New Games Workshop NDA for influencers UPDATE 2: The document appears to be real.

[RileyArlic]

If your channel completely relies on a tabletop game company giving you early access to product to be successful, maybe you need to reconsider your life choices.

I've seen plenty of channels that talk about whatever they want just from blurry potato-cam images and early teasers, making 10-minute+ videos out of a single screenshot of a single model.

If signing GW's NDA is critical to your business, you'll sign it. If it's not, you won't. If you're smart, you'll take it to a lawyer and renegotiate it. If you can't afford a lawyer, maybe you shouldn't be signing contracts you don't understand. 

Warhammer is not a need, it's a want. I'm not telling anyone to not be angry about the NDA, by all means your feelings are valid, but let's try to keep things in perspective. Being a wargaming channel reviewing early access to product is a luxury, and not at all a need for channels to be successful. God forbid you actually buy the product to review it. Maybe if some of these channels did that, they'd give more honest reviews one way or another. 

[zilberfrid]

1 hour ago, RileyArlic said:

If your channel completely relies on a tabletop game company giving you early access to product to be successful, maybe you need to reconsider your life choices.

I've seen plenty of channels that talk about whatever they want just from blurry potato-cam images and early teasers, making 10-minute+ videos out of a single screenshot of a single model.

If signing GW's NDA is critical to your business, you'll sign it. If it's not, you won't. If you're smart, you'll take it to a lawyer and renegotiate it. If you can't afford a lawyer, maybe you shouldn't be signing contracts you don't understand. 

Warhammer is not a need, it's a want. I'm not telling anyone to not be angry about the NDA, by all means your feelings are valid, but let's try to keep things in perspective. Being a wargaming channel reviewing early access to product is a luxury, and not at all a need for channels to be successful. God forbid you actually buy the product to review it. Maybe if some of these channels did that, they'd give more honest reviews one way or another. 

These people have a job, it's making youtube videos. If they can get a thorough review in at the time the models are released to the public, this helps that public making an educated choice.

It's not just getting a few models sent for free, it's getting them early enough that they have a review ready when it releases (not that GW sends stuff early enough to do that review thoroughly, but that's a different conversation).

If this abomination is the way GW chains down creators, you would now know that all release day reviews are biased. But others do not, and GW tries to hide it.

I fault and avoid Uber and Amazon for their dealings with indentured serv... ehh, contractors, and I will shame and avoid GW for the same.

[Greybeard86]

Again the same? Aren’t we all in the era of influencers and online reviews? Are we all aware that people make this for a living?  I mean at this point I wonder what the motivation for posting yet again: “don’t like don’t sign” is. 

Informed consumers lead to better markets. This is well established and a strong policy focus nowadays. 

GW paying tit for tat with reviewers is bad for us, a shady business strategy and not inconsequential. It is not only an ethical question, it affects our bottom line same as it affects GW’s.

[RileyArlic]

Have you guys not heard "Wait for the REAL reviews?" in literally any other industry? 

Have none of you heard "Stop Preordering"? 

A lot of this is due to people over-hyping a release, typically of a video game, that ends up underperforming, but the wisdom, this simple wisdom, can apply to GW product as well. Sponsored reviews are very typical in many industries, from washing machines to lego sets, and it's no surprise that GW might want to try to do the same with this new NDA. Even if all of the content creators are shifted into this type of NDA, they have a decision to make: Get the product early and free just to get a video out faster, or get the product later and at cost, and give an unbridled opinion. BOTH content creators can make money and keep their livelihoods going, especially since many people will likely shift over to the non-sponsored creators to view their opinions before purchasing a product, and heck, who knows, maybe this will finally start to cool off the pre-order hype of so many of GW's new games and models. 

To me, a lot of the debate here seems to be centered around whether or not you think that content creators are the 'victim' or not. Obviously, if you have read or listened to stuff by Kirioth or Goobertown, you'll likely think that the content creators are all being horribly victimized by these contracts. 

