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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
Ok, what in the feth is a "TV license"

Some countries have to pay the government to fund broadcast TV. It's what funds the BBC.

It is the reason a lot of UK TV shows are a longer length than other countries' shows. We don't get adverts on the BBC, so we get more content.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Companies really need to realize their shareholder reports are public documents.

You don't get to brag about record profits in one outlet and the plead poverty in another one.

Sure you do, you just need a legion of unpaid promoters who will defend your actions no matter what.

Record profits were during pandemic shutdown. Their profit dropped a fair amount (obviously not in a manner to cry poverty ) on the last report and people here were just recently claiming ( again ) that it was the death knell due to 3D printing, so...maybe some people just value objectivity over drama.

It's likely that the difference between the two years was a popular 40k edition launch in summer 2020 versus an underwhelming AOS launch in summer 2021. Based on how many Dominion boxes are still around I'm sure their sales targets weren't close to being met.

I reckon that's one of the reasons we're now seeing a strong push on 40k releases before the end of the fiscal year in June. It's telling that AOS is on track to get just four new character models by summer while 40k is looking likely to have 6+ codexes and many new model releases in the same timeframe.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
Ok, what in the feth is a "TV license"

Some countries have to pay the government to fund broadcast TV. It's what funds the BBC.

We already do. Through regular taxes. Plus they have commercials.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jadenim wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
Ok, what in the feth is a "TV license"

If you own a TV connected to an aerial in the UK (I.e. so you can receive broadcast signals*) you have to have pay an annual fee, which is used to fund the BBC and other public broadcasting. Effectively it’s a tax to fund public broadcasting, but it’s called a licence and it’s administered in a weird, separate way due to historical reasons.

* I think it now covers live streaming from BBC iPlayer, etc. too now, but I don’t know the details, because I’ve never looked into the loopholes.

Well, that's kind of fething backwards. Thanks for the info

 Albertorius wrote:
Ok, what in the feth is a "TV license"

Several points of view exist over the UK's TV licence.

They range from 'It's what allows the BBC to be a world leader in producing quality TV for all' to 'It's what allows the BBC to be a Marxist cesspit producing any old crap knowing they can threaten a granny with prison if it isn't paid while throwing £2million to Gary Lineker to talk about football'.

Individuals mileage may vary.

The only way to legally not pay it is to watch Netflix, Amazon Prime and so on through a computer and not own a TV or live stream the BBC.


Imagine legally having to pay GW an annual fee when you only want to play Warlord's Black Powder!

 TalonZahn wrote:
The GoBots are like the Kmart of Transformers.

Technically, they are Transformers now.

alphaecho wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
Ok, what in the feth is a "TV license"

Several points of view exist over the UK's TV licence.

They range from 'It's what allows the BBC to be a world leader in producing quality TV for all' to 'It's what allows the BBC to be a Marxist cesspit producing any old crap knowing they can threaten a granny with prison if it isn't paid while throwing £2million to Gary Lineker to talk about football'.

Individuals mileage may vary.

The only way to legally not pay it is to watch Netflix, Amazon Prime and so on through a computer and not own a TV or live stream the BBC.


Imagine legally having to pay GW an annual fee when you only want to play Warlord's Black Powder!

Well, as I said, we pay taxes, and the public TV is financed through that and commercials. So, technically, we pay for it even if we don't have a TV. So... ^^

 Albertorius wrote:
Well, that's kind of fething backwards. Thanks for the info

Y'know what's even better? If you stream anything at all on any device, phone, tablet, computer, whatever, you still have to pay the license fee.
The problem is that it does provide a service, like how paying taxes pays for things like the NHS, and just because you might not use that service ever doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. The BBC does like 60 odd radio stations, 9 TV channels, a news service that is nominally "independent" and stuff like the BBC World Service.
That being said, if you're lucky like me, the licensing authority has no support from the local government in enforcing payment of the fee so it's not really something people here care/worry about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

alphaecho wrote:
The only way to legally not pay it is to watch Netflix, Amazon Prime and so on through a computer and not own a TV or live stream the BBC.

Nope, the coverage was expanded when streaming became popular.

alphaecho wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
Ok, what in the feth is a "TV license"

'It's what allows the BBC to be a Marxist cesspit producing any old crap knowing they can threaten a granny with prison if it isn't paid while throwing £2million to Gary Lineker to talk about football'.

