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.

 harlokin wrote:
... snip ...

You're still in the miniature wargaming hobby, just heavily invested in one brand which I must point out isn't a problem. It's no different to someone who is heavily invested in, say, Infinity and immerse themselves and imbibe everything to do with infinity and nothing else. Doesn't stop them from being part of the wargaming hobby though

I think back in the 90s in the pre-mass internet era and even when the internet was getting going - GW had a tighter hold on the market. Certainly in the UK. Back then you had to get pretty big to advertise and get your game into actual stores; even then GW stores (UK) were the most common and they were the only ones with a magazine.

Basically back then it was darn hard to market your game.

Today with the internet even just browsing warhammer in search engines you get LOADS of 3rd party models and companies and ideas. It's much easier to casually be aware of other games.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
I understand your point, but kind of disagree.

I read 30K/40K books, I watch YouTube channels dedicated to 40K, and buy/paint/play with 40K mimiatures. If 40K somehow went away, I would not be seeking to replace it with other games because I am not invested in their lore, and don't have the time or inclination to become so. For me, playing the wargame is just a byproduct of my interest in the setting.

Out of curiosity, why is that? Have you learned about other wargames' settings, or were you never interested? If some settings that you are already interested in (from, say, a book, TV show, movie) is made in a wargame that becomes very popular, would you be likely to play it?

I've been immersed in 40K and The Old World since the late 80's...so I guess it's partially a lot of nostalgia and accumulated geek knowledge. The closest I got to an alternative was perhaps the Battletech universe, but I didn't really like all the Clan stuff.

I read up a lot on the Infinity setting to play the RPG, and I really liked it, but I don't have the same emotional connection, and the truescale metal minis are not to my taste.

Thanks for you answer .

 Chamberlain wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Especially when GW's whole business model is centered around cultivating a feeling among its customers that it is more than just a brand. When a brand trades on that kind of "more than just a company" image, it's especially unreasonable to mock people who buy into it until they literally cannot buy into it any more.

I'm not sure someone being duped by marketing makes any anguish they have because GW raised prices on a kit more reasonable.

Nobody likes the guy who responds to someone's feelings of loss with "suck it up, it's not really a loss anyway, maybe it's even a gain, stop being emotional." It is a good idea in life to strive not to be that guy.

I'm beginning to think that society might actually benefit with more people like that. Pandemic, economic upheaval, social unrest all might mean we might need to re-calibrate our reactions and no longer being able to be a consumer of a brand might just not rate as a real loss in such a climate. If it is a result or emblematic of a larger financial reversal, then that's a different story though. If it's "I have $100 for a start collecting, but GW will only sell me one at $115" then yeah, maybe that isn't something to get upset over. Maybe in that case, "suck it up, it's not really a loss anyway, maybe it's even a gain, stop being emotional."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

stratigo wrote:


Okay, I have to ask, are you defending GW's prices or just kind of wandering into a cul de sac of "Well akshully"?

GW's prices range from okay to terrible. We know from their financials that they care about maintaining margins, so existing products get bumped up in price to meet their targets. And they're going to keep doing that.

So now what?

If you have 50GBP for a start collecting but GW will only sell it to you for 60, what are you going to do about it? Realize there are other options? Realize there are ways to get it or something like it for less?

Nah, just quit. You're priced out, so it's all over right? Hobby gone right?

I'm not priced out. I'm fine. If I want, I could be a big fat ol' whale. Indeed sometimes I have been. I cut my spending based on how offended I am at GW's pricing, not on how much I can afford or not.

I think this comes to the heart of an issue. People can't conceive that anyone is bothered by anything but pure egoism and so the only people upset about price rises must, of course, be upset about their own personal finances, and if they say anything, well then they're liars because that's the only reason a person could be upset. This is a view that permeates society and, again, leads to some real dark gak,

What a spectacular strawman. Maybe people just don't think that a box of plastic spacemen going up by £2.50 is actually that big of a deal.

soviet13 wrote:
What a spectacular strawman. Maybe people just don't think that a box of plastic spacemen going up by £2.50 is actually that big of a deal.

Very sophisticated interpretation of economics.