If you don't like the contract you're given, you can renegotiate it or not sign up for it. If you sign up for it, you are making a conscious choice to follow GW's rules. GW is not forcing anyone to sign these, and by suggesting this will ruin a channel or content creator because they can't get things early is amateur at best. A channel ruined by this sort of thing likely didn't have a lot going for it anyway, and likely those sorts of channels weren't approached to sign on to this sort of contract in the first place! 

Maybe instead of overinflating this issue, we need to consider the larger habits at play. Way too often people are clambering over themselves to get at new product, so much so that scalpers have seen GW product as a prime target for scalping. This is because of how absolutely ravenous people are to have a chance to add to their growing pile of gray plastic. Maybe if people started to wait for the "REAL reviews", we'd have a much more even flow of product, fewer knee-****** reactions, and a cooler temperature in conversations.

Instead what we have is a scenario where as soon as a single blurry page of a codex is leaked, people start buying up as many of the new 'broken' or 'meta' model as possible, or FOMO into a new game, which only turns that game into a prime target for scalping. 

Instead of creating a situation where content creators NEED to get access to the information early, or apparently their entire livelihood goes bust, maybe we as a community can foster a little more patience...

...nah, easier to just demonize GW. 

[RileyArlic]

9 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:

Again the same? Aren’t we all in the era of influencers and online reviews? Are we all aware that people make this for a living?  I mean at this point I wonder what the motivation for posting yet again: “don’t like don’t sign” is. 

Informed consumers lead to better markets. This is well established and a strong policy focus nowadays. 

GW paying tit for tat with reviewers is bad for us, a shady business strategy and not inconsequential. It is not only an ethical question, it affects our bottom line same as it affects GW’s.

Yes, informed consumers. Informed consumers also tend to be patient consumers, willing to read the reviews fully when they come out, not fall into the hype of some sponsorship and immediately pre-order something. 

"Informed Consumer" does not equal "person that saw a video review a week ahead of release and rushed to preorder it as soon as it went live at noon, Saturday", but neither are they mutually exclusive. You can be an informed consumer while also waiting for more information to come to light. You CAN be *informed* and also *patient* for your preferred content creator to come out with their review. If there were more people like this, content creators wouldn't need to jump on every blurry potato-cam leak that comes by. 

[The Red King]

14 minutes ago, RileyArlic said:

Instead of creating a situation where content creators NEED to get access to the information early, or apparently their entire livelihood goes bust, maybe we as a community can foster a little more patience...

...nah, easier to just demonize GW

Let's say there's 10,000 people on this forum who all agreed to make efforts to make the change you suggested (how we would do that is unclear but if it was as simple as checking a box let's say we all did it.)

 

Then what? We can't change "consumer culture" with our spending habits. We are a blip on the market even if you took every single person on this forum and doubled them. So yes it is in fact easier to lay the blame at the feet of the people who have the power to make a change.

 

That's like saying "china produces a lot of green house gasses but you're using regular plastic straws. Maybe we should all switch to metal straws, no it's easier to demonize major polluters."

 

I just intrinsically lack the ability to understand a thought process that excuses all corporate missteps while simultaneously suggesting that individuals are solely and wholly responsible for not being perfectly concious customers.

Edited October 8, 2021 by The Red King

[Greybeard86]

Exactly. The mental gimnastics required to blame on the consumers the shady behavior of the corporation are next level. Strong arming reviewers with private NDAs is bad behavior an anti consumer regardless of anything else.

Then blaming FOMO on us is like criticizing people for buying a chocolate cookie by the cash register. They are out to get you and, as a consumer, you play at a disadvantage since companies are going hard after blind spots.

Maybe, just maybe, if we actually condemned shady behavior when we find out about it we wouldn’t have to be so freaked guarded when dealing with certain corporations, such as GW.

Edited October 8, 2021 by Greybeard86

[yukishiro1]

The logic doesn't really work even if everybody did boycott and disregard advance reviews. It's not "demonizing" GW to suggest that the simplest solution to the problem is for GW not to force people to sign contracts like this to get advance copies of its materials. We know this works just fine, because it's the process GW has used up to now: we know from other youtubers that the NDAs they've signed are not like this one. 

