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.

 Peregrine wrote:


But these aren't very fair comparisons. Whatever the reason is (higher design costs, higher labor costs, etc) GW's prices are higher than their competition despite not making better profit margins. So yeah, it's nice that other companies can sell kits at lower prices, but GW can't. If they're barely making money on a $50 plastic LRBT there's no way they're going to be making a profit on a $50 resin LRBT.

Wait, wait, what? I really don't see where you're conjuring these additional costs from. Their labour is the same as anyone else casting resin in the UK, the raw materials will be cheaper (because they order in bulk), and their design costs are cheaper (because they don't have to hire out, but do it all in house). They are literally making an incredibly good profit margin. They don't charge £65 for a five man Solar Auxilia set because it somehow costs them £45 to make it. They charge it because they can, and because they think people will pay it, and because they hope that they'll equal more net profit with lower overhead/manufacturing costs (up for debate).

And who told you they can barely make a profit on a plastic Leman Russ? It costs them about £10-15,000 to design and make a new plastic kit (depending on complexity and number of sprues) right now (far cheaper than any direct competitor) because they do it all in house. The material cost in plastic/cardboard of making each kit after that is measured in the single digits (around £2 per sprue IIRC). So long as they sell enough kits to cover that initial design cost, they're laughing all the way to the bank. Something like a Leman Russ, which has been around for ages, will have made back that initial investment a decade ago most likely.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand where you're getting this idea from that their models cost a huge amount to produce. GW's major expenses are in other places such as rent and fixed cost overheads from their retail chain, dividend payments, and so forth. Not in the material production of models. The models themselves, unless it's a plastic kit that sells incredibly badly (exceedingly rare, I'm not aware of any) always make money. They don't lose it.

That's why when I say they can slash the cost of a FW model by 50% and still be making an excellent above market standard profit, it's true for the vast majority of their models. GW's problem is that all those vast profits are drained away into GW's other costs unrelated to the business of making and selling those items, and they can't raise prices fast enough to equalise the score with the number of people who quit buying as the prices get too high for them. Combined with several other factors, the result has been diminishing net profit and turnover, whilst a higher and higher profit per item is attained.

Ebay is the padawan learner of the recast world. Kiddy pool stuff.

Getting on mailing lists from Russian and China is the true underworld. A dark grim malevolent place where words are spoken in hushed tones and secrecy.

Sorry, don't ask.

People arguing that it isn't theft are arguing in a semantic level. Your still profiting from someone else's work, and it's still taking something (in this case intellectual property) that isn't yours.

If you want to argue about the legal status of intellectual property, and if it should or shouldn't be a thing, fine. But right now, it's generally accepted worldwide by lawmakers to be a thing.

This thread absolutely reeks of self entitlement. "I only did it because GW charge too much" "I wouldn't have bought a fell blade at their prices"

You aren't entitled to have cheap models, sorry, but if you can't afford the original, the high price does not justify buying knock offs from China. Model kits are not a vital necessity like food and shelter. You're not Robin Hood, even though some of you are trying to make out that you only do it against the big bad Sherrif of Nottingham GW.

 Ketara wrote:
I'm sorry, but I don't understand where you're getting this idea from that their models cost a huge amount to produce. GW's major expenses are in other places such as rent and fixed cost overheads from their retail chain, dividend payments, and so forth. Not in the material production of models. The models themselves, unless it's a plastic kit that sells incredibly badly (exceedingly rare, I'm not aware of any) always make money. They don't lose it.

We can argue that GW's business practices aren't great, but they all have to be considered in the cost of the model and it's part of the reason GW can't maintain the low prices that recasters can.

GW operate a retail chain. They have a website. They sell to independent stockists (which they have to do for around half of retail price).

The making of the models themselves is only a small part of the costs.... yeah... but that just means they ONLY need to sell slightly more than twice as many models as they do now if they were to halve the price unless they cut all their other costs as well.

You can definitely argue that all those other costs can be cut, but lets not forget it's a lot of those other costs that got them to the top of the pile and huge popularity, popularity that if it did not exist, neither would the recasters Unless you're suggesting GW needs to trim themselves back to a handful of staff working out of a garage like some other operations, in which case I don't think that would be beneficial for the community if that's what you're suggesting.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
We can argue that GW's business practices aren't great, but they all have to be considered in the cost of the model and it's part of the reason GW can't maintain the low prices that recasters can.

