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.

This is all a little out of date. There was a YouTube dislike campaign a couple of months ago, but it quickly finished. Look at today's videos; about 2000 likes each and a hundred or so dislikes. The ork box sold out, Killteam sold out, the black Templar box sold out. There's no boycott at all.

Chikout wrote:
This is all a little out of date. There was a YouTube dislike campaign a couple of months ago, but it quickly finished. Look at today's videos; about 2000 likes each and a hundred or so dislikes. The ork box sold out, Killteam sold out, the black Templar box sold out. There's no boycott at all.

You almost had me, then I took five seconds on the website and found the Black Templar box not sold out, because it never was sold out you just made all of that up.

caladancid wrote:

Chikout wrote:
This is all a little out of date. There was a YouTube dislike campaign a couple of months ago, but it quickly finished. Look at today's videos; about 2000 likes each and a hundred or so dislikes. The ork box sold out, Killteam sold out, the black Templar box sold out. There's no boycott at all.

You almost had me, then I took five seconds on the website and found the Black Templar box not sold out, because it never was sold out you just made all of that up.

No, that's a very US-centric take. It's sold out in most countries.

caladancid wrote:

Chikout wrote:
This is all a little out of date. There was a YouTube dislike campaign a couple of months ago, but it quickly finished. Look at today's videos; about 2000 likes each and a hundred or so dislikes. The ork box sold out, Killteam sold out, the black Templar box sold out. There's no boycott at all.

You almost had me, then I took five seconds on the website and found the Black Templar box not sold out, because it never was sold out you just made all of that up.

caladancid wrote:

Chikout wrote:
This is all a little out of date. There was a YouTube dislike campaign a couple of months ago, but it quickly finished. Look at today's videos; about 2000 likes each and a hundred or so dislikes. The ork box sold out, Killteam sold out, the black Templar box sold out. There's no boycott at all.

You almost had me, then I took five seconds on the website and found the Black Templar box not sold out, because it never was sold out you just made all of that up.

It's sold out in Japan (where they are, looking at their flag) and the UK (where I am).

 Stormonu wrote:
Eh, GW's been on a roll through the pandemic, insane growth can't last forever.

Just for clarity, this dip, and it is a significant dip albeit not of the magnitude of 8 or so years back, has nothing to do with growth, profit or any other aspect of GW's performance. (That last big one was a reaction to their failure to grow for the first time in forever.)

It is months since they published any figures and another set isn't due until 2022.

This is purely based on the stock market's impression of their viability as a stock. This isn't a reaction to GW's material performance, this is a reflection of opinion on their viability as an investment.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

caladancid wrote:

Chikout wrote:
This is all a little out of date. There was a YouTube dislike campaign a couple of months ago, but it quickly finished. Look at today's videos; about 2000 likes each and a hundred or so dislikes. The ork box sold out, Killteam sold out, the black Templar box sold out. There's no boycott at all.

You almost had me, then I took five seconds on the website and found the Black Templar box not sold out, because it never was sold out you just made all of that up.

No, that's a very US-centric take. It's sold out in most countries.

Well, the us is not some backwater hole. It is the biggest market by far for GW

 Stormonu wrote:
Eh, GW's been on a roll through the pandemic, insane growth can't last forever.

Between 3D printing, 9E, increasing prices and getting back out of the house again, I think its high time that the GW stock had a correction.

Anyways, I've moved on from GW after seeing the gorgeous minis folks are making available for 3D printing - and I mean stuff that has nothing to do with GW's games.

The heck insane growth can’t last forever. It’s what modern capitalism is built on. Insane growth has to last forever because the moment it doesn’t the economic system stops working.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
I choose to not understand the stock market, convinced it’s all smoke and mirrors and just a way for the rich to get richer.

Several studies have shown that ever world renowned fund managers actually don’t do better or worse than a computer programmed to buy and sell stocks at random. So nobody is ever going to convinced me that anyone involved at any level actually knows what they’re talking about.

