. Go open a Kickstarter or something. It's been done before. Oh, and don't forget, take PsychoticStorm's advice: instead of starting by creating a whole movie, show what you can do by doing shorts, to build interest and stuff.



Well, of course you don't really want to make a movie. You want the people that already have the money, the know-how, and everything else needed to do a film to do it for you, the way you want it. But god forbids someone wants the people that already have the money, the know-hown and everything else needed to do miniatures to do it for them, the way they want it. Hell, those situations are nothing alike!

 Dark Severance wrote:
It is because when tasteful ones or methods to create ones that are available, the discussions go back to GW.

It's even worse with Warmahordes, because you can't use proxy at official tournaments, and that is a much bigger deal than with GW…

 Dark Severance wrote:
Her waist doesn't work, unless she is doing corset training, it needs to be bigger.

The middle section of the armor? Definitely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dark Severance wrote:
If it isn't enough to support a company or it is too much of a risk, then why would you expect any company to do create it? Even if you weren't alone on this, if there isn't enough of people that couldn't support the cost of creation, marketing and selling then it is a real poor business decision to make.

If your only selling point is literally “We have realistically armored female models”, I can predict you will fail. However, I would rather phrase the decision as “Would having realistically armored female models hurt or benefit our sales”. That's a wholly different question, and that is basically the main reason why “Just go make your own” is such an irrelevant answer .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
If your only selling point is literally “We have realistically armored female models”, I can predict you will fail. However, I would rather phrase the decision as “Would having realistically armored female models hurt or benefit our sales”.

It isn't a matter of if it would benefit our sales, it is a matter of would it benefit sales enough to support the production or creation of said product. Certain quantities, sales can be projected properly as they are known quantities. No successful company will produce something that won't pay for the production, only to possibly get some sales. Yes those are sales they wouldn't have achieved otherwise, because target group B isn't buying from them unless they were made, however the sales of target group B need to support profitability.

For example I know I need to sell 50 units of something to break even. Afterwards additional sales support production and creation of X product within production runs. I know from historical sales records, demand, other similar products that I can sell 200 of X product. I also know that alternate Z product will only sell 50 units. I will always pick X product to produce over Z, especially if the money that goes towards Z can create a Y product that I also know will sell 200 units.

Now if I'm a successful company with multiple projects and a little extra 'risk capital' then I would be more likely to toss the dice try product Z anyways. That however is me as a small business person and there are conditions that need to be met first, like having already an established line. Most big corporations or mid/large game companies will not make that decision. Their job is to make money for shareholders, they won't risk or take a plunge doing something that will only sell a few units. If the product can't support itself by itself, there is no benefit to sales. It does actually hurt sales because it costs them sales of an alternate product they know will sell. That is how businesses normally run. That is also why there are other options like making your own or crowd funding or modifying existing sculpts (swapping heads).

The other thing to factor in is most known large games don't support those armies main stream. What I mean by don't support, I'm talking about lore and backgrounds of existing lines is that males are the soldiers on the battlefield, the ones that fill the majority of ranks and roles. Yes there are some hinted at, there are units like SoB in some cases. They however aren't the majority and that brings us back to marketability of sales for those alternates. That is why I love games like Infinity because there are many options, males, females, sexualized and not. Their game lore supports multiple sexes on the battlefield, it isn't a solely male world.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Oh, and don't forget, take PsychoticStorm's advice: instead of starting by creating a whole movie, show what you can do by doing shorts, to build interest and stuff.

Of course it would be, not wise, to go full on on an expensive movie without judging interest on the subject especially if the subject is either obscure or considered not marketable by the industry, they may be wrong, but better test it before investing big funds.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Well, of course you don't really want to make a movie. You want the people that already have the money, the know-how, and everything else needed to do a film to do it for you, the way you want it. But god forbids someone wants the people that already have the money, the know-hown and everything else needed to do miniatures to do it for them, the way they want it. Hell, those situations are nothing alike!

Oh I think he wants to make a movie and if he had the funds he would hire talent to do so, likewise and quite related, to make a miniature line you need a concept artist, a 3d (or traditional) sculptor and a mould maker/ caster, if you have one or more of the skills great you save money, if you don't there are out there to hire them.

The big difference between the two is that a blockbuster movie needs capital in the range of millions a miniature line needs capital in the range of a few thousand (assuming no intention of HIPS of course) the second is quite achievable by an individual.

Kojiro wrote:...
Now I notice you completely skipped over the example I gave of models I have made, because I wanted them and no one was making them. And I note you equally failed to answer the question: Who do you presume should be paying this cost then, on her behalf and why? Or will you meet my expectations and dodge the question?

Dark Severance wrote:

 kronk wrote:
maybe that's not enough to support a company ... but I can't be alone in this

If it isn't enough to support a company or it is too much of a risk, then why would you expect any company to do create it? Even if you weren't alone on this, if there isn't enough of people that couldn't support the cost of creation, marketing and selling then it is a real poor business decision to make.