GW operate a retail chain. They have a website. They sell to independent stockists (which they have to do for around half of retail price).

The making of the models themselves is only a small part of the costs.... yeah... but that just means they ONLY need to sell slightly more than twice as many models as they do now if they were to halve the price unless they cut all their other costs as well.

Sure. It might work. It might not. On one hand, you have produce twice as much stuff, which is higher staffing costs generally. On the other, the products are more affordable, meaning you'll sell more.

One thing's for sure though, it would certainly drive those recasters out of business!

You can definitely argue that all those other costs can be cut, but lets not forget it's a lot of those other costs that got them to the top of the pile and huge popularity, popularity that if it did not exist, neither would the recasters Unless you're suggesting GW needs to trim themselves back to a handful of staff working out of a garage like some other operations, in which case I don't think that would be beneficial for the community if that's what you're suggesting.

Unfortunately, they're losing money hand over fist, so clearly charging ever-higher prices is not the winning strategy either here.

Contextual data should be examined here as well. GW are far from bankrupt, they can easily take a slight hit to profits for a few years if it puts them in a better market position. Unfortunately, they've been taking those hits to achieve things like additional dividend payouts, as opposed to reinvesting in growth. They continue to put all their eggs in one basket (models) instead of diversifying out (vertical integration would usually be the logical move for a company in their position). But because Kirby had to borrow so much money to buyout the company originally, he stifled any form of risk, and so the corporate culture and structure has become intensely risk averse and stagnant. The company as a whole, is draining those excellent profits from Forgeworld.

Games Workshop could slash FW's prices, I would estimate, by half, and I believe they'd make up in additional custom what they lost in profit per item. Even if it was a minimal financial loss, it would be a net gain, because they'd drive the recasters out of business. Alternatively, there are other ways (as mentioned, vertical integration is logical) by which they could invest to cut production costs further still for Forgeworld whilst dropping prices to retain a higher profit per unit level than any competition.

tl;dr You are correct, you do have to look at the business as a whole when considering what FW charges, but that means you have to look at the entire business holistically, as opposed to just 'Their overall costs are higher therefore they can't afford to charge less than what they do'. It's not that simple, and ignores that a publicly quoted company sitting on the assets they do has many, many options and a lot of flexibility in how they deal with things.

But, as I said in my initial analysis, I believe they have calculated that recasters are part of the cost of maintaining such ludicrously high prices, and that it is a considered part of their business strategy. I also believe that the current data indicates their current growth strategy is non-existent though, and they should be looking into ways to streamline their business, whilst taking well-calculated risks. A drop in FW price, as a non-core part of their business with large potential for growth that doesn't contribute as much to their coffers as normal 40K yet has an exceptionally high per unit profit margin, would be a good testing step. As opposed to waiting for the mountain to come to Mohammed, so to speak.

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Piracy can't be solved by more stringent enforcement of the law like robbery can.

Why not? The primary reason that piracy is possible is that the law isn't strictly enforced. It's written off as "too small to matter" and not given much attention. If websites/ebay sellers/etc were treated as seriously as, say, someone putting up a site offering one-click deals on assassination it would eliminate the problem almost entirely. Recasters wouldn't be able to stay in business with only a handful of stubborn buyers trading illegal models in absolute secrecy.

Well, yeah, I'll concede the point that stricter law enforcement can't beat piracy.

But, again, GW can't do this. GW's products are already as accessible as possible for a physical product, and much more accessible than any recasts. The only way for GW to attempt to compete with illegal recasts is to slash their prices to the point where their prices are equal to or cheaper than "competition" that doesn't have to pay any of GW's design/marketing/etc expenses. The movie and music analogy just doesn't hold up at all.

Not true. GW could allow 3rd party retailers to offer their products online with discount limits built in like PP does. And they don't have to slash their products to recaster levels. All they need to do is reduce their costs enough so that buying from the legitimate seller is attractive enough over the discount from buying illicitly. But they would have to introduce a whole lot of other changes to their product line to go with that imo. Their status quo seems to be only held up by collectors and newcomers eating the high prices.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 General Kroll wrote:
People arguing that it isn't theft are arguing in a semantic level. Your still profiting from someone else's work, and it's still taking something (in this case intellectual property) that isn't yours.