That’s not true. We had representatives discuss Covid 19 in private, then immediately after that discussion and before the pandemic hit America, sell their stocks off while telling us everything is fine.

Also of note is that hedge funds absolutely understand the stock market and utilize that understanding to use the weight of their enormous capital to engage in market manipulation. They were so used to having all the power with market manipulation that they got our representatives to hold an emergency meeting when common folk on reddit beat them at their own game. But no emergency meetings for our failing healthcare infrastructure, Texas’s cold snap that literally froze people to death in their own homes, the storms hitting the southern coasts, or any other actual disaster...

Wealth has grown inexplicably for a very select few despite a lack of production and sales and that is because people that know what they are doing with the stock market are using it to inexplicable multiply their wealth.

GoatboyBeta wrote:
A UK based manufacturer and distributer of goods has a drop in its share price and its down to a half arsed boycott that's more about making noise on social media? Not the global supply chain being bent out of shape due to the ongoing global pandemic and the rolling cluster of Brexit? Sure

Here's the deal, stock market isn't real. Like, it's just as much about feefees of capitalists as anything real, so shares dropping a bit based on *potential* of loss of profit because fans are angry is just as plausible as anything else.

Will there really be any noticeable dip in profits? I don't know, we'll see how much the online anger translates to any actual results.

 Arbitrator wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There’s a boycott on?

There was, until GW revealed- well, literally anything new, at which point the fanbase's horrific lack of impulse control kicked in.

Any boycott of people who weren't already not buying GW products would never last longer than the Black Templar reveal.

Lol true i remember reading when this came out someone said "I barely bought from GW, so im just going to not anymore and pirate books and 3d print my army from now on" and im like, the fact you knew how to do it so well showed you never bought much before.
the people boycotting and 4chan/reddit memers who never played the game anyway.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
So triple figure prices for individual models can't motivate people to action against GW's bottom line, but interfere with a youtube channeln that DOESN'T AFFECT THE STATE OF THE GAME OR PRICE OF THE GAME AT ALL gets you galvanized to action?!?!?!?! Speaks SO much about the current player base...

Especially when GW haven't even done any of that "aggressive IP protection where they'll cease and desist everything" sort of stuff that some keep claiming. The whole appears to be the result of misinformation (seemingly in an attempt to try to find any reason to say GW is bad) or misunderstanding what's actually been going on.

For example the guidelines saying things like animations aren't allowed is something that has been there for the past 5 years at least.

Is that why GW is flexing its IP muscles right now for the whole world to see? Purposefully redirecting our gaze to their IP policy? Refusing to address the fact that these things and the threat of a possible cease and desist intimidated some of the content creators? Seems like the morally correct thing to do would have been to correct the public that such things are alright, or at least address the pissed off fans and innocent 3rd party content creators.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
So triple figure prices for individual models can't motivate people to action against GW's bottom line, but interfere with a youtube channeln that DOESN'T AFFECT THE STATE OF THE GAME OR PRICE OF THE GAME AT ALL gets you galvanized to action?!?!?!?! Speaks SO much about the current player base...

Especially when GW haven't even done any of that "aggressive IP protection where they'll cease and desist everything" sort of stuff that some keep claiming. The whole appears to be the result of misinformation (seemingly in an attempt to try to find any reason to say GW is bad) or misunderstanding what's actually been going on.

For example the guidelines saying things like animations aren't allowed is something that has been there for the past 5 years at least.

This is not true, and has been proven not true. You can compare the new version to the old version, and probably should before saying this. Additionally, they have without a doubt been enforcing or threatening enforcement far more than the past and have literally posted new jobs for said enforcement.

Maybe the argument you want to make is that the enforcement isn't bad? Plenty of people would disagree with you, but at least that is opinion based and not so obviously false.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There’s a boycott on?

There was, until GW revealed- well, literally anything new, at which point the fanbase's horrific lack of impulse control kicked in.

Any boycott of people who weren't already not buying GW products would never last longer than the Black Templar reveal.