I still think it would be different if the price hikes were a singular thing in only one aspect of people’s’ lives. Instead, everything is getting more expensive. People get priced out of home ownership and starting a family. They get priced out of healthcare. People get priced out of buying even a used car. Then they go to blow off steam and they get priced out of their plastic orks. Or they see it happening to their friends and realize their hobby will be poorer for those left behind. And this is happening to all hobbies at the same time.

After years of stress and loss due to the big things, taking away the small things is sure to get an outsized reaction. There’s a reason hobbies are likened to a pressure release valve.

Just saw GW's "Warhammer Is For Everyone" black square, and my first reaction was, then why don't they make Warhammer something everyone can afford?

 Sqorgar wrote:
Just saw GW's "Warhammer Is For Everyone" black square, and my first reaction was, then why don't they make Warhammer something everyone can afford?

It's because writing "We at [large Corporate entity] are committed to fighting injustice by posting images to Twitter communicating our disapproval of injustice. To that end, we offer you this sincere apology that expresses vague solidarity with your cause. We at [large Corporate entity] hope that this encourages you to view [large Corporate entity] as an ally, and continue to support [large Corporate entity] by buying our products. Thank you", on the face of it, costs them nothing.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


You deserve compassion if you can't afford food, clothing, housing, education for your kids or proper healthcare. But for a hobby which has always been an expensive luxury good and which I could not afford myself for large parts of my life? Nope. None.

That much has changed though. You did used to be able to get blister packs for pocket money, get into the games relatively cheaply. I started collecting as a child in the late 80s, it wasn't super cheap but you could get a blister pack of marines for a few week's pocket money or a paper round.*

Kids coming into the GW hobby in a similar situation to myself will now no longer be able to afford to - and other games quite often haven't got the marketing presence that a kid would be aware that there are cheaper alternatives. So, the child in that instance doesn't start to game, and there is one less person in the hobby, which is a dreadful shame.

Comparing GW products to yachting (I note it has moved on from Porsches these days, which obviously aren't expensive enough!) is disingenuous though. There is an artificial additional cost which GW adds to its products (they don't need to cost that much, but GW pushes up the price to what they think the market will bear). This is evident by the number of competitors products which are of equal quality and produced in far smaller economies of scale than GW - and yet manage to be significantly cheaper. And while GW is absolutely free to do that, it's a free market, yadda yadda, they must understand that there is a cost in terms of numbers of GW hobbyists with this approach. And, as evident by the threads like this that pop up every time, it does cost them some goodwill towards them as an organisation - and you get replies which are as though drugs have been taken away from an addict, which it is like in some ways, and produces a similar reaction where people are not able to just 'walk away'.

* I will say some of the small/cheaper 'start collecting' boxes that you get in non-GW stores are a good step, I think that the company is at least a bit mindful now of creating a barrier or paywall to hooking people's interests, which certainly wasn't the case about 10 years ago.

JWBS wrote:
It's because writing "We at [large Corporate entity] are committed to fighting injustice by posting images to Twitter communicating our disapproval of injustice. To that end, we offer you this sincere apology that expresses vague solidarity with your cause. We at [large Corporate entity] hope that this encourages you to view [large Corporate entity] as an ally, and continue to support [large Corporate entity] by buying our products. Thank you", on the face of it, costs them nothing.

I don't think anybody was fooled by their empty posturing. I'm just a little frustrated that GW cares more about the internet likes of people who aren't their customers (and never will be) rather than the people who actively, desperately want to be their customers but can't due to high prices.

Well, it doesn't really cost them anything to send out a message like that, and it might even do them a bit of good in terms of PR. I think they mean it, too. You can certainly see an increased attempt at being inclusive in terms of female and nonwhite faces in the art and models etc. Calling it empty posturing is not quite fair IMO.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Just saw GW's "Warhammer Is For Everyone" black square, and my first reaction was, then why don't they make Warhammer something everyone can afford?

Sorry, that reminds me of somebody with around a million GBP£ in assets (Jeremy Corbyn) standing next to a millionaire (Eavis) on the stage at Glastonbury telling those who could afford the tickets to watch millionaires perform that society should not have walls, whilst being surrounded by a wall to keep out those who couldn't afford the tickets.


At some point, something will always be out of the price range of somebody.

Cars, housing, a tin of beans....