Anyone who believes this is most likely suffering from a serious head trauma and 100% has YouTube recommendations filled with videos of angry men screaming at TV licence inspectors.

It would be nice if companies and institutions in this country could exist to provide a good service and not have to be forced into pushing for profit because of total lack of funding.

But since that is the miserable system which people seem to extol virtues for so we pay the price for our little plastic men.

 xttz wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Companies really need to realize their shareholder reports are public documents.

You don't get to brag about record profits in one outlet and the plead poverty in another one.

Sure you do, you just need a legion of unpaid promoters who will defend your actions no matter what.

Record profits were during pandemic shutdown. Their profit dropped a fair amount (obviously not in a manner to cry poverty ) on the last report and people here were just recently claiming ( again ) that it was the death knell due to 3D printing, so...maybe some people just value objectivity over drama.

It's likely that the difference between the two years was a popular 40k edition launch in summer 2020 versus an underwhelming AOS launch in summer 2021. Based on how many Dominion boxes are still around I'm sure their sales targets weren't close to being met.

I reckon that's one of the reasons we're now seeing a strong push on 40k releases before the end of the fiscal year in June. It's telling that AOS is on track to get just four new character models by summer while 40k is looking likely to have 6+ codexes and many new model releases in the same timeframe.

Wasn't there a thread in News & Rumors that AoS exceeded their expectations? 2021 was relatively huge in AoS releases compared to 40k so I imagine they are trying to zig-zag the release schedule. Last year we had new/updated Soulblight as well as brand new Hedonites, Stormcasts, and new Orruks which apparently sold really well. The big release in that timeframe for 40k was Beastsnaggas and SoB with a smaller release with Black Templars. I would not be surprised if they would want to shake their release schedule from year to year, and that is before counting all the release delays due to BREXIT and COVID.

 Gert wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
Well, that's kind of fething backwards. Thanks for the info

Y'know what's even better? If you stream anything at all on any device, phone, tablet, computer, whatever, you still have to pay the license fee.
The problem is that it does provide a service, like how paying taxes pays for things like the NHS, and just because you might not use that service ever doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. The BBC does like 60 odd radio stations, 9 TV channels, a news service that is nominally "independent" and stuff like the BBC World Service.
That being said, if you're lucky like me, the licensing authority has no support from the local government in enforcing payment of the fee so it's not really something people here care/worry about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

alphaecho wrote:
The only way to legally not pay it is to watch Netflix, Amazon Prime and so on through a computer and not own a TV or live stream the BBC.

Nope, the coverage was expanded when streaming became popular.

This isn't correct. You only have to pay a license fee in the UK when streaming if you stream live, broadcast content, or if you stream BBC content via iPlayer.

On-demand streaming from Netflix/Amazon et al does not require a License Fee to be paid.

The BBC are not perfect (heck considering almost the entire Top Gear production team left working for them in one go to jump to Amazon suggests more than one punch caused the shift) and have some bad apples; but in general terms it produces some fantastic stuff. There's a reason the BBC wildlife programs are almost second to none and why so many programs are viewed the world over.


The licence per person is also pretty small by all counts - £160 per household per year. Granted things like Amazon Prime are cheaper at around £80-90 - though Amazon makes up for that by then making money off purchases that you're bound to make because now you'v got free postage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Phazer wrote:

This isn't correct. You only have to pay a license fee in the UK when streaming if you stream live, broadcast content, or if you stream BBC content via iPlayer.

On-demand streaming from Netflix/Amazon et al does not require a License Fee to be paid.

Yep that's how I understood it too. For a time BBC iPlayer let you watch catch-up without any licence registration, but I think now you have to in order to access it (its been ages since I use catch up via pc/internet).

 blood reaper wrote:

alphaecho wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
Ok, what in the feth is a "TV license"

'It's what allows the BBC to be a Marxist cesspit producing any old crap knowing they can threaten a granny with prison if it isn't paid while throwing £2million to Gary Lineker to talk about football'.

Anyone who believes this is most likely suffering from a serious head trauma and 100% has YouTube recommendations filled with videos of angry men screaming at TV licence inspectors.

I refuse to pay it now Eggheads has moved to Channel 5 and will only resume when the Beeb starts reshowing Neighbours following Channel 5 dropping the show.