Lol true i remember reading when this came out someone said "I barely bought from GW, so im just going to not anymore and pirate books and 3d print my army from now on" and im like, the fact you knew how to do it so well showed you never bought much before.
the people boycotting and 4chan/reddit memers who never played the game anyway.

3D printers appealed to me because of the ability to make bits for conversions was and literally everyone knows how to use BattleScribe and wahapedia to rip the rules off. It’s not much different than deciding to use a 3rd party to supply models, the latter of which I’m sure most imperial guard players and renegade and heretics players are plenty aware of.

Granted, they are launching another space marine chapter that will probably have another game breaking wombo combo that will have space marine players and meta chasers crawling back for more. This did cause negative speculation though and it is a huge hiccup that caused a stir with the shareholders, with whom the execs are solely responsible to. It may at least force GW to talk about giving some agency to the fans to control some part of the IP. The 40k and fantasy that made the IP worth a damn in the first place was largely given to the fans to be their own sand box to play in. Gouging on models in a capitalist system is necessary for the hobby to move forward; there is a finite amount of plastic that we are capable of purchasing and housing. Gouging on the domain that we fans are accustomed to owning and who many joined the hobby because of the freedom we had with the IP is something that is going to push a lot of the old guard out, and gouging on the rules is going to be an active barrier to new players getting in. It’s even pushing those that fit in the middle out as well.

Once they have pillaged the game for every dime it’s worth we’ll likely see them blow the current edition up and start over with a new index edition. I mean that’s what I would; it worked spectacularly for 8th.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Eh, GW's been on a roll through the pandemic, insane growth can't last forever.

Just for clarity, this dip, and it is a significant dip albeit not of the magnitude of 8 or so years back, has nothing to do with growth, profit or any other aspect of GW's performance. (That last big one was a reaction to their failure to grow for the first time in forever.)

It is months since they published any figures and another set isn't due until 2022.

This is purely based on the stock market's impression of their viability as a stock. This isn't a reaction to GW's material performance, this is a reflection of opinion on their viability as an investment.

Pretty much exactly this. While they haven't released figures for a bit, they did release a statement saying that their massive growth over the past couple of years isn't sustainable and investors shouldn't expect it to continue. Predictably, this spooked them.

caladancid wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
So triple figure prices for individual models can't motivate people to action against GW's bottom line, but interfere with a youtube channeln that DOESN'T AFFECT THE STATE OF THE GAME OR PRICE OF THE GAME AT ALL gets you galvanized to action?!?!?!?! Speaks SO much about the current player base...

Especially when GW haven't even done any of that "aggressive IP protection where they'll cease and desist everything" sort of stuff that some keep claiming. The whole appears to be the result of misinformation (seemingly in an attempt to try to find any reason to say GW is bad) or misunderstanding what's actually been going on.

For example the guidelines saying things like animations aren't allowed is something that has been there for the past 5 years at least.

This is not true, and has been proven not true. You can compare the new version to the old version, and probably should before saying this. Additionally, they have without a doubt been enforcing or threatening enforcement far more than the past and have literally posted new jobs for said enforcement.

Maybe the argument you want to make is that the enforcement isn't bad? Plenty of people would disagree with you, but at least that is opinion based and not so obviously false.

I am comparing the new version to the old version. Maybe you should compare the new version to the old version before saying that.



New version

Fan-films and animations – individuals must not create fan films or animations based on our settings and characters. These are only to be created under licence from Games Workshop.
Games and apps – individuals must not create computer games or apps based on our characters and settings. These are only to be created under licence from Games Workshop..

Basically, don't make games, apps, films and animations without a license from GW to do so.

Old version that was there since at least 2016

Licensing

If you think you have a winning idea and want to make a video game, an app, some merchandise, a movie or anything else that you will be distributing (either for free or at a cost) using Games Workshop’s IP then you need permission in the form of a license from Games Workshop.

Don't make games, apps, merchandise, movies or anything else (which therefore includes animations, which aren't excluded anywhere) without a license from GW to do so.

Go on then, how has it been "proven not true" that the guidelines say what they say.