There is am interesting article that went around a few years ago that offers some insight into the gap between what 'customers' want and good corporate actions: Walmart Declutters Aisles Per Customers' Request, Then Loses $1.85 Billion In Sales. Now, as a critic points out, Walmart was losing market share to Target, and searching for ways to stem the customer defection to other retailers. So Walmart brought in a former Target executive, who proposed reducing the variety of products and 'decluttering' Walmart stores (which, by no coincidence, makes them more similar to Target). The problem? A (more in depth) article on the topic sums it up this way: "Walmart didn't pursue the question of what customers wanted. Instead, Walmart came up with the answer first, then asked customers to agree to it."

Here we have a similar issue: people want X (in this case a particular type of model), and are working backwards from there. Oh, well if you make X, then customers will come. The problem is, just as it was with Walmart, this is a reverse of responsible commercial reasoning: instead of looking at what the consumer base is buying reasoning from there, this group has decided on it's own wants, and is now trying to come up with some justification for why other people should be spending money to make their wants happen.

Again, I'm by no means saying that X or Y isn't something it would be nice to have. I am saying that it has never been a better time for people with an idea to bring that idea to market, but that not every idea has enough of a consumer base to come to reality. This is, to me, the real value of Kickstarter: an amazing, crazy idea (like Kingdom Death) that would never find traditional venture capitol is able to realize that idea. Today, because of a single man and his vision, I have a tower of plastic magic on my desk.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Apples, oranges and salads?

On a fundamental level it's people wanting something to change in a product to their benefit (less Jar Jar, fewer half-naked female miniatures, cheaper product, no Sigmarines,…) but somehow the
reality of economics only applies for one type of criticism. The rest can complain and moan all they want but their opinions don't just get dismissed when somebody replies "stop complaining because: economic reality". That's why I singled out H.B.M.C.'s comment because suddenly the economic reality was relevant but when he complains about what GW is doing and doesn't like the arguments that point to an economic reality where GW would need to raise prices even more (boutique collector market with fewer customers who tend to buy a lot but are not price sensitive) he drops his line with complete disregard for the economic implications in that situation. The "good of the people (making the range affordable for more people)" angle is important when it affects him, his buying habits, and his argument but otherwise it's suddenly all about the grim reality of economics and budgeting.

Ultimately GW prices are what they are and their business decision and the risk taken is theirs, one can criticize their practices and compare them with their competitors but one cannot demand GW to lower their prices, they can suggest it they can analyze the visible effects but in the end, its GW's decision and they shoulder the effects of their decisions.

It's the same with wanting female miniatures that look less like pin-ups. Nobody can or is forcing a company to do anything. People are just voicing their opinion on design choices. You can see the same in every N&R thread about new releases. Why is "fewer half naked female miniatures would be nice" somehow absurd but "fewer Space Marines would be nice" totally okay. The only difference is that the threads about female miniatures appear once in a while but the SM complaints are in every thread that can somehow be connected to 40k (and now AoS). Next time when you read an article that says "I want more female miniatures that actually wear armour" just imagine it phrased as a personal opinion instead of as a binding contract with the devil. It's just phrasing influenced by frustration and powerlessness to actually change things. Nobody has the power to change a company's product lineup with a blog post. Just look how people right here on Dakka complain about everything GW does and nothing changed for years (if at all).

In this case though there is a direct comparison and a visible economic effect in the company.

On the miniatures we discuss there is a direct comparison as Reaper said and many others accepted sexy models sell more, so there is an economic impact in deciding otherwise, there is also at least DFG precedent that the effort is not worth the investment (on Buzzsaws account), but I would argue that you can have sexualised and not sexy miniatures like victorias or CBs (though CB has a lot of lovely sexy models too) and sell well.

Sexy models sell more and people complain about it is somehow wrong? Ewoks and Jar Jar sold Star Wars and billions in merchandize to kids but somehow complaining about that is okay (removing such kid friendly elements would cut of a chunk of the target audience and lead to fewer sales). In both cases the fans are complaining about some part that they don't like (Jar Jar destroyed Star Wars,…) but that makes the product more profitable but only one is wholeheartedly dismissed because it's based on opinion. How much rage we could eliminate if we just replied with "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." to anybody complaining about anything.

Or how about PCV miniatures for wargaming? Some lines are made using that material because it's profitable or HIPS is not worth it and people complain about that choice all the time (just look at al the kickstarter threads). The economics show that it as the best choice for the company at the time so consumer should just shut up because they can compare the cost of each medium and see that this was the only way? Somehow that doesn't happen people still say they won't support this or that KS campaign because of material and don't just shut up like obedient little consumer even if the companies have no choice due to their budget. Somebody might not like the medium but in the end that's just their opinion because in all the relevant factors it's the right choice for the company so why do people complain and voice their opinion about something where the company has the actual information.