If you want to argue about the legal status of intellectual property, and if it should or shouldn't be a thing, fine. But right now, it's generally accepted worldwide by lawmakers to be a thing.

This thread absolutely reeks of self entitlement. "I only did it because GW charge too much" "I wouldn't have bought a fell blade at their prices"

You aren't entitled to have cheap models, sorry, but if you can't afford the original, the high price does not justify buying knock offs from China. Model kits are not a vital necessity like food and shelter. You're not Robin Hood, even though some of you are trying to make out that you only do it against the big bad Sherrif of Nottingham GW.

Hopefully the authorities can return the stolen intellectual property back to their proper owners. I am sure they are missing it dearly.

@ketara where is your info on how much it costs gw to make models coming from? I don't think you are factoring in a very large number of costs, specifically an 18 month r&d process before production even begins. Most stores are in low rent locations now, and hq is on an industrial site so very low rent there. Most production is done on site, meaning paying British wages, not Chinese wages, for hundreds of employees (along with the sick pay, holiday entitlement, pensions etc).

If they were as cheap to make as you say, their profits would be a lot higher.

 Ketara wrote:
And who told you they can barely make a profit on a plastic Leman Russ?

GW did, in their financial reports. They don't state specific numbers for the LRBT, but we know that their profit margins aren't very impressive and there's no reason to believe that the LRBT is exceptional relative to their other kits. Any speculation about how much GW's profits "should" be is meaningless because we have GW's own numbers.

GW's problem is that all those vast profits are drained away into GW's other costs unrelated to the business of making and selling those items, and they can't raise prices fast enough to equalise the score with the number of people who quit buying as the prices get too high for them.

Err, you're completely misunderstanding how this works. You don't sell a product, make $X worth of profit from it, then use that profit to pay your non-manufacturing expenses. Profit is what is left after you pay all of your costs. So it doesn't matter how GW's costs break down between materials, labor, store rent, etc. All that matters is their total costs relative to the sale price of the kit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Not true. GW could allow 3rd party retailers to offer their products online with discount limits built in like PP does. And they don't have to slash their products to recaster levels. All they need to do is reduce their costs enough so that buying from the legitimate seller is attractive enough over the discount from buying illicitly. But they would have to introduce a whole lot of other changes to their product line to go with that imo. Their status quo seems to be only held up by collectors and newcomers eating the high prices.

But that isn't improving accessibility (like how the music industry beat piracy), it's just a different way of reducing the price tag. From an accessibility point of view a third-party online store is no better than GW's own online store.

 JamesY wrote:
@ketara where is your info on how much it costs gw to make models coming from? I don't think you are factoring in a very large number of costs, specifically an 18 month r&d process before production even begins. Most stores are in low rent locations now, and hq is on an industrial site so very low rent there. Most production is done on site, meaning paying British wages, not Chinese wages, for hundreds of employees (along with the sick pay, holiday entitlement, pensions etc).

If they were as cheap to make as you say, their profits would be a lot higher.

My info comes from talking to a few of other people in the industry who've produced HIPS sprues. I won't name names, and the prices can vary quite drastically depending on where you produce, and who with. For example, Renedra naturally charge more than Wargames Factory ever did. But once you own the various machines involved in the production and have the staff working full-time on fixed costs (calculated annually), they drop quite substantially. With a 3 month production plan, you can economise and timetable in such a way as to make expenditure as minimal and predictable as possible.

GW has run into several issues relating to staff turnover, rapidly decreasing product turnover, sticker shock, and more. It's quite well detailed elsewhere if you care to go and dig. But those are the issues that the good profit on the individual items are funding.

 insaniak wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


How are press molds ethically viable?

The fact that GW have previously specifically encouraged it helps.

GW used to encourage paper Baneblades. Times have changed.

Recasting for your own purposes instead of buying more product is apparently theft, so why isn't press molding? If press molding is okay, how about if I pay someone to make a press mold for my personal use?.

I already covered this. Casting a model is (probably) prohibited by copyright law. Casting part of a model is not the same thing, so far as the law is concerned.

You possibly still run into potential trademark issues if the thing you're copying is a trademarked symbol, though.

I'm not talking about the law. I'm talking about ethics. Posters said that HSM would be a thief if he bought X recast shoulder pads instead of buying X GW pads, essentially stealing X pads' worth of dollars from GW, but they seem to be okay if he press molds X shoulder pads (presumably onto the blanks included in the kit) instead of buying X GW pads, essentially stealing X pads' worth of dollars from GW. Why is the latter okay and not the former?