That one last boycotteer after reading the title:

 streetsamurai wrote:

Well, the us is not some backwater hole. It is the biggest market by far for GW

It's also the one that is more independent shop focused than GW store centric.

If you don't think the rules are meant to be different, and support a different set of actions by GW, then why did they bother spending the time to edit and change them?

caladancid wrote:
If you don't think the rules are meant to be different, and support a different set of actions by GW, then why did they bother spending the time to edit and change them?

Because they wanted to re-word the entire document - both the friendlier guidelines section, and the infringement section - to use more succinct, shorter wording rather than the paragraphs and unnecessary length of the original? That much should be pretty obvious by just looking at the two versions and how the newer one is more briefly and somewhat more clearly worded. You've said it's "proven not true" that animations weren't allowed before, so please go ahead and prove how that doesn't say what it says, like you claimed?

One set of guidelines says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and animations, the other says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and "anything else", I'm curious to see just what you think the "different rules" are there that means somehow the former doesn't allow animations but the latter does.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

caladancid wrote:
If you don't think the rules are meant to be different, and support a different set of actions by GW, then why did they bother spending the time to edit and change them?

Because they wanted to re-word the entire document - both the friendlier guidelines section, and the infringement section - to use more succinct, shorter wording rather than the paragraphs and unnecessary length of the original? That much should be pretty obvious by just looking at the two versions and how more briefly worded. You've said it's "proven not true" though, so please go ahead and prove how that doesn't say what it says, like you claimed?

One set of guidelines says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and animations, the other says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and "anything else", I'm curious to see just what you think the "different rules" are there that means somehow the former doesn't allow animations but the latter does.

I honestly for a moment could not tell if you were just trolling. The quotes you have quite literally do not say the word animations. You can argue that they meant it, but they did not SAY it, until the revisions. And I am not an IP lawyer so I don't know how strictly courts interpret those notices, but apparently GW felt they needed to clarify. And, after the clarification, they began enforcement.

So claiming that it has always said what it said now, and means the same thing, and that GW isn't enforcing this stuff is verifiably not true.

caladancid wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

caladancid wrote:
If you don't think the rules are meant to be different, and support a different set of actions by GW, then why did they bother spending the time to edit and change them?

Because they wanted to re-word the entire document - both the friendlier guidelines section, and the infringement section - to use more succinct, shorter wording rather than the paragraphs and unnecessary length of the original? That much should be pretty obvious by just looking at the two versions and how more briefly worded. You've said it's "proven not true" though, so please go ahead and prove how that doesn't say what it says, like you claimed?

One set of guidelines says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and animations, the other says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and "anything else", I'm curious to see just what you think the "different rules" are there that means somehow the former doesn't allow animations but the latter does.

I honestly for a moment could not tell if you were just trolling. The quotes you have quite literally do not say the word animations. You can argue that they meant it, but they did not SAY it, until the revisions. And I am not an IP lawyer so I don't know how strictly courts interpret those notices, but apparently GW felt they needed to clarify. And, after the clarification, they began enforcement.

So claiming that it has always said what it said now, and means the same thing, and that GW isn't enforcing this stuff is verifiably not true.

Animations were not allowed before. The only way you could think they were allowed is if you, for some strange reason, think that they don't count as "anything else that you will be distributing using Games Workshop’s IP ". The new version outright saying "animation" rather than "anything else" doesn't change that they'd be covered under that term.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

caladancid wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

caladancid wrote:
If you don't think the rules are meant to be different, and support a different set of actions by GW, then why did they bother spending the time to edit and change them?

Because they wanted to re-word the entire document - both the friendlier guidelines section, and the infringement section - to use more succinct, shorter wording rather than the paragraphs and unnecessary length of the original? That much should be pretty obvious by just looking at the two versions and how more briefly worded. You've said it's "proven not true" though, so please go ahead and prove how that doesn't say what it says, like you claimed?

One set of guidelines says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and animations, the other says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and "anything else", I'm curious to see just what you think the "different rules" are there that means somehow the former doesn't allow animations but the latter does.