 Pacific wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


You deserve compassion if you can't afford food, clothing, housing, education for your kids or proper healthcare. But for a hobby which has always been an expensive luxury good and which I could not afford myself for large parts of my life? Nope. None.

That much has changed though. You did used to be able to get blister packs for pocket money, get into the games relatively cheaply. I started collecting as a child in the late 80s, it wasn't super cheap but you could get a blister pack of marines for a few week's pocket money or a paper round.*

Indeed I recall my paper round was £6 per week which would get you a squad of 8-10 metal minis at £2.99 for 4/5, no idea what the going rate is now suspect it wont cover a full squad

 Pacific wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


You deserve compassion if you can't afford food, clothing, housing, education for your kids or proper healthcare. But for a hobby which has always been an expensive luxury good and which I could not afford myself for large parts of my life? Nope. None.

That much has changed though. You did used to be able to get blister packs for pocket money, get into the games relatively cheaply. I started collecting as a child in the late 80s, it wasn't super cheap but you could get a blister pack of marines for a few week's pocket money or a paper round.*

Good for you, but me, being a kid in the 90s could not afford paying for GW's product with my allowance at that time, despite being interested in both 40k and WHFB at that time.
And if it's about getting kids into the hobby (they aren't the target audience), the ETB sets or the Conquest Magazine are well within reach for such customers.

Comparing GW products to yachting (I note it has moved on from Porsches these days, which obviously aren't expensive enough!) is disingenuous though.

Even an expensive car is still a car and can fulfill your need for transportation. So it actually does something useful, unlike a yacht or a 40k army.

There is an artificial additional cost which GW adds to its products (they don't need to cost that much, but GW pushes up the price to what they think the market will bear). This is evident by the number of competitors products which are of equal quality and produced in far smaller economies of scale than GW - and yet manage to be significantly cheaper. And while GW is absolutely free to do that, it's a free market, yadda yadda, they must understand that there is a cost in terms of numbers of GW hobbyists with this approach.

Premium products are not priced according to their production costs or market value, but according to what people are willing to pay. Why do you think Apple products are much more expensive than comparable electronics from other companies?

And, as evident by the threads like this that pop up every time, it does cost them some goodwill towards them as an organisation - and you get replies which are as though drugs have been taken away from an addict, which it is like in some ways, and produces a similar reaction where people are not able to just 'walk away'.

Wargaming isn't drugs. And drug dealers don't care for their customer's goodwill.

 Pacific wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


You deserve compassion if you can't afford food, clothing, housing, education for your kids or proper healthcare. But for a hobby which has always been an expensive luxury good and which I could not afford myself for large parts of my life? Nope. None.

That much has changed though. You did used to be able to get blister packs for pocket money, get into the games relatively cheaply. I started collecting as a child in the late 80s, it wasn't super cheap but you could get a blister pack of marines for a few week's pocket money or a paper round.*

Kids coming into the GW hobby in a similar situation to myself will now no longer be able to afford to - and other games quite often haven't got the marketing presence that a kid would be aware that there are cheaper alternatives. So, the child in that instance doesn't start to game, and there is one less person in the hobby, which is a dreadful shame.

Comparing GW products to yachting (I note it has moved on from Porsches these days, which obviously aren't expensive enough!) is disingenuous though. There is an artificial additional cost which GW adds to its products (they don't need to cost that much, but GW pushes up the price to what they think the market will bear). This is evident by the number of competitors products which are of equal quality and produced in far smaller economies of scale than GW - and yet manage to be significantly cheaper. And while GW is absolutely free to do that, it's a free market, yadda yadda, they must understand that there is a cost in terms of numbers of GW hobbyists with this approach. And, as evident by the threads like this that pop up every time, it does cost them some goodwill towards them as an organisation - and you get replies which are as though drugs have been taken away from an addict, which it is like in some ways, and produces a similar reaction where people are not able to just 'walk away'.

* I will say some of the small/cheaper 'start collecting' boxes that you get in non-GW stores are a good step, I think that the company is at least a bit mindful now of creating a barrier or paywall to hooking people's interests, which certainly wasn't the case about 10 years ago.

I think that's the purpose of some of the smaller model count games like Necromunda and Warcry too, to provide an easier and cheaper on-ramp into the hobby (although I suspect all the cards and DLC supplements probably help undermine that).