I suspect it's because everyone thinks, "I use press molds and I'm honest, but only cheap, entitled thieves buy products that are functionally just press molded parts." Granted, this only applies to simple bits like shoulder pads.

I also have an issue with anyone who recasts for their own personal use but scorns someone who buys recasts. It's either stealing not to buy those items from legitimate sources or it isn't.

 Peregrine wrote:

GW did, in their financial reports. They don't state specific numbers for the LRBT, but we know that their profit margins aren't very impressive and there's no reason to believe that the LRBT is exceptional relative to their other kits. Any speculation about how much GW's profits "should" be is meaningless because we have GW's own numbers.

Can I have a link to this quote on the LRBT please? I'm digging through financial reports and cannot spot it.

Err, you're completely misunderstanding how this works. You don't sell a product, make $X worth of profit from it, then use that profit to pay your non-manufacturing expenses. Profit is what is left after you pay all of your costs. So it doesn't matter how GW's costs break down between materials, labor, store rent, etc. All that matters is their total costs relative to the sale price of the kit.

It is possible to examine compartmentalised sections of a business (consultancy wouldn't get very far otherwise) in order to determine what 'makes' money, and what loses it, what items can be considered to be loss leaders, what departments are in profit, and what departments are not and so forth. I pointed out that GW could halve the cost of a specific range (Forgeworld), in order to gain market advantage, and potentially reap alternative financial benefits from the reduction in price. I also indicated a potential viable way of cutting further production costs in Forgeworld manufacture.

I'm really not sure what you're not getting here. You seem to be holding out the consolidated income statement as some sort of holy grail from which to read everything to do with individual product profits and turnover, and it's something of a simplistic way of viewing things.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


I'm not talking about the law. I'm talking about ethics. Posters said that HSM would be a thief if he bought X recast shoulder pads instead of buying X GW pads, essentially stealing X pads' worth of dollars from GW, but they seem to be okay if he press molds X shoulder pads (presumably onto the blanks included in the kit) instead of buying X GW pads, essentially stealing X pads' worth of dollars from GW. Why is the latter okay and not the former? .

You appear to be merging statements from different people into one single opinion.

 Ketara wrote:
Can I have a link to this quote on the LRBT please? I'm digging through financial reports and cannot spot it.

I said they don't state specific numbers for the LRBT.

It is possible to examine compartmentalised sections of a business (consultancy wouldn't get very far otherwise) in order to determine what 'makes' money, and what loses it, what items can be considered to be loss leaders, what departments are in profit, and what departments are not and so forth. I pointed out that GW could halve the cost of a specific range (Forgeworld), in order to gain market advantage, and potentially reap alternative financial benefits from the reduction in price. I also indicated a potential viable way of cutting further production costs in Forgeworld manufacture.

I'm really not sure what you're not getting here.

What I'm getting at is that you're assuming GW could reduce prices by significant margins by neglecting to consider their complete costs. You're only considering manufacturing costs and then assuming that if GW's sale price is greater than the manufacturing costs then GW must be making money on the sale. But you can't do that. You can talk all you want about how things like GW's retail chain are bad for their business, but those costs still exist and still have to be paid. Cutting FW prices in half would almost certainly result in every FW model selling at a loss, because even if it is selling for more than the manufacturing cost it isn't covering its share of GW's other costs.

Now, you could argue that making FW's product lines into loss leaders is a good business plan, but I seriously doubt it would be a successful argument. FW products are usually bought by veteran customers and would be a spectacularly bad introduction for a new customer to deal with, even at a much cheaper price. So it's doubtful that taking a loss on every FW sale would drive enough sales of "core" products to justify the lost money.

 Ketara wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
@ketara where is your info on how much it costs gw to make models coming from? I don't think you are factoring in a very large number of costs, specifically an 18 month r&d process before production even begins. Most stores are in low rent locations now, and hq is on an industrial site so very low rent there. Most production is done on site, meaning paying British wages, not Chinese wages, for hundreds of employees (along with the sick pay, holiday entitlement, pensions etc).

If they were as cheap to make as you say, their profits would be a lot higher.