One person saying "I don't like PVC wargaming miniatures because of reason X" and somebody else saying "I don't like half-naked female miniatures because of reason Y" has the same effect on the company. Companies might have budgetary justification for PVC (or metal or resin) but people still complain about it and a company might have budgetary justification for more sexy female character but somehow complaining now is irrational because of the reality of economics and budgeting. Both are related to design an engineering decision that the company has to make but only one is dismissed because of money. GW puts a certain amount of sprues in a box and they set the price due to whatever calculations they internally have to be profitable but somehow complaining about the price is okay when one could just as easily say that it's just your opinion and they have to sell at inflated prices because of their economic needs.

On the other em you went off too much, but let me try and help you, most of the outcry Lucas has been called for killing the extended universe which was what starwars really was and mind you this was licenced and theoretically approved from him, yes he is a creative and yes he can and did rip the entire (imaginary) cosmos apart and yes, he got the same backlash GW got from AoS.

Killing the extended universe was Disney, he had nothing to do with that (as far as I know he had sold the company by that point) but most of his creative design choices in the prequels have been criticized to hell and back. It's one of the reasons why he was hesitant to make movies after the prequels got ripped apart by fans. Nobody admonished people for doing that but you just dare to say something about the design choices of a female character and people start drooling about censorship and creator's vision as if SJW will storm Punisher style in some company's office (here's your Daredevil reference ).

Advocate a better representation of female according to whom? who makes one individuals opinion better than others, why their vision is the proper and not the others? were is the golden standard of how things should be?

I am not against variance and if some individual wants to make a company selling realistic non sexualised female miniatures more power to them, I am not fond of people demanding other expressions to stop because their vision is the only proper.

According to the people who write the criticism? If you are a creator and (accidentally) read something then you can think about it and decide what to do with it. It might influence you and you might change your opinion (or not). People complain about the design language of PP warjacks all the time (or that one warcaster with the ridiculous shoulder pads) yet nobody imagines that the art director or sculptors will read these threads or just blindly implement whatever critics say (or be forced to do that). What do people imagine could happen if somebody were to read an article about how some random person doesn't like how women are depicted in some miniature line? SJW is just a word, there are no real warriors involved, he same goes for Feminazi (no real SS involved).

If I write that I don't like Space Marine proportions, some of the exaggerations, and all the skulls people manage to comprehend that it's my opinion but if somebody says they don't like how women are depicted… I don't know what happens that makes this opinion so controversial and why do people assume there is some sort of top down SJW design dictatorship that needs to be followed.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I am going to consider this way to avoid answering my question as an acknowledgment I caught you contradicting yourself .

What question was that? Whatever happened to that? It's simple. You're still dishonestly asserting when I said I'd need tens of millions of dollars to make the movie I want to make,I could do it with a smart phone. Let's use an analogy. If I said I wanted to buy a boat, and I'd need tens of millions of dollars for it, would you reasonably infer I wanted to buy a 10ft dingy? Or would you reasonably infer that I was looking more for a luxury yatch? No no, it's ok- keep telling me what I want.

You don't need tens of millions of dollar to make a movie.

But I'd need tens of millions of dollars to make the movie I want to make.

Even a super-hero movie.

I'm pretty sure the lowest budget super hero movie in recent times- such as I'd like to make- would be Deadpool at about $55 million.

There is nothing preventing you from doing it except investing enough of your money and time into the project. Again, you can do a pretty good Sy-Fy movie with a 45 000$ budget, I have provided evidence of this. Go open a Kickstarter or something. It's been done before.

Can you PLEASE stop with the dishonest conflation? If I was to make a film, I'd want to make something like the super hero blockbusters we're getting now. Can you actually address that fact? I've no interest in making a low budget film. Do you get that? Shall I clarify?

Me: I'd like to make a really expensive film that cost millions!
You: You can make a cheap film!
Me: I don't want to make a cheap film.
You: Clearly you don't want to make ANY films! AHA!

Well, of course you don't really want to make a movie.

I don't want to make a cheap film.

You want the people that already have the money, the know-how, and everything else needed to do a film to do it for you, the way you want it. But god forbids someone wants the people that already have the money, the know-hown and everything else needed to do miniatures to do it for them, the way they want it. Hell, those situations are nothing alike!

Hahahahahahaha. Seriously? SERIOUSLY!? As a life long comic book geek I consider right now to be a golden age of comic book movies. I'm not looking at the upcoming year of movies and going 'Oh man, I wish there was more I liked! Oh how I wish I could identify more with the characters!' The only concern I have with movies coming out this year is if I can afford to go see them as many times as I want to. The equivalent situation here would be having a plethora of female models to choose from and worrying if the budget can handle it. These situations are nothing alike.

I see Buzzsaw has repeated it, and I'll repeat it a THIRD time.