I'm not sure why you think yachting and Porsches don't also have artificially inflated costs. I suspect that GW's high prices actually help other manufacturers, because it allows them to still charge a fairly high price themselves and still be the cheaper option. I don't see that GW has any competitors offering equal quality though. Maybe in terms of games design this might be right. And there are a lot of good sculptors out there so in terms of metal and resin figures this might be right. But in terms of plastic kits - in level of detail, design, casting, complexity, and sheer breadth of available products - no-one else comes close IMO.

Define "equal quality" because there's a billion companies making models that fit together correctly that look like they're supposed to once assembled.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Define "equal quality" because there's a billion companies making models that fit together correctly that look like they're supposed to once assembled.

That's a very low bar.

If you're talking to me I defined it later in the same paragraph.

You didn't, not really. Things like "level of detail" and "complexity" are synonymous, unless you mean the kits are complex to assemble, which is surely not a desirable quality? They're also subjective, while some people might think a model covered in rivets and other details is good, others might find them needlessly cluttered and lacking in restraint.

A measure of quality needs to be objective, otherwise your argument is "I prefer this so it's better" which is fine to have as an opinion, but not indicative of any level of quality.

Things like "casting" and "design" are just nebulous as well, like I said, there's loads of kits that fit together perfectly well, and many manufacturers who reliably turn out models without errors, so where is the evidence of superior quality from GW? Or are they just meeting a base line that one should expect from anyone who does what they do?

I guess if you subscribe to "quantity is a quality of its own" then the breadth of range is something GW does offer, but then that depends if you view it as GW Vs any other single manufacturer or GW Vs the market.

 MJRyder wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

I've never understood the strange way some people think that "it's the free market" is a response to a moral argument. The fact that GW doesn't care about anything besides making money is not a refutation of someone's charge that they are behaving badly; if anything, it is a confirmation of it.

Wow, I'm sorry, but there are an awful lot of problems with your argument, as you seem to be conflating several different ideas and assuming they are equivalent. I've highlighted two of the main issues above ^.

1) The free market point is *not* about morals. It's not a moral argument. Sure, you can make it a moral argument in the sense that 'capitalism=bad', but really, we're not going to bring down capitalism any time soon, so you really do need to move beyond the overly simplistic argument that rising prices is somehow immoral. After all, following your logic, everything should be free. And that of course, is a logical impossibility as the world as we know it would simply stop working.

2) Building on point #1, your second false assumption is that any sort of price rise is in somehow 'bad', and that GW are 'behaving badly'. Of course, 'bad' here is a relativistic argument. The point here is that everyone has choices. Just because GW (or any other company for that matter) raises prices, doesn't mean they are deliberately out to hurt you personally. They're certainly not 'behaving badly'. It's just economics.

I can give you a more detailed lesson on all of the above if you like, but I don't really want to bore everyone.

If you're going to shamelessly patronize someone, you should at least try to understand what they said before doing it.

Of course the free market point is not about morals. That was the whole point of my statement. If people are angry about price raises and feel betrayed by them, "it's just the free market" is not an answer to their charge that GW has behaved poorly. You are exactly the sort of person I am talking about not getting it at a basic level.

I wasn't making any "assumption" that GW was behaving badly. I was stating that "it's just the market" is not an answer to a charge of bad behavior. I never made the argument that raising prices was necessarily immoral. You made that stuff up because it was an easier to address straw man.

What I did say: "It's just economics" is not a refutation of "GW have treated their customers badly here." It is an explanation in the sense it is saying "GW doesn't care if it behaves poorly, it only cares about $." But that doesn't mean it hasn't behaved poorly. This is like saying a company has not behaved poorly if it cuts safety corners that led to the deaths of some of its customers, as long as it makes more money by doing so, because "that's just economics." It is neither here nor there to the moral charge. GW may or may not have behaved badly by raising prices here, but "it's just economics" is not a good argument for why they haven't.

That you've even thrown some ridiculous straw man in about everything being free shows how fundamentally unserious your response is. For someone who has bragged several times here about his job as a teacher at a prestigious institution, this is not encouraging behavior. Please try to actually understand what someone else is saying before launching into a lecture directed at a straw man.

soviet13 wrote:
Well, it doesn't really cost them anything to send out a message like that, and it might even do them a bit of good in terms of PR.