It isn't "demonizing" to suggest a company could and should just keep doing what it has been doing in the past, which has led to 43% profit margins, instead of doing this new thing. 

 

Edited October 8, 2021 by yukishiro1

[RileyArlic]

I said my piece. If you guys want to keep being angry about the NDA, by all means, go right ahead. I prefer to see consumers as individuals, each individual capable of making their own decision. If their decision is to keep buying GW product despite the NDA, then that, in turn, is their own decision. 

Maybe I'm wrong, I have a different perspective then the lot of you. I've been bigger into the video game scene, where a lot of this stuff seems no-brainer. Like I said, waiting for the real reviews is not an issue to me, but apparently it is to GW customers. 

Then I just wonder, why the heck are all of you here, arguing on a GW forum? What do you want us all to do about it, if not to try to enact some sort of change in behavior? Shall we all write angry letters to GW? Cool, send me a template and I'll write one too if I agree with it. 

In the mean time, I'm going to go back to working on my GW models and ignore people that try to dictate how I have fun in my hobby. 

[yukishiro1]

Nobody's trying to dictate how you have fun. You don't need to take umbrage or declare your implicitly superior credentials and "perspective." People can disagree without looking down their noses at one another. If you don't have anything more to add, please just don't add anything more.

The points you've made re: "why bother?" have all been brought up earlier in the thread and addressed, so I wouldn't be surprised if people don't feel any particular need to rehash them again, especially for the benefit of someone who has already declared what they're doing to be a waste of time. 

edit: Sorry, that maybe came out a little more negative than I intended. It just doesn't seem to be a great use of anyone's time to discuss each other instead of the topic. If you think the topic's a waste of time that's not worth discussing, there seems like a pretty clear solution there. 

Edited October 9, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Mattrulesok]

2 hours ago, RileyArlic said:

aybe I'm wrong, I have a different perspective then the lot of you. I've been bigger into the video game scene, where a lot of this stuff seems no-brainer. Like I said, waiting for the real reviews is not an issue to me, but apparently it is to GW customers. 

What? The video game industry is worse, it's full of sycophants who send death threats to anyone who dares criticise their precious game developers. Personal responsibility was a huge topic a couple of years ago and continues to be in the video game space, in particular around loot boxes and dlc gambling mechanics, it was so much of a problem that some national governments had to step in and ban actual gambling mechanics from games because they are predatory and as an issue extend way beyond personal responsibility. 

 

It's 'down to the individuals' is an absolute cop out when discussing the predatory business tactics of corporations. 

 

Back on topic, this NDA is gross, is it real? No idea but that doesn't stop the document we've seen being bad, real or fake.

Buying positive reviews is gross, silencing criticism of your product is gross, acting like corporations are your friend is gross. I'm not even talking about GW here, this behaviour sucks and should not be tolerated in any company. 

[Orbei]

2 hours ago, RileyArlic said:

If you guys want to keep being angry about the NDA, by all means, go right ahead. I prefer to see consumers as individuals, each individual capable of making their own decision. If their decision is to keep buying GW product despite the NDA, then that, in turn, is their own decision. 

I'm not sure what you're arguing against here. No one is saying that people should not buy GW products, are they? Of course consumers can make their own decisions. 

As a consumer this influences me negatively towards GW. Not by itself enough to cause me to boycott them, because I don't look at things as absolutes. But it seems clearly designed to restrict objective information that consumers have available, and I've yet to hear any compelling alternative explanation. I'm not happy about that! If GW's business practices aren't relevant to you... Okay?

2 hours ago, RileyArlic said:

Then I just wonder, why the heck are all of you here, arguing on a GW forum? What do you want us all to do about it, if not to try to enact some sort of change in behavior? Shall we all write angry letters to GW? Cool, send me a template and I'll write one too if I agree with it. 

 

In the mean time, I'm going to go back to working on my GW models and ignore people that try to dictate how I have fun in my hobby. 

This is a discussion forum for a GW game. This is a discussion about their business practices that directly impact us as hobbiests. Are you saying that people should never say they aren't happy with something GW is doing here? This should be a 100% positivity GW rally? That seems weird to me.