I'm lying. I can never stop while Countryfile is still a thing.

alphaecho wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:

alphaecho wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
Ok, what in the feth is a "TV license"

'It's what allows the BBC to be a Marxist cesspit producing any old crap knowing they can threaten a granny with prison if it isn't paid while throwing £2million to Gary Lineker to talk about football'.

Anyone who believes this is most likely suffering from a serious head trauma and 100% has YouTube recommendations filled with videos of angry men screaming at TV licence inspectors.

I refuse to pay it now Eggheads has moved to Channel 5 and will only resume when the Beeb starts reshowing Neighbours following Channel 5 dropping the show.

I'm lying. I can never stop while Countryfile is still a thing.

I have to admit whilst its far more entertainment focused, I'd rather watch Clarksons Farm over Countryfile. Countryfile always feels so - sterile - a view of the countryside. Or at least only seems to look at it through a very specific focal point.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Wasn't there a thread in News & Rumors that AoS exceeded their expectations?

GW wrote into their report that AoS 3rd was the biggest Fantasy Launch ever, without any hint by what margins (as it could be from most core boxes sold to most core boxes produced or even most ads on youtube)

but GW also counted the number of "how often an AoS Trailer showed up on the YT feed front page" as views to give the shareholders an impression how popular the IP is

Wildly OT now. The main thing about the Licence is what independent company would consider investing in and making Countryfile if they had to sell it to make a profit. The Beeb have that guaranteed income stream to make niche programs.

Now, when my cousin moved to the Netherlands in the late 80s, she loved being able to watch Eastenders via the Beeb signal without having to pay the fee.

 kodos wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Wasn't there a thread in News & Rumors that AoS exceeded their expectations?

GW wrote into their report that AoS 3rd was the biggest Fantasy Launch ever, without any hint by what margins (as it could be from most core boxes sold to most core boxes produced or even most ads on youtube)

but GW also counted the number of "how often an AoS Trailer showed up on the YT feed front page" as views to give the shareholders an impression how popular the IP is

I just think the sales of Dominion is a really bad metric to gauge interest in AoS. Indomitus had one of the largest selling miniature line in history of miniatures(Space Marines), whereas Dominion had Stormcast and new orc range. Even people who complain about Space Marines buy Space Marines, that's how well that gak sells.

So if GW really wanted to end the fiscal year on a high note they should technically be selling us more Space Marines and a 2.0 Codex for 9th. It would infuriate a lot of people, but GW's wallets would explode.

alphaecho wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:

alphaecho wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
Ok, what in the feth is a "TV license"

'It's what allows the BBC to be a Marxist cesspit producing any old crap knowing they can threaten a granny with prison if it isn't paid while throwing £2million to Gary Lineker to talk about football'.

Anyone who believes this is most likely suffering from a serious head trauma and 100% has YouTube recommendations filled with videos of angry men screaming at TV licence inspectors.

I refuse to pay it now Eggheads has moved to Channel 5 and will only resume when the Beeb starts reshowing Neighbours following Channel 5 dropping the show.

I'm lying. I can never stop while Countryfile is still a thing.

99.99% of people can probably just watch Beeb programmes by simply saying "Yes, I have a TV licence' on BBC iPlayer - it's not like they force you to do a check or anything. They just take you at your word. It's great.

I have no overall issue with the fee. I watch a lot of the Beeb.

I find Lineker's pay a little obscene though. My personal opinion is that the Beeb should have a set maximum wage. If any 'Talent' feel they're worth more, they and their Agents can venture out into the free market.

 Eldarsif wrote:
So if GW really wanted to end the fiscal year on a high note they should technically be selling us more Space Marines and a 2.0 Codex for 9th. It would infuriate a lot of people, but GW's wallets would explode.

That is what Horus Heresy 2.0 is for. I am very interested in this because its my main system.

Glumy wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
So if GW really wanted to end the fiscal year on a high note they should technically be selling us more Space Marines and a 2.0 Codex for 9th. It would infuriate a lot of people, but GW's wallets would explode.

That is what Horus Heresy 2.0 is for. I am very interested in this because its my main system.

Me too. Although I fear that with the tank and everything the box will be next level pricing.