Now I notice you completely skipped over the example I gave of models I have made, because I wanted them and no one was making them. And I note you equally failed to answer the question: Who do you presume should be paying this cost then, on her behalf and why? Or will you meet my expectations and dodge the question?

Mario wrote:

Spoiler:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Apples, oranges and salads?

On a fundamental level it's people wanting something to change in a product to their benefit (less Jar Jar, fewer half-naked female miniatures, cheaper product, no Sigmarines,…) but somehow the
reality of economics only applies for one type of criticism. The rest can complain and moan all they want but their opinions don't just get dismissed when somebody replies "stop complaining because: economic reality". That's why I singled out H.B.M.C.'s comment because suddenly the economic reality was relevant but when he complains about what GW is doing and doesn't like the arguments that point to an economic reality where GW would need to raise prices even more (boutique collector market with fewer customers who tend to buy a lot but are not price sensitive) he drops his line with complete disregard for the economic implications in that situation. The "good of the people (making the range affordable for more people)" angle is important when it affects him, his buying habits, and his argument but otherwise it's suddenly all about the grim reality of economics and budgeting.

Ultimately GW prices are what they are and their business decision and the risk taken is theirs, one can criticize their practices and compare them with their competitors but one cannot demand GW to lower their prices, they can suggest it they can analyze the visible effects but in the end, its GW's decision and they shoulder the effects of their decisions.

It's the same with wanting female miniatures that look less like pin-ups. Nobody can or is forcing a company to do anything. People are just voicing their opinion on design choices. You can see the same in every N&R thread about new releases. Why is "fewer half naked female miniatures would be nice" somehow absurd but "fewer Space Marines would be nice" totally okay. The only difference is that the threads about female miniatures appear once in a while but the SM complaints are in every thread that can somehow be connected to 40k (and now AoS). Next time when you read an article that says "I want more female miniatures that actually wear armour" just imagine it phrased as a personal opinion instead of as a binding contract with the devil. It's just phrasing influenced by frustration and powerlessness to actually change things. Nobody has the power to change a company's product lineup with a blog post. Just look how people right here on Dakka complain about everything GW does and nothing changed for years (if at all).

In this case though there is a direct comparison and a visible economic effect in the company.

On the miniatures we discuss there is a direct comparison as Reaper said and many others accepted sexy models sell more, so there is an economic impact in deciding otherwise, there is also at least DFG precedent that the effort is not worth the investment (on Buzzsaws account), but I would argue that you can have sexualised and not sexy miniatures like victorias or CBs (though CB has a lot of lovely sexy models too) and sell well.

Sexy models sell more and people complain about it is somehow wrong? Ewoks and Jar Jar sold Star Wars and billions in merchandize to kids but somehow complaining about that is okay (removing such kid friendly elements would cut of a chunk of the target audience and lead to fewer sales). In both cases the fans are complaining about some part that they don't like (Jar Jar destroyed Star Wars,…) but that makes the product more profitable but only one is wholeheartedly dismissed because it's based on opinion. How much rage we could eliminate if we just replied with "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." to anybody complaining about anything.

Or how about PCV miniatures for wargaming? Some lines are made using that material because it's profitable or HIPS is not worth it and people complain about that choice all the time (just look at al the kickstarter threads). The economics show that it as the best choice for the company at the time so consumer should just shut up because they can compare the cost of each medium and see that this was the only way? Somehow that doesn't happen people still say they won't support this or that KS campaign because of material and don't just shut up like obedient little consumer even if the companies have no choice due to their budget. Somebody might not like the medium but in the end that's just their opinion because in all the relevant factors it's the right choice for the company so why do people complain and voice their opinion about something where the company has the actual information.

One person saying "I don't like PVC wargaming miniatures because of reason X" and somebody else saying "I don't like half-naked female miniatures because of reason Y" has the same effect on the company. Companies might have budgetary justification for PVC (or metal or resin) but people still complain about it and a company might have budgetary justification for more sexy female character but somehow complaining now is irrational because of the reality of economics and budgeting. Both are related to design an engineering decision that the company has to make but only one is dismissed because of money. GW puts a certain amount of sprues in a box and they set the price due to whatever calculations they internally have to be profitable but somehow complaining about the price is okay when one could just as easily say that it's just your opinion and they have to sell at inflated prices because of their economic needs.

On the other em you went off too much, but let me try and help you, most of the outcry Lucas has been called for killing the extended universe which was what starwars really was and mind you this was licenced and theoretically approved from him, yes he is a creative and yes he can and did rip the entire (imaginary) cosmos apart and yes, he got the same backlash GW got from AoS.

Killing the extended universe was Disney, he had nothing to do with that (as far as I know he had sold the company by that point) but most of his creative design choices in the prequels have been criticized to hell and back. It's one of the reasons why he was hesitant to make movies after the prequels got ripped apart by fans. Nobody admonished people for doing that but you just dare to say something about the design choices of a female character and people start drooling about censorship and creator's vision as if SJW will storm Punisher style in some company's office (here's your Daredevil reference ).