My info comes from talking to a few of other people in the industry who've produced HIPS sprues. I won't name names, and the prices can vary quite drastically depending on where you produce, and who with. For example, Renedra naturally charge more than Wargames Factory ever did. But once you own the various machines involved in the production and have the staff working full-time on fixed costs (calculated annually), they drop quite substantially. With a 3 month production plan, you can economise and timetable in such a way as to make expenditure as minimal and predictable as possible.

GW has run into several issues relating to staff turnover, rapidly decreasing product turnover, sticker shock, and more. It's quite well detailed elsewhere if you care to go and dig. But those are the issues that the good profit on the individual items are funding.

I was asking as I used to work for gw, so I know that the production cost is higher than you have been suggesting. I haven't been talking about predictability of costs, that isn't the issue, my point was that some of their fixed costs are lower than you suggested (like rent, although admittedly it will still be a large expense) and others, like labour, and the design process, are much higher. I don't think that the issues you raise are necessarily responsible for the final price tag, but they are undoubtedly eating into the profit from the sale of the item.

I said they don't state specific numbers for the LRBT.

So to clarify, you're basing your knowledge on how money they make from making plastic kits out of the summarised profit from their annual reports?

 Peregrine wrote:

What I'm getting at is that you're assuming GW could reduce prices by significant margins by neglecting to consider their complete costs. You're only considering manufacturing costs and then assuming that if GW's sale price is greater than the manufacturing costs then GW must be making money on the sale. But you can't do that. You can talk all you want about how things like GW's retail chain are bad for their business, but those costs still exist and still have to be paid. Cutting FW prices in half would almost certainly result in every FW model selling at a loss, because even if it is selling for more than the manufacturing cost it isn't covering its share of GW's other costs.

We're halfway there. Let me copypaste that bit again.

Cutting FW prices in half would almost certainly result in every FW model selling at a loss, because even if it is selling for more than the manufacturing cost it isn't covering its share of GW's other costs.

 TheCustomLime wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 General Kroll wrote:
People arguing that it isn't theft are arguing in a semantic level. Your still profiting from someone else's work, and it's still taking something (in this case intellectual property) that isn't yours.

If you want to argue about the legal status of intellectual property, and if it should or shouldn't be a thing, fine. But right now, it's generally accepted worldwide by lawmakers to be a thing.

This thread absolutely reeks of self entitlement. "I only did it because GW charge too much" "I wouldn't have bought a fell blade at their prices"

You aren't entitled to have cheap models, sorry, but if you can't afford the original, the high price does not justify buying knock offs from China. Model kits are not a vital necessity like food and shelter. You're not Robin Hood, even though some of you are trying to make out that you only do it against the big bad Sherrif of Nottingham GW.

Hopefully the authorities can return the stolen intellectual property back to their proper owners. I am sure they are missing it dearly.

By that logic, stealing food can't be theft because once it's eaten it can't be returned. You can try and justify it to yourself anyway you like using all sorts of twisted logic and spurious reasoning. It won't change the fact that recasting is intellectual property theft.

If you want to do it then fine, if you want to buy it then fine, but don't try and make out that you aren't doing anything wrong.

 General Kroll wrote:
By that logic, stealing food can't be theft because once it's eaten it can't be returned. You can try and justify it to yourself anyway you like using all sorts of twisted logic and spurious reasoning. It won't change the fact that recasting is intellectual property theft. .

At this point in the discussion, people conflating copyright infringement with theft should be warned for trolling.

It's not a matter of opinion. You are factually incorrect. Words have meanings. Just because they both have 4 legs and a tail does not make a chihuahua into a tiger.

 JamesY wrote:


I was asking as I used to work for gw, so I know that the production cost is higher than you have been suggesting.

Just to clarify, are we talking HIPS or resin? Because resin, I know the manufacturing costs quite well (I've done some small scale casting myself and looked into setting up a casting workshop quite intensively). HIPS wise, I'm going off of things I've heard 3 people who've produced in it say, and stuff I've read browsing around the web.

I know GW spend a fair bit on retooling at the moment, but I heard that's more to do with replacing older machinery with newer, more capable machines (so plant investment). Retail costs a certain amount beyond normal operating expenses, (they spend a million a year just on refurbishing stores), and of course, there have been plenty of frivolous expenditures by GW of late as mentioned above.