And... Cool! I painted some IDK tonight. Who is trying to dictate your hobby enjoyment?

I am confused as to what or who you seem to be defending yourself against.

[ArkanautDadmiral]

He does hit on a point that’s bothered me time and again here.

What am I to do with the information that GW is shady?

I went from being on the fence during this drama to believing the NDA was real. Great, you guys convinced me… now what?

Now I’m aware that GW aren’t consumer friendly. What should I do? Is it enough that I’m just aware? What does that achieve? Surely there’s some sort of action to take? No one presents this though. It just seems like saying GW is bad is enough to excuse ourselves continuing to perpetuate the cycle.

In regards to content creators too. Can someone give me examples of those that do REVIEWS.

Almost all of the content creators I know of make 99% GW content. What does a review matter from them? Everything they talk about is from the same company. I could understand if they were reviewing competing products too but it just doesn’t seem that way.

Maybe I’m just the wrong target, I don’t think I’ve ever needed a review to inform my decision about a GW product. My thought process is, does that model look cool? Great, done.

I don’t play or collect miniatures from any other company either, but that’s mainly because I know nothing about any others, and the tidbits I’ve seen haven’t grabbed me. If these content creators covered other products more often, we might see interest and communities grow for them. But they don’t, they stick to GW, because either they prefer the GW games to everything else too, or they’re aware their bank balance is better for focusing on GW. At what point is it not ok for them to chase the money?

So I just couldn’t take a review from anyone who only reviews GW products seriously anyway, what’s the point?

Imagine a channel that only reviewed EA games.

Or a channel that only reviewed a certain brand of car, a certain brand of power tool. Why would you listen to them?

I understand why the NDA is bad because generally we’ve had a pretty good discussion here. But I think it’s worse for the creator than it is consumers like people are saying. If the content creator landscape was different I might feel otherwise.

If the action I’m expected to take is not buy GW products, then I’m out of the hobby. I’ve no interest in 3D printed stuff or third party proxies. Pretty sure my FLGS wouldn’t appreciate that my stance on GW means I’m not handing money over to those guys anymore too. And I’m not going to force myself into another system that doesn’t interest me.

Ive only had two answers to this question before, 1 was to 3D print etc, the other was to not say bad things to people who don’t like GW, which I didn’t even feel warrants a response because it goes both ways and doesn’t answer the question.

So please, I’ve opened my eyes, I realise GW employs shady tactics. What should I do now? Tell me how that knowledge can help me try to affect change.

Edited October 9, 2021 by ArkanautDadmiral
Autocorrect

[The Red King]

@ArkanautDadmiral For me personally, knowledge is the end goal of the discussion. I'm not getting out of the hobby over this but being aware of predatory and anti consumer policies is important for me because it will help me make informed choices about whether or not to stay in the hobby and how I spend my money while I am in.

 

People can't say "consumers should just be smarter with their purchasing" while simultaneously  saying "theres no need for us to discuss businesses shady practices". The former requires the latter.

[Orbei]

5 hours ago, ArkanautDadmiral said:

So please, I’ve opened my eyes, I realise GW employs shady tactics. What should I do now? Tell me how that knowledge can help me try to affect change.

I understand where you're coming from. My view is pretty much the same as The Red King's. 

Personally, I don't believe an email to GW will accomplish anything. Nor will a personal boycott. The voice of a single consumer is of very little concern to most companies. It's generally when there is widespread outrage and bad press that positive action is taken to remedy things. The conversation helps though. Raising awareness and spreading a topic to others, so they can in turn be informed and broaden the conversation. Like a snowball, as the conversation grows it will be easier for others to find and perhaps reach the level where GW takes action. Perhaps not, but at least we will all be better informed from it.

5 hours ago, ArkanautDadmiral said:

Maybe I’m just the wrong target, I don’t think I’ve ever needed a review to inform my decision about a GW product. My thought process is, does that model look cool? Great, done.