Advocate a better representation of female according to whom? who makes one individuals opinion better than others, why their vision is the proper and not the others? were is the golden standard of how things should be?

I am not against variance and if some individual wants to make a company selling realistic non sexualised female miniatures more power to them, I am not fond of people demanding other expressions to stop because their vision is the only proper.

According to the people who write the criticism? If you are a creator and (accidentally) read something then you can think about it and decide what to do with it. It might influence you and you might change your opinion (or not). People complain about the design language of PP warjacks all the time (or that one warcaster with the ridiculous shoulder pads) yet nobody imagines that the art director or sculptors will read these threads or just blindly implement whatever critics say (or be forced to do that). What do people imagine could happen if somebody were to read an article about how some random person doesn't like how women are depicted in some miniature line? SJW is just a word, there are no real warriors involved, he same goes for Feminazi (no real SS involved).

If I write that I don't like Space Marine proportions, some of the exaggerations, and all the skulls people manage to comprehend that it's my opinion but if somebody says they don't like how women are depicted… I don't know what happens that makes this opinion so controversial and why do people assume there is some sort of top down SJW design dictatorship that needs to be followed.

The problem here is that the entirety of your complaint springs from a false premise, and you identify it yourself;

Mario wrote:
If I write that I don't like Space Marine proportions, some of the exaggerations, and all the skulls people manage to comprehend that it's my opinion but if somebody says they don't like how women are depicted…

It comes down to a matter of what Ben Shapiro likes to call 'Unearned Moral Authority'; as you point out, if a person complains about Space Marines and their (many) shortcomings, everyone understands that this is a reflection of their personal opinion, their own likes and dislikes. As I discussed in reply to Buttery Commisar earlier, the problem with the 'how women are depicted' critique is that it is so often worded in moral terms.

You slip into this for a moment yourself;

Mario wrote:
Next time when you read an article that says "I want more female miniatures that actually wear armour" just imagine it phrased as a personal opinion instead of as a binding contract with the devil.

We don't have to imagine it's just a personal opinion... it is just a personal opinion. You want to understand why people treat this particular personal opinion differently from the myriad complaints about prices, materials, style, etc? It's because the people that express this complaint treat it differently. This is why I use the term unearned moral authority: your entire post is an articulation of the argument that the 'more model X' criticism is no different then the 'Y should be cheaper' complaint, yet the critiques are worded in such a way as to completely obscure that.

This is why your premise is false: you're supposing that two morally equivalent complaints are being leveled, but one is being treated in a suspect manner. The problem is that while the complaints may be morally equal, the phrasing of the "want more female miniatures that actually wear armour" is intensely moralistic and condemnatory. Don't just suppose it's only here: earlier in the thread I posted a note from JT Nickel, who writes about the 'complaints' he receives as one of the sculptors of the Kingdom Death line;

I only share a fraction of my work online, and yet I have had people express their concerns at polycount and here at deviantart via PM about it, I've had people tell me I objectify women, I've had people tell me I'm a pervert who likes to jack off to my own art, I've had people call me disgusting, revolting, I've had people say that I should be banned from entering comps if I make females, the list really goes on and on. Working on RIFT I even had people tell me I should be shot.

The other problem is disingeniousness: when people, for example, talk about GW and their pricing they have a pronounced tendency to do so in the context of quarterly reports, annual reports and other sources of facts and figures. Outside of GW's legal shenanigans, no one is likely to make a nakedly moralistic argument about what GW does. Similarly no one (to my knowledge) has ever objected to PVC figures on moral grounds, or claimed that the soft features the earlier generations of board game figures constituted an affront to a given group. It's simply not reflective of morality to pretend that a criticism of 'why aren't these figures in HIPS?' won't very quickly be met with an entirely commercial rebuttal wherein the economics of stainless steel molds and production runs are prominently featured.

As a matter of at least my own knowledge, it simply does not seem the case that, as you contend, "the reality of economics only applies for one type of criticism". Rather it seems that it the case is this is the only type of criticism where the people lodging the critique won't accept the reality of economics.

@ Mario
I am not sure you followed this thread thoroughly.

I will ask again how sure people advocating that something that has no difference with a male warrior that it is in demand by at least enouph buyers to make it worth the investment from any company.

Moreover what statement would a female warrior that has no difference from a male one give? what representation of females would this achieve? how would this make female players identify with? how is this a good thing? what message does it really pass?

Why would any company wanting to include female fighters spend the time and effort to make models that look like males?

Why are all the female "non" models tossed in the same category they are different styles and design choices that may or may not overlap.

Finally why such determination that the major barrier for female gamers is how models are depicted and not any of the more logical and bigger barriers all of them social.