@ketara price elasticity is exceptionally hard to gauge, and reducing prices does not automatically equate to increased sales. Your suggestion could equally well result in the reduction of the "prestige" element that attracts some FW collectors, and so alienate those customers. If the new price point didn't invite 2 new customers to replace each one lost, you are left worse off than before, and with a devalued product. I'm not saying that lower prices couldn't increase turnover, but it is very risky and definitely not a guaranteed way to increase sales.

I have a good anecdotal knowledge of the figures for the year so far in large brush strokes. FW is very far from supporting other arms of the business.


Edit I was referring to the entire production process, as to omit anything wouldn't be an accurate reflection of the total cost spent.

 Stevefamine wrote:
I've recasted around $1000~ worth of models that are OOP, terrain, or already 3rd party (epic 3d prints, FW epic terrain, HH sculpted epic models not made by GW, so on) Terrain? It's OOP and absurdly expensive. I made masters and then spammed near perfect recasts. The 6-10mm epic/tactics group of gamers tend to 3d print + recast the MOST

The models I use in a store that are casted? My own custom resin bases.

 Guildenstern wrote:
No, it's not all right.

You're stealing from the livlihood of those artist and sculptors who made the figures.

You want to stick it to the 'man', don't buy the product.

No, you don't *need* any of this, it's a want, a desire. Food is needed, air is needed. Miniatures are just flippin nice to have.

You are correct here. I will still buy GW/PP products if I'm going to game with them

Digging through ebay for epic or warmaster models? No. I'll buy a master and recast. If they re-released the game I'd gladly dump WAY more money into the actual models.


As long as you don't sell it - or play in a GW/FLGS with it - it's fine IMO.

I agree with what this guy says - recasts of your own are fine for personal use (e.g. YOU AND YOU ONLY - not your friends as well), even up to ordering a titan to build and paint from china. AS LONG AS you don't play with it in any GW or FLGS or even in just friendly games, AND YOU ARE NOT SELLING/GIVING RECASTS AWAY TO OTHERS! One of the people I know ordered a cerastus knight and a bunch of sisters from China and it irked me because when I played against him - it ended up being his £25 chinese cerastus vs my genuine £115 FW Chaos Knight. I felt slightly pissed off when his knight blew up mine. Now, don't lecture me, usually I'm quite a chill player, but this made me salty because recasts from places like china allow people to become 'better' at games in the hobby, while spending very little compared to others. I mean I spent 6 months saving up for that FW kit, and for all that to be undone by some copy cat bloody recast annoys me.
I have no problem if they don't show up on the table, in painting competitions or on ebay, but if they are I'm not a happy person. I would apply this to OOP miniatures too.
People should always tell you if something that they have is a recast, they shouldn't take the credit for something that is counterfeit and a scam. If they don't, you should probably avoid them as a hobbyist and friend in general.

 General Kroll wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 General Kroll wrote:
People arguing that it isn't theft are arguing in a semantic level. Your still profiting from someone else's work, and it's still taking something (in this case intellectual property) that isn't yours.

If you want to argue about the legal status of intellectual property, and if it should or shouldn't be a thing, fine. But right now, it's generally accepted worldwide by lawmakers to be a thing.

This thread absolutely reeks of self entitlement. "I only did it because GW charge too much" "I wouldn't have bought a fell blade at their prices"

You aren't entitled to have cheap models, sorry, but if you can't afford the original, the high price does not justify buying knock offs from China. Model kits are not a vital necessity like food and shelter. You're not Robin Hood, even though some of you are trying to make out that you only do it against the big bad Sherrif of Nottingham GW.

Hopefully the authorities can return the stolen intellectual property back to their proper owners. I am sure they are missing it dearly.

By that logic, stealing food can't be theft because once it's eaten it can't be returned. You can try and justify it to yourself anyway you like using all sorts of twisted logic and spurious reasoning. It won't change the fact that recasting is intellectual property theft.

If you want to do it then fine, if you want to buy it then fine, but don't try and make out that you aren't doing anything wrong.

Okay, how do I put this? Food is a concrete object. Intellectual property is an idea. You can't steal ideas anymore than you can steal thoughts. If I bought a recast space marine I didn't take the idea of space marines away from Games Workshop. They didn't actually lose anything. If I made recast space marines I am just using their ideas without permission. That's what copyright infringement is. Using other people's ideas without their okay.