Yeah, I get this. There are certainly some models that I know I want simply at a glance. Here's what I enjoy learning about from content creators. What do they think about the rules after a new army book is released? The pros and cons of a faction? How does it actually play on the table? What are the potential issues of new models? How do the models assemble, what bits are there to use? New start collecting ork boyz are a good example of this. You can't tell just by looking at the box, but the models are monopose and you only get 3 shootas, so to field a unit of 30 shootas you need to buy 90 Boyz. This would be pretty annoying to learn about after making the purchase, believing the kit can be assembled to field a unit option allowed by the codex.

Regardless, even if I didn't value any reviews I would still disapprove of an NDA that is unusually restrictive like this. Clearly some people value the content this effectively aims to muzzle, evidenced by the thousands of views they receive. And yes, I realize that creators who don't get the early release models by signing the NDA could still make such content. That does not validate the shady NDA aimed at reducing critical content, in my eyes.

Edited October 9, 2021 by Orbei
.

[ArkanautDadmiral]

53 minutes ago, The Red King said:

@ArkanautDadmiral For me personally, knowledge is the end goal of the discussion. I'm not getting out of the hobby over this but being aware of predatory and anti consumer policies is important for me because it will help me make informed choices about whether or not to stay in the hobby and how I spend my money while I am in.

 

People can't say "consumers should just be smarter with their purchasing" while simultaneously  saying "theres no need for us to discuss businesses shady practices". The former requires the latter.

See, I just can’t get behind knowledge being the end game. Where’s the line for you to make an action? I.e. not spending money on GW until they change?

If the person telling me GW is awful is still happy to spend their money with them, what are they hoping to accomplish by telling me how awful they are?

I’m just trying to drive a conversation here by the way because I’m genuinely interested and quite conflicted myself. I want to buy and play AoS but the GW issues are making me much less enthusiastic about doing so. I’ve not bought anything since dominion and have no plans to buy anything else at the moment. No plans to play any games at the moment either. I keep coming here mainly to see if anything in the rumour thread gets me excited but I generally keep coming away less interested.

 

[ArkanautDadmiral]

26 minutes ago, Orbei said:

I understand where you're coming from. My view is pretty much the same as The Red King's. 

Personally, I don't believe an email to GW will accomplish anything. Nor will a personal boycott. The voice of a single consumer is of very little concern to most companies. It's generally when there is widespread outrage and bad press that positive action is taken to remedy things. The conversation helps though. Raising awareness and spreading a topic to others, so they can in turn be informed and broaden the conversation. Like a snowball, as the conversation grows it will be easier for others to find and perhaps reach the level where GW takes action. Perhaps not, but at least we will all be better informed from it.

Yeah, I get this. There are certainly some models that I know I want simply at a glance. Here's what I enjoy learning about from content creators. What do they think about the rules after a new army book is released? The pros and cons of a faction? How does it actually play on the table? What are the potential issues of new models? How do the models assemble, what bits are there to use? Ork boyz are a good example of this. You can't tell just by looking at the box, but the models are monopose and you only get 3 shootas, so to field a unit of 30 shootas you need to buy 90 Boyz. This would be pretty annoying to learn about after making the purchase, believing the kit can be assembled to field a unit option allowed by the codex.

Regardless, even if I didn't value any reviews I would still disapprove of an NDA that is unusually restrictive like this. Clearly some people value the content this effectively aims to muzzle, evidenced by the thousands of views they receive. And yes, I realize that creators who don't get the early release models by signing the NDA could still make such content. That does not validate the shady NDA aimed at reducing critical content, in my eyes.

The NDA is bad we’ve established that, that’s not my point. I’m happy to agree with you about all of that. My problem is that the conversation stops there, we acknowledge it’s bad and then continue to open our wallets and keep doing what we’ve always done. Nothing changes. And I don’t believe GW will see a need to change anything if the people complaining are still spending money, signing the NDAs etc. If everyone is behaving the way GA want why would they change anything?

We must surely have some responsibility ourselves as consumers.

Your Ork example is a good one, I would want to know that first. They do still make sprue images available though that would show that right? The information is available? I thought generally GW we’re ok about saying what the kit makes but I couldn’t find anything in this case except the sprue images. 
 

Youd only need to buy 90 of that Boyz sculpt though right? Not the other boyz available? It sounds like a situation similar to the new Chaos warriors?