I think they went a step too far with the "if you are not in ideological lockstep with us, you will not be missed". It feels COMPLETELY at odds with the message of an open, welcoming Warhammer to then end with a literal "you are not welcome here". I don't know about other people, but I wish I could afford Warhammer models so that I could not buy them on principle. If they want to make the decision to play Warhammer into a moral one, I'm happy to oblige.

I think they mean it, too.

I think they meant the "you will not be missed". I don't think they meant the "Warhammer Is For Everyone" part.

Calling it empty posturing is not quite fair IMO.

You're right. I think they actually do intend to declare war against a sizeable portion of their audience as a distraction from what a greedy, exploitative company GW actually is. You have to admire the giant brass balls they must have to call the "female space marines are canonically destructive" players evil.

"People have been out of work for three months due to the lockdown and many of them have lost their jobs permanently, and we're going to raise prices even further, on kits both brand new and years old... but that guy over there prefers the old Repentia models!! He's what's really destroying this hobby!"

 Sqorgar wrote:

JWBS wrote:
It's because writing "We at [large Corporate entity] are committed to fighting injustice by posting images to Twitter communicating our disapproval of injustice. To that end, we offer you this sincere apology that expresses vague solidarity with your cause. We at [large Corporate entity] hope that this encourages you to view [large Corporate entity] as an ally, and continue to support [large Corporate entity] by buying our products. Thank you", on the face of it, costs them nothing.

I don't think anybody was fooled by their empty posturing. I'm just a little frustrated that GW cares more about the internet likes of people who aren't their customers (and never will be) rather than the people who actively, desperately want to be their customers but can't due to high prices.

It probably has more to do with keeping the hounds off their back that will (and have been) seeing the Imperium of Man's overtly fascist image and by not making a PR statement like pretty much every major company, they're 'endorsing nazis' or what have you. Personally I'm surprised it took them that long since they have a bigger target on their back than most companies.

I just went back to re-read the Warhammer is for Everyone thing in case I'd missed something. How could anyone possibly feel attacked or excluded by that?

soviet13 wrote:
I just went back to re-read the Warhammer is for Everyone thing in case I'd missed something. How could anyone possibly feel attacked or excluded by that?

The only people who I've seen take issue with it were those who felt it was patronising and 'PR speak'. I'm sure we've all seen the "We at [Brand] stand in solidarity without actually doing anything, but this is good PR spin."

I actually kinda get the guy's point re: "you will not be missed." This does feel strangely aggressive for what is an anodyne PR release that is designed to be as content-free as possible.

He's obviously exaggerating a lot re: "declaring war" on anybody and one wonders why. But it does seem weird they went out of their way to end their message on a "don't let the door hit you on the way out" note, rather than a "we're all in this together" note. It's certainly not what the PR textbook would recommend.

 MJRyder wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

I've never understood the strange way some people think that "it's the free market" is a response to a moral argument. The fact that GW doesn't care about anything besides making money is not a refutation of someone's charge that they are behaving badly; if anything, it is a confirmation of it.

Wow, I'm sorry, but there are an awful lot of problems with your argument, as you seem to be conflating several different ideas and assuming they are equivalent. I've highlighted two of the main issues above ^.

1) The free market point is *not* about morals. It's not a moral argument. Sure, you can make it a moral argument in the sense that 'capitalism=bad', but really, we're not going to bring down capitalism any time soon, so you really do need to move beyond the overly simplistic argument that rising prices is somehow immoral. After all, following your logic, everything should be free. And that of course, is a logical impossibility as the world as we know it would simply stop working.

2) Building on point #1, your second false assumption is that any sort of price rise is in somehow 'bad', and that GW are 'behaving badly'. Of course, 'bad' here is a relativistic argument. The point here is that everyone has choices. Just because GW (or any other company for that matter) raises prices, doesn't mean they are deliberately out to hurt you personally. They're certainly not 'behaving badly'. It's just economics.

I can give you a more detailed lesson on all of the above if you like, but I don't really want to bore everyone.