I honestly for a moment could not tell if you were just trolling. The quotes you have quite literally do not say the word animations. You can argue that they meant it, but they did not SAY it, until the revisions. And I am not an IP lawyer so I don't know how strictly courts interpret those notices, but apparently GW felt they needed to clarify. And, after the clarification, they began enforcement.

So claiming that it has always said what it said now, and means the same thing, and that GW isn't enforcing this stuff is verifiably not true.

Animations were not allowed before. The only way you could think they were allowed is if you, for some strange reason, think that they don't count as "anything else that you will be distributing using Games Workshop’s IP ". The new version outright saying "animation" rather than "anything else" doesn't change that they'd be covered under that term.

GW HQ Circa Summer 2021---

Exec- "Hey James, with COVID shipping and Brexit going so great, can we finally start working on those to-do items that have been hanging around?"

James Workshop- "Now that is a great idea. We do have the extra manpower just hanging around."

Exec- "I was thinking maybe this small little document we have had in place for the better part of a decade. I keep meaning to get around to it, but its so meaningless that it keeps getting forgotten."

James- "Let's do it. What is it, the font on the webpage or what?"

Exec- "No its the IP section, we don't intend to ever use it, but why not just change the wording on everything?"

James- "Yes excellent idea. It isn't like IP law is an extremely complicated section of the law that has its own separate bar exam. This is such a low priority, get the intern on it. Anything they add will be meaningless anyway!"

Exec- "What could go wrong?"

caladancid wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

caladancid wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

caladancid wrote:
If you don't think the rules are meant to be different, and support a different set of actions by GW, then why did they bother spending the time to edit and change them?

Because they wanted to re-word the entire document - both the friendlier guidelines section, and the infringement section - to use more succinct, shorter wording rather than the paragraphs and unnecessary length of the original? That much should be pretty obvious by just looking at the two versions and how more briefly worded. You've said it's "proven not true" though, so please go ahead and prove how that doesn't say what it says, like you claimed?

One set of guidelines says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and animations, the other says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and "anything else", I'm curious to see just what you think the "different rules" are there that means somehow the former doesn't allow animations but the latter does.

I honestly for a moment could not tell if you were just trolling. The quotes you have quite literally do not say the word animations. You can argue that they meant it, but they did not SAY it, until the revisions. And I am not an IP lawyer so I don't know how strictly courts interpret those notices, but apparently GW felt they needed to clarify. And, after the clarification, they began enforcement.

So claiming that it has always said what it said now, and means the same thing, and that GW isn't enforcing this stuff is verifiably not true.

Animations were not allowed before. The only way you could think they were allowed is if you, for some strange reason, think that they don't count as "anything else that you will be distributing using Games Workshop’s IP ". The new version outright saying "animation" rather than "anything else" doesn't change that they'd be covered under that term.

GW HQ Circa Summer 2021---

Exec- "Hey James, with COVID shipping and Brexit going so great, can we finally start working on those to-do items that have been hanging around?"

James Workshop- "Now that is a great idea. We do have the extra manpower just hanging around."

Exec- "I was thinking maybe this small little document we have had in place for the better part of a decade. I keep meaning to get around to it, but its so meaningless that it keeps getting forgotten."

James- "Let's do it. What is it, the font on the webpage or what?"

Exec- "No its the IP section, we don't intend to ever use it, but why not just change the wording on everything?"

James- "Yes excellent idea. It isn't like IP law is an extremely complicated section of the law that has its own separate bar exam. This is such a low priority, get the intern on it. Anything they add will be meaningless anyway!"

Exec- "What could go wrong?"

As it turns out, nothing went wrong as the shills kept-a shilling.

Bah, let the people believing the articles mean something have their victory lap or whatever. Stock market is very volatile, anyway.

My bet is in a few months, it will be forgotten.

caladancid wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

caladancid wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

caladancid wrote:
If you don't think the rules are meant to be different, and support a different set of actions by GW, then why did they bother spending the time to edit and change them?