As a food for thought I will give you from the recent Gama trade show one of the main topics, "why there are so few female game designers", they do not worry about female players, the numbers are steadily increasing, they do worry more on how few (10%?) are female game designers.

Mario wrote:
On a fundamental level it's people wanting something to change in a product to their benefit (less Jar Jar, fewer half-naked female miniatures, cheaper product, no Sigmarines,…) but somehow the reality of economics only applies for one type of criticism. The rest can complain and moan all they want but their opinions don't just get dismissed when somebody replies "stop complaining because: economic reality".

There is nothing wrong with someone wanting to change a product to their benefit or something they want. No one said don't try to change that. There are avenues and methods that someone can do that. The discussion we're having here though isn't one that would effect change except amongst the few people who are involved in the discussion... none of which none of us is involved with the products that someone would want to change.

We have discussed quite a bit of various things throughout this whole thread. It started with female miniatures and the way they are depicted if it was considered sexist. Then direction changed a bit as we talked about how they impact the gaming industry and can they make women players uncomfortable. The basic discussion resulted in that miniatures, what they represent and the designs are subjective dependent on the designer, artist as well as the person that buys or views them. These weren't miniatures that were main stream, sold in local game stores, that many of us have never seen them in play at a game store. Thus that means they don't really have an impact on the gaming industry or women players unless they specifically stumbled onto the places these were sold or were specifically looking for them. We talked about wanting realistic representation, to which many options were provided, since it was mentioned there weren't other options available. There was a bit more here and there that went different directions but ultimately that is the sum of the conversions.

Then the question on why can't companies simply create an alternate version. What was the negative side to it and it only had a plus side because it can help sales to provide other alternatives. That was when I brought up the economics behind it. It is the main reason decisions are made and why they are made for any business. Again other alternatives were brought up on how someone can get different designs created, how they could even create their own product line.

Again everyone is welcome to their opinion. There is nothing wrong with wanting to complain or want to change a product to their benefit or to create something they identify more with. That isn't something that would happen in this thread though.

For the record this thread wasn't started to complain. It was started to discuss if those types of depictions are harmful and/or sexist.

Mario wrote:
On a fundamental level it's people wanting something to change in a product to their benefit (less Jar Jar, fewer half-naked female miniatures, cheaper product, no Sigmarines,…) but somehow the
reality of economics only applies for one type of criticism. The rest can complain and moan all they want but their opinions don't just get dismissed when somebody replies "stop complaining because: economic reality".

I'm sorry but what are you on about? Are you trying to pretend that other criticisms don't get discussion, analysed and criticised themselves? Because if you are, you're dead wrong.

Sexism may be more of a hot topic, but this is a discussion forum, when people make statements they tend to get discussed.

Ultimately, the only way to change the industry is to become a part of it and try to change it by oneself. That doesn't necessarily mean creating the miniatures by yourself, although I'd certainly love to see more garage companies spring up that sell product I want to buy. There's also the means of organizing people into a single voice that's actually heard. Round up a community of wargamers that want to see non cheese-cakey female miniatures and then approach companies as a whole. Then put your money where your mouth is and support those companies and miniatures lines. I'd be up for it.

Talking about the same topic over and over again on forums won't change a whole lot. This is most certainly something you can say in regards to a whole lot of topics here and I know that there's nothing wargamers in general and (Ex-)GW Players especially love to to more than to beat the same old horses again and again, but I my point still stands:
If you want to see it dearly, be the change you want to see. Everyone's certainly entitled to their opinion and everyone's free to call for manufacturers to produce lines specific to their taste.
Honestly, I don't think anyone should get offended by people stating they are fine with the miniatures lines they can buy right now and there is certainly no need to get offended by people calling for MORE miniatures to be sold. After all, more variety is probably good for everyone.

I, for one, would certainly love it if more companies could actually sculpt decent faces, male and female. Good faces are a rare breed and female ones are rarer still. Unfortunately, I'm already occupied with changing another industry to my tastes, so if anyone wants to step up and sculpt me some great female heads, go ahead...

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

I will ask again how sure people advocating that something that has no difference with a male warrior that it is in demand by at least enouph buyers to make it worth the investment from any company.

If I said I prefer less exaggerated miniatures people would say they like them bigger because of battlefield visibility or something and not get out the calculator and start playing armchair MBA. And if women are not discouraged by all the male miniatures why should men be discouraged by a few more reasonably clothed female miniatures. They would be essentially interchangeable with their male counterparts. Shouldn't the demand be the same? And if sexy miniatures sell to well why aren't all the male miniatures also sexualized? Wouldn't that mean more sales and better ROI?

Moreover what statement would a female warrior that has no difference from a male one give? what representation of females would this achieve? how would this make female players identify with? how is this a good thing? what message does it really pass?