Also, are you addressing me or anyone who wants to commit piracy? Because I do believe I posted earlier that I don't buy recasts.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DaemonColin wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:
I've recasted around $1000~ worth of models that are OOP, terrain, or already 3rd party (epic 3d prints, FW epic terrain, HH sculpted epic models not made by GW, so on) Terrain? It's OOP and absurdly expensive. I made masters and then spammed near perfect recasts. The 6-10mm epic/tactics group of gamers tend to 3d print + recast the MOST

The models I use in a store that are casted? My own custom resin bases.

 Guildenstern wrote:
No, it's not all right.

You're stealing from the livlihood of those artist and sculptors who made the figures.

You want to stick it to the 'man', don't buy the product.

No, you don't *need* any of this, it's a want, a desire. Food is needed, air is needed. Miniatures are just flippin nice to have.

You are correct here. I will still buy GW/PP products if I'm going to game with them

Digging through ebay for epic or warmaster models? No. I'll buy a master and recast. If they re-released the game I'd gladly dump WAY more money into the actual models.


As long as you don't sell it - or play in a GW/FLGS with it - it's fine IMO.

I agree with what this guy says - recasts of your own are fine for personal use (e.g. YOU AND YOU ONLY - not your friends as well), even up to ordering a titan to build and paint from china. AS LONG AS you don't play with it in any GW or FLGS or even in just friendly games, AND YOU ARE NOT SELLING/GIVING RECASTS AWAY TO OTHERS! One of the people I know ordered a cerastus knight and a bunch of sisters from China and it irked me because when I played against him - it ended up being his £25 chinese cerastus vs my genuine £115 FW Chaos Knight. I felt slightly pissed off when his knight blew up mine. Now, don't lecture me, usually I'm quite a chill player, but this made me salty because recasts from places like china allow people to become 'better' at games in the hobby, while spending very little compared to others. I mean I spent 6 months saving up for that FW kit, and for all that to be undone by some copy cat bloody recast annoys me.
I have no problem if they don't show up on the table, in painting competitions or on ebay, but if they are I'm not a happy person. I would apply this to OOP miniatures too.
People should always tell you if something that they have is a recast, they shouldn't take the credit for something that is counterfeit and a scam. If they don't, you should probably avoid them as a hobbyist and friend in general.

So, spending money is a prerequisite to playing against you? Do you demand to see receipts to ensure the correct amount of money has been spent before you can play against that army?

 General Kroll wrote:

By that logic, stealing food can't be theft because once it's eaten it can't be returned. You can try and justify it to yourself anyway you like using all sorts of twisted logic and spurious reasoning. It won't change the fact that recasting is intellectual property theft. .

Copyright Infringement isnt legally considered theft for the very basic reason that theft and copyright infringement are covered by completely different laws.

There is no twisting going on here. People are saying that copyright infringement isn't theft because it isn't .

It's illegal, but it's not the same crime.

 Ketara wrote:
So to clarify, you're basing your knowledge on how money they make from making plastic kits out of the summarised profit from their annual reports?

And the reasonable assumption that the LRBT example is fairly typical of GW's profit margins. It might not be exactly the same margin, but I would be extremely skeptical of any claim that the profit margins on that specific kit are so disproportionate to other kits that even a rough estimate of what would happen with a major price reduction is impossible.

The Forgeworld models are not selling at a loss. Those are selling at a profit. Once you've taken into account the wages for the manufacturers, the materials used in manufacture, and an appropriate share of fixed operating expenses relevant to the department (utilities, pensions, managerial wages, office supplies, etc), the Forgeworld department is operating at a profit. It's bringing in more than it costs to run it.

They are selling at a profit RIGHT NOW. They would not be selling at a profit if GW cut prices on FW kits in half to compete with recasters. That would mean selling a FW LRBT with higher manufacturing costs at the same price as a plastic "main GW" LRBT kit with lower manufacturing costs and an underwhelming profit margin. GW is simply not making as much money as you seem to think they are.

If we look at the last annual report, we see the company spent millions on a frivolous redecoration of the HQ. We see vast sums wasted on a lawsuit, and a new website. We see nice sums being paid out in dividends.

And guess what: a proportionate share of that goes to the cost of producing FW kits. You can not neglect those costs when determining what price the kit has to sell for to make a profit.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
You can't steal ideas anymore than you can steal thoughts. If I bought a recast space marine I didn't take the idea of space marines away from Games Workshop. They didn't actually lose anything.