Because they wanted to re-word the entire document - both the friendlier guidelines section, and the infringement section - to use more succinct, shorter wording rather than the paragraphs and unnecessary length of the original? That much should be pretty obvious by just looking at the two versions and how more briefly worded. You've said it's "proven not true" though, so please go ahead and prove how that doesn't say what it says, like you claimed?

One set of guidelines says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and animations, the other says you need a license for video games, apps, movies and "anything else", I'm curious to see just what you think the "different rules" are there that means somehow the former doesn't allow animations but the latter does.

I honestly for a moment could not tell if you were just trolling. The quotes you have quite literally do not say the word animations. You can argue that they meant it, but they did not SAY it, until the revisions. And I am not an IP lawyer so I don't know how strictly courts interpret those notices, but apparently GW felt they needed to clarify. And, after the clarification, they began enforcement.

So claiming that it has always said what it said now, and means the same thing, and that GW isn't enforcing this stuff is verifiably not true.

Animations were not allowed before. The only way you could think they were allowed is if you, for some strange reason, think that they don't count as "anything else that you will be distributing using Games Workshop’s IP ". The new version outright saying "animation" rather than "anything else" doesn't change that they'd be covered under that term.

GW HQ Circa Summer 2021---

Exec- "Hey James, with COVID shipping and Brexit going so great, can we finally start working on those to-do items that have been hanging around?"

James Workshop- "Now that is a great idea. We do have the extra manpower just hanging around."

Exec- "I was thinking maybe this small little document we have had in place for the better part of a decade. I keep meaning to get around to it, but its so meaningless that it keeps getting forgotten."

James- "Let's do it. What is it, the font on the webpage or what?"

Exec- "No its the IP section, we don't intend to ever use it, but why not just change the wording on everything?"

James- "Yes excellent idea. It isn't like IP law is an extremely complicated section of the law that has its own separate bar exam. This is such a low priority, get the intern on it. Anything they add will be meaningless anyway!"

Exec- "What could go wrong?"

Quite absurd that you're now having to resort to making up your own imaginary stories rather than trying to actually argue why animations were allowed under those guidelines before and for some strange reason don't come under "anything else that you will be distributing using Games Workshop’s IP ", you'd think that wouldn't be too difficult if it's been "proven".

Sarouan wrote:

My bet is in a few months, it will be forgotten.

We've forgotten all about the people that crashed the global economy in 2008, this will be forgotten come November

I'd say the sloppy introduction of 9th edition, the failed 40K App, returning to steep price hikes, increasing prices on starters, aggressive DLC style books, brexit and delivery problems hit them more than the IP issues, but they add to the list.

All seriousness, we just need to look at the prices people were putting on Gamestop or AMC theaters stock not all that long ago because of "reading the internet" to know that it's all bunk anywho.

Gamestop and AMC were basically memes+those who purposefully rode the memes into pump and dump tho, unlike this.

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

caladancid wrote:

Chikout wrote:
This is all a little out of date. There was a YouTube dislike campaign a couple of months ago, but it quickly finished. Look at today's videos; about 2000 likes each and a hundred or so dislikes. The ork box sold out, Killteam sold out, the black Templar box sold out. There's no boycott at all.

You almost had me, then I took five seconds on the website and found the Black Templar box not sold out, because it never was sold out you just made all of that up.

No, that's a very US-centric take. It's sold out in most countries.

Well, the us is not some backwater hole. It is the biggest market by far for GW

There are several reasons why US is their biggest market. The fact of their upcharge to USA of around 30% and the fact they don't let US online sales advertise at more then a 15% discount. There are stores in Europe that sell product at above 15% off discount off of the European prices but these stores are forbidden from shipping to the USA by their contract.

If USA did boycott these practices it would be great as their stock holders would lose their mind. Problem is in the USA people have no self control. They are to use to the I want I get it. Most USA consumers have no clue what is going on and don't really care enough to attempt to force a change. Luckily we have been seeing a lot of content providers on social media telling people to vote with their hobby dollars. I still am not sure the consumer understands the impact they could have by simply boycotting GW and insisting on a change.