You are correct- the "free market" is amoral. The trouble with capitalism is that is is a system of exploitation and endless greed- the cause of most of the world's problems. The pursuit of profit is not an inherent good. Nice slippery-slope fallacy, by the way. No-one expects everything, or anything, to be free. Merely fairly priced. GW further raising their obscene prices, in the midst of a pandemic that has put hundreds of millions of people out of work, when we are likely heading into a global depression, is very much "behaving badly."

yukishiro1 wrote:

 MJRyder wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

I've never understood the strange way some people think that "it's the free market" is a response to a moral argument. The fact that GW doesn't care about anything besides making money is not a refutation of someone's charge that they are behaving badly; if anything, it is a confirmation of it.

Wow, I'm sorry, but there are an awful lot of problems with your argument, as you seem to be conflating several different ideas and assuming they are equivalent. I've highlighted two of the main issues above ^.

1) The free market point is *not* about morals. It's not a moral argument. Sure, you can make it a moral argument in the sense that 'capitalism=bad', but really, we're not going to bring down capitalism any time soon, so you really do need to move beyond the overly simplistic argument that rising prices is somehow immoral. After all, following your logic, everything should be free. And that of course, is a logical impossibility as the world as we know it would simply stop working.

2) Building on point #1, your second false assumption is that any sort of price rise is in somehow 'bad', and that GW are 'behaving badly'. Of course, 'bad' here is a relativistic argument. The point here is that everyone has choices. Just because GW (or any other company for that matter) raises prices, doesn't mean they are deliberately out to hurt you personally. They're certainly not 'behaving badly'. It's just economics.

I can give you a more detailed lesson on all of the above if you like, but I don't really want to bore everyone.

If you're going to shamelessly patronize someone, you should at least try to understand what they said before doing it.

Of course the free market point is not about morals. That was the whole point of my statement. If people are angry about price raises and feel betrayed by them, "it's just the free market" is not an answer to their charge that GW has behaved poorly. You are exactly the sort of person I am talking about not getting it at a basic level.

I wasn't making any "assumption" that GW was behaving badly. I was stating that "it's just the market" is not an answer to a charge of bad behavior. I never made the argument that raising prices was necessarily immoral. You made that stuff up because it was an easier to address straw man.

What I did say: "It's just economics" is not a refutation of "GW have treated their customers badly here." It is an explanation in the sense it is saying "GW doesn't care if it behaves poorly, it only cares about $." But that doesn't mean it hasn't behaved poorly. This is like saying a company has not behaved poorly if it cuts safety corners that led to the deaths of some of its customers, as long as it makes more money by doing so, because "that's just economics." It is neither here nor there to the moral charge. GW may or may not have behaved badly by raising prices here, but "it's just economics" is not a good argument for why they haven't.

That you've even thrown some ridiculous straw man in about everything being free shows how fundamentally unserious your response is. For someone who has bragged several times here about his job as a teacher at a prestigious institution, this is not encouraging behavior. Please try to actually understand what someone else is saying before launching into a lecture directed at a straw man.

These are big words for someone that literally just compared the price of plastic soldiers with a company that kills off its own customers through lack of safety measures.

What moral obligation does GW have to charge anything other than what it thinks it can get?

yukishiro1 wrote:
I actually kinda get the guy's point re: "you will not be missed." This does feel strangely aggressive for what is an anodyne PR release that is designed to be as content-free as possible.

He's obviously exaggerating a lot re: "declaring war" on anybody and one wonders why. But it does seem weird they went out of their way to end their message on a "don't let the door hit you on the way out" note, rather than a "we're all in this together" note. It's certainly not what the PR textbook would recommend.

Honestly? I don't care if it looks like good PR or not. They supported what's going on without doing the whole #BLM hashtag, and we still had people on their post disgusted by it for whatever reason. I say: they won't be missed to me, either.

JWBS wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
Just saw GW's "Warhammer Is For Everyone" black square, and my first reaction was, then why don't they make Warhammer something everyone can afford?

It's because writing "We at [large Corporate entity] are committed to fighting injustice by posting images to Twitter communicating our disapproval of injustice. To that end, we offer you this sincere apology that expresses vague solidarity with your cause. We at [large Corporate entity] hope that this encourages you to view [large Corporate entity] as an ally, and continue to support [large Corporate entity] by buying our products. Thank you", on the face of it, costs them nothing.

There were posts on the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page wanting GW to make a statement like the one that they did finally make. Would they have made that statement otherwise? Who knows...