 Gert wrote:

The problem is that it does provide a service, like how paying taxes pays for things like the NHS, and just because you might not use that service ever doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. The BBC does like 60 odd radio stations, 9 TV channels, a news service that is nominally "independent" and stuff like the BBC World Service.

On the underlined point, I think it does raise the question of whether everyone should still be paying for said service if only a minority are actually using it.

This is a licence that dates back to an era when TVs had maybe 3 channels, and two of them were the BBC.

I think one can fairly make a case that there is no longer such a dearth of TV channels that a state-broadcaster is necessary (and this isn't even considering all the internet-based programs and such).

That kind of thinking is how we end up with nothing but reality shows on TV and the top 40 on the radio - if anything that should all be left to the private sector and the BBC focus on more specialist stuff

 vipoid wrote:
I think one can fairly make a case that there is no longer such a dearth of TV channels that a state-broadcaster is necessary (and this isn't even considering all the internet-based programs and such).

If one wanted to argue that any content that isn't commercially viable shouldn't exist.

On the underlined point, I think it does raise the question of whether everyone should still be paying for said service if only a minority are actually using it.

Which in turn raises the question of whether the mark of a decent society is how it provides for minorities and marginalised groups, even though it means the majority pay for something they will not access or need. If I don't pay for service X that I don't use should the same apply to service Y. E.g. The majority pay for council services that they will never use, but are of huge benefit for minority and marginalised groups.

it is funny how this threat turned into "should Solidarity exist?"

and yes, all of us paying for something, so the price for everyone stays low, to produce things that just a minority needs and won't be able to afford otherwise, should be the standard not the exception

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I think one can fairly make a case that there is no longer such a dearth of TV channels that a state-broadcaster is necessary (and this isn't even considering all the internet-based programs and such).

If one wanted to argue that any content that isn't commercially viable shouldn't exist.

Think it’s time for an OT Topic to discuss the BBC.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Ah, it’s the price rise bitching thread time of year, is it?

You only seem to enter threads to comment on the people discussing the topic.

HBMC complaining about people complaining about people is a bit rich.

Cheers for the chuckle. Needed that this morning! I’ll leave you to the ill-informed armchair financial analytics and politics-ban-breaching side spats. Because there isn’t anything of value in this thread. No one likes prices rises. I think it sucks. But a circle jank of whining about it with bonus infighting achieves what exactly?

Remarkable that you could look at the title of a topic, know exactly what it will contain, drop a turd into it, roll around in it, and then flap away while proclaiming you're above this.

Overall I've never had an issue with GW being highly profitable. They are a non-essential good, and GW being profitable lets them take risks with product launches. I don't think we'd have gotten (edit: PLASTIC) Necromunda or Kill Team or Blood Bowl if Games Workshop had a 4-7% profit margin. I don't think we'd get multiple weekly releases if GW had a 4-7% profit margin. I remember when GW was a private company and you'd see one new plastic kit a month along side a handful of metal casts.

I have bigger issues with their game design, especially Codex design and edition churn, which is basically a lot of money for a big hardcover that's invalid 2 years after it's purchased. I don't buy many army books these days - they take up a ton of shelf space and are way too expensive. In earlier editions the perfect bound 48 page books were way easier to manage for the exact same real functionality in playing the game. They were also cheap enough to be disposable and editions lasted longer.

A 10% price hike in books just makes them even more unattractive.

Dudeface wrote:
To the people who are saying they should just absorb the increased costs via the profits.

How would you like it if your employer had to pay increased tax for you as an employee, so they're using your pay rise to cover it, so rather than keeping up with the cost of living you're comparatively worse off?

Yes they're putting prices up out of a form of need/greed, yes they could absorb them, but they're obligated not to and there's no reason the owners of the company (stakeholders) should de facto take the hit, simply because the customers don't like paying more.

Why do people continue to repeat this nonsense? This simply is not true. There is no obligation, legal or otherwise, for a company to always put the pursuit of short-term profits above all other considerations. It does not exist. It was made up out of whole cloth by some right-wing economists to justify a right-wing economic agenda, and it took decades for it to actually catch on because it was such a radical departure from prior ideas. It has never become the law; it remains in the domain of right-wing pontification, even if it's managed to enter the common consciousness. Even the people they credit like Hayek didn't actually believe the radical version of the theory that's become "common sense" to legions of duped people on the internet.