Yes, Yes and... well, no. If you bought a recast Space Marine, Games Workshop lost out on a sale - the value of a Space Marine. It's not theft, but it's not victimless either.

Even if it was OOP, then the IP holder has the right to determine if it's in production or not. If they make some hideous models, and then decide they don't fit their aesthetics or whatever and let them go OOP, and you cast and sell them, then you're hurting their brand, and their ability to define themselves in the marketplace. I mean, that's pretty hard to quantify obviously but again, they have a right to decide what to sell, and they have a right to decide what they don't want to sell, either.

 Ouze wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
You can't steal ideas anymore than you can steal thoughts. If I bought a recast space marine I didn't take the idea of space marines away from Games Workshop. They didn't actually lose anything.

Yes, Yes and... well, no. If you bought a recast Space Marine, Games Workshop lost out on a sale - the value of a Space Marine. It's not theft, but it's not victimless either.

Not necessarily. This is a common misconception about piracy and is why when a company says the lost x number of dollars to pirates you should take it with a grain of salt. Not all acts of piracy are necessarily a lost sale for the vendor. It can be but you shouldn't equate $100 in sales of recast models to $100 lost to GW.

But you're right. Piracy is harmful to companies but not in the same way outright theft is.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Not necessarily. This is a common misconception about piracy and is why when a company says the lost x number of dollars to pirates you should take it with a grain of salt. Not all acts of piracy are necessarily a lost sale for the vendor. It can be but you shouldn't equate $100 in sales of recast models to $100 lost to GW.

Sure, but now we're arguing about the degree of harm. All I'm saying is that it's a non-zero value, since a sale took place.

Anyway, we agree a lot more than we disagree., anyway.

FWIW I don't care if people recast, but I download tons of music and it would be pretty hypocritical of me to suddenly find an imaginary line there. I just accept that what I do is bad without trying to rationalize why it isn't.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, now we're arguing about the degree of harm. All I'm saying is that it's a non-zero value, since a sale took place. We agree a lot more than we disagree., anyway.

Fair enough.

I care about recasting as much as GW cares about me as a customer.

 RivenSkull wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
To quote many a poster already, 'Theft is theft'. There is no grey area, there never has been and those trying to make an argument that recasting a model because it's OOP is acceptable are dead wrong. There's not a single model out there that isn't readily available on Ebay or through one of the Swap Shops on community boards like Dakka. If you can't afford it, tough! Get something else or get a better job/allowance/return bottles for deposit/whatever so you can afford it.
If you've ever been a victim of theft, then you know how it feels and you know it's unequivocally wrong. Recasting is theft and if you think it doesn't affect GW, et al, then you're wrong again, because it does, which means, ultimately, it will affect us all...and not in a good way.

But it's not theft. It's a copyright infringement.

One of my recast models is a Necron Sentry Pylon. I got it at what I thought was a reasonable price. There was no way I would pay the $80 for a single model of that size/quality. If FW sold it at 10% higher than what I paid for the recast, I would have gladly gotten it through FW.

But because I would never, and will never pay FW $80 for such a simple model, is it a lost sale?

Its a lost sale for SOMEONE, since you didn't spend that $80 on legitimate hobby stuff.

 Ouze wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
By that logic, stealing food can't be theft because once it's eaten it can't be returned. You can try and justify it to yourself anyway you like using all sorts of twisted logic and spurious reasoning. It won't change the fact that recasting is intellectual property theft. .

At this point in the discussion, people conflating copyright infringement with theft should be warned for trolling.

It's not a matter of opinion. You are factually incorrect. Words have meanings. Just because they both have 4 legs and a tail does not make a chihuahua into a tiger.

No, you're trolling. Stealing an idea is theft. Of course it's a non-physical entity, but it is theft. If you don't understand the concept of IP, you should go back to a previous century, as IP - designs of circuits, phones, plastic soldiers - underpins our society and is in many cases more important than physical property.

And theft of IP is a crime. So if, every time you mention this, you simply acknowledge it's a crime, then we won't have a problem.

I'm entertained by the para-legal arguments to justify this First World sense of entitlement. Just to try and broaden your minds - this isn't about making GW more money. If you hate GW and want them to make less money, buy used examples from eBay, kitbash models, or proxy from other manufacturers. No one has any problem with that, do they?

But if you're holding up recasting as a morally beneficial act, you're endorsing something that is both immoral - and illegal. Theft.