It would normalize them as being a part of the universe. As a visual aid quite a lot of female characters look like the equivalent of the following two images and it tends to do a disservice to my immersion when I can't find women who look equivalent to the men in my games (NSFW):
http://imgur.com/v8lQNDC
http://imgur.com/gallery/rwBck9I
Would you play with whole army that looks like this in a game that is not erotica based or feel just a bit like it lacks immersion?

Why would any company wanting to include female fighters spend the time and effort to make models that look like males?

Gw managed to do it quite well:
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NZ/Dark-Eldar-Wyches
They look similar yet not completely the same. There are innumerable variations of male characters and I think companies can manage to design female characters in the same variety without dropping into the usual combat bikini archetype. Is that so much different than favouring other design choices that it needs a qualifier? If they are multi part then that design choice alone makes for some possibly awkward assemblies (for male and female variations). The modularity is there no matter if the models are all male, female, or a mix. And if you have a squad of single pose miniatures then I don't really see that much of a difference in effort or cost if all — lets say — 10 were male, female, or a 5/5 mix. Adding female miniatures is only an additional cost if you make an add on pack with female variations. If you just include them in a basic 10/20 troop box they are more or less the same effort as a 100% male unit.

Finally why such determination that the major barrier for female gamers is how models are depicted and not any of the more logical and bigger barriers all of them social.

As a food for thought I will give you from the recent Gama trade show one of the main topics, "why there are so few female game designers", they do not worry about female players, the numbers are steadily increasing, they do worry more on how few (10%?) are female game designers.

Because it's a barrier for some people who would like to start this hobby but don't want to put up with that type of content. There are many reasons why people don't buy stuff and companies are usually able to work on multiple ideas/problems/solutions. They don't need to focus laser-like on one issue to the exclusion of all others.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm sorry but what are you on about? Are you trying to pretend that other criticisms don't get discussion, analysed and criticised themselves?

No but if I were to complain about the size of a shoulder pad nobody would demand of me to qualify my opinion with an essay on the topic of design language, shoulder pad curvature, and the material or mould type needed in the production thereof (or something similar). But mention that you think depiction of female characters is rather limited and people throw their hands up in despair and you get the usual replies of "That's how it has always been" as if things can never change.

Mario wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm sorry but what are you on about? Are you trying to pretend that other criticisms don't get discussion, analysed and criticised themselves?

No but if I were to complain about the size of a shoulder pad nobody would demand of me to qualify my opinion with an essay on the topic of design language, shoulder pad curvature, and the material or mould type needed in the production thereof (or something similar). But mention that you think depiction of female characters is rather limited and people throw their hands up in despair and you get the usual replies of "That's how it has always been" as if things can never change.

Absolute bollocks.

1. No one is demanding anyone qualify their opinion on female models with an essay. If that's what you think is going on then you have completely missed the discussion. We were talking about the types of female models that are available, it got mentioned that some people want female models that are only subtly different to the male models and that began a discussion as to whether it is worth it for a designer to make a model that is only subtly different. You often hear things like how it wouldn't hurt to have a female option model in a certain set, but Dark Severance pointed out from experience just shaving a bit off the shoulders thinning down the model subtly is going to cost you as much as making a whole new model so the designer has to weigh up whether it's worth creating a subtly different model when you could just make something completely unique and more obviously different.

If you interpreted that as demanding an essay, I'm sorry but you're just wrong, there's no other way to put it.

2. I get sick of this bollocks acting like the collective community treats a complaint about female models differently to any others. The discussion only starts getting hot when comments get made that can be taken as personal slights.

If you make a generic complaint about the size of a shoulder pad people would offer you suggestions on alternatives closer to what you want, if no alternatives could be found to your liking people might start suggesting how you can make the modification yourself, possibly how you might recast it to save you time. You might get some people telling you how they like the existing shoulder pad size.

The same as would happen if you made a generic complaint about female models.

If you made a complaint about the size of a shoulder pad, suggesting that maybe the shoulder pad designer is bigoted, that the people who like that sort of shoulder pad are just sweaty nerds, that the shoulder pads and people who like the shoulder pads are preventing other potential customers from joining, that you think things need to change because you can't identify with models with that sized shoulder pads and how designers should be including multiple shoulder sizes in a kit to account for your tastes. GUESS WHAT? You'll also encourage a more heated discussion with people defending the designers of the shoulder pad, defending the gamers who like the existing shoulder pad and you'll possibly invite conversation of the economic viability of including 2 sets of shoulder pads in a kit and how it is as costly as adding an extra set of weapons but the weapons are more likely to make you money.

So for you witches are reasonably dressed and not sexualised?

Edit
because if that is the case KDM does a great job at it too.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
So for you witches are reasonably dressed and not sexualised?

Given their fluff and actual armor stat of 6+ save. Yes, they are reasonably dressed.

It's amazing, Mario's posts continues to illustrate exactly what's wrong, seemingly completely without meaning to.

Seriously, Skink, Psychotic, you've both have been around long enough to know that his description of how criticism is received here bears little to no resemblance to reality here on Dakka (save for those situations Skink and my post above address). You know his depiction is wrong, he knows it's wrong, but he must maintain this fiction; the question is why? He lays it out above, but only obliquely...

Mario wrote:
If I said I prefer less exaggerated miniatures people would say they like them bigger because of battlefield visibility or something and not get out the calculator and start playing armchair MBA. And if women are not discouraged by all the male miniatures why should men be discouraged by a few more reasonably clothed female miniatures. They would be essentially interchangeable with their male counterparts. Shouldn't the demand be the same? And if sexy miniatures sell to well why aren't all the male miniatures also sexualized? Wouldn't that mean more sales and better ROI?

This is a subtle way of claiming that the state of the market cannot be the result of market forces. Note also that even though he's being directly contradicted by accounts from people in the business, they are only "playing armchair MBA". He cannot reconcile the idea that there is a difference between what the market is and what he thinks the market should be; at least, not without there being some sinister action explaining it.

Now, if I were to be sarcastic, I would wonder aloud, what could this sinister force be? The Jews? The Masons? The shape-shifting-lizard people? Or, perhaps, could it be.... the Patriarchy?!

But while that's just being silly, the further intellectual dishonesty in Mario's post is just... I don't even know what to say. He claims "a lot of female characters look like the equivalent of the following two images", and then links to two (ever so slightly flamboyant) images. I can only ask... what? Seriously, Mario directly claims that "a lot of female characters look like the equivalent" of those. Where? In what line?

No, really, what female characters in table top games is Mario referencing? Anyone know? I'm genuinely curious. Is this just straw manning from the Prodos figures? Then why say "quite a lot of female characters"?

Psychotic though, you really hit the nail on the head here with this;

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
So for you witches are reasonably dressed and not sexualised?

Edit
because if that is the case KDM does a great job at it too.

Of all the choices, what is chosen as a model to be emulated? Dark Eldar Wyches... wow. For those that don't own any, the difference between male and female DE Wyches literally comes down to a stonking great pair of boobs. Not a joke: they have unisex arms, unisex legs, unisex heads... the only point of differentiation between male and female is the infamous boob armor. Some of them come complete with bare midriff and even a Powergirl-style cleavage window.

This, this right here is yet another reason why the complaint goes nowhere: here we have Mario holding up as ideal the exact thing that others are decrying as what they don't want. Korraz above mentions "organizing people into a single voice that's actually heard", the problem with this being that there is a group of people that all agree on step 1 ('there is something rotten in the state of female miniatures'), but when it actually comes to step 2, listenening to what people want... everyone has not just different opinions, but contradictory opinions.

I can't say how many times I've seen people lament the lack of plastic Adeptus Sororitas, and I also can't say how many times I've seen people lament that the 'female faction' in 40k is Space Nuns in Power Corsets. If GW wasn't so completely estranged from the internet, I would suspect they haven't done anything with Sororitas because they think the backlash against them would be more trouble then the line is worth. But GW seems to think the internet stopped in '97, so that's probably not it.

Not to get off-topic, but isn't the whole point of not wearing much in a wych cult is the the knowledge that "If they can't hit me, I won't need armour?" On top of that, aren't Dark Eldar a bad example for "Look, boob armour!" as they tend to be very promiscuous to begin with?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Not to get off-topic, but isn't the whole point of not wearing much in a wych cult is the the knowledge that "If they can't hit me, I won't need armour?"

Pretty much. Armor is only there to protect you if you get hit. If you don't get hit, armor is just a hindrance.
And wyches are scary fast. In fluff, anyway. They are supposed to be able to dodge bullets, iirc, but that's not represented in game.

It is quite on topic actually.

A point of the debate is reasonable/ realistic depiction after all, if "fluff" can be used to excuse reason then you can have a completely naked gladiator style model with a tiny energy field generator as a backpack and the excuse it creates too much heat or whatever.

DE witches look like they come out of a BDSM party, humbly dressed for that party, but still BDSM party, combat uniform is mainly used as a protection from the elements and the terrain, no mater how masochist your troops are (or immune to pain) loosing the from infection because they cut themselves in the various sharp elements of the battlefield (or the elements), armour comes over that function.

That puts witches in neither reasonable nor realistic territory, yes, males and females have the same uniform, yes, males and females are equally unreasonably dressed and sexualised and yes, both are bad examples on what the defenders of reasonable and proposing.

You know what is a better example?

both are equally dressed, both are reasonably/ realistically dressed, both are equally sexualised and easy to tell apart.

That is what I personally like.
by the way the same comment stands for those


And then we have the suggestion of realistic/ reasonably dressed.

The two on the left are female, I guess?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't like the majority of female faces I see on models. The features of a female face that make it look female are so subtle and when you exaggerate them to be noticeable on a 28mm model the result to my eye is usually not great.