[Sinbin]

The conversation stops at "The NDA is bad" because the next step would involve dictating the choices of other consumers.  The "So What" will differ heavily from person to person.  The line in the sand, where enjoyment/enfranchisement is no longer enough to continuing consuming a company's product, is wildly different from person to person.  There's not much of a discussion beyond that.  I had a "line in the sand" moment with a big videogame company a few months back, but I didn't pressure my friends to cancel their subs --- I chose to end my subscription and explained why.  They're choosing to still support the company.  There's not much to talk about because the stakes are very low out here in hobby-land.  

 

The NDA is bad.  For me, personally, who had a line in the sand moment with GW just half a decade ago and saw a (tiny bit)-more pro-consumer GW emerge afterwards, it means very little.  GW was shady and is still shady.  My guard was already up and my interaction with GW is limited to buying enough models to participate in a few, yearly sanctioned tournaments and 3d print everything else.  It doesn't change my habits, my line in the sand hasn't been crossed.  But discussions like this are good.  In order to qualify the "So What", discussions like this one need to take place.

[yukishiro1]

1 hour ago, ArkanautDadmiral said:

The NDA is bad we’ve established that, that’s not my point. I’m happy to agree with you about all of that. My problem is that the conversation stops there, we acknowledge it’s bad and then continue to open our wallets and keep doing what we’ve always done. Nothing changes. And I don’t believe GW will see a need to change anything if the people complaining are still spending money, signing the NDAs etc. If everyone is behaving the way GA want why would they change anything?

I mean, sort-of. But one thing that has changed about GW is that it is more sensitive to its perception on social media than it used to be. GW from the mid 2010s wouldn't have put out a "Warhammer is for everyone, if you disagree, you won't be missed" PR release, they would have just ignored the fact that a vocal minority of the community was undesirable, to put it mildly. There are also examples in recent history of mass fan mobilization having results. All the protests about Indomitus forced the company to offer to make more boxes. When GW wrecked AOS a few weeks ago with that FAQ that fouled up ward saves, they fixed it within days. I guarantee you that was because they were getting hammered on social media (which forums are included in) for it.

Now yes, there are limits to that. GW offered to make more Indomitus boxes, but it never even apologized for Cursed City, much less offered to do anything about it. So far it's been studiously silent about the low pay scandal, except to seed a few friendly papers like the Guardian with friendly stories. It's also maintained radio silence about the NDA issues. But they're definitely watching and listening. Simply expressing opposition to GW's approach obviously isn't as good as actually putting your money where your mouth is, but that doesn't mean it's completely useless. Public perception isn't everything to corporations, but it also isn't nothing. It can definitely impact decision-making around peripheral things that don't matter all that much to the ultimate bottom line, like this. 

[whispersofblood]

19 hours ago, The Red King said:

Let's say there's 10,000 people on this forum who all agreed to make efforts to make the change you suggested (how we would do that is unclear but if it was as simple as checking a box let's say we all did it.)

 

Then what? We can't change "consumer culture" with our spending habits. We are a blip on the market even if you took every single person on this forum and doubled them. So yes it is in fact easier to lay the blame at the feet of the people who have the power to make a change.

 

That's like saying "china produces a lot of green house gasses but you're using regular plastic straws. Maybe we should all switch to metal straws, no it's easier to demonize major polluters."

 

I just intrinsically lack the ability to understand a thought process that excuses all corporate missteps while simultaneously suggesting that individuals are solely and wholly responsible for not being perfectly concious customers.

The China example isn't a particularly good one since the greenhouse gas production is literally the outcome of what he is talking about... The West's obsession with consumption.

I don't think @RileyArlic argument is that flawed tbh. As basically your counter point amounts to: grassroots change or organization is doomed to failure anyway because consumers are seemingly incapable of personal responsibility... so the whole thread becomes moot regardless as the only logical conclusion is that consumers will continue to give views to whomever gets them out first. But we'll have a 12 page moan about some perfidious act or another, while continuing the behaviour the act seeks to benefit from.

I Do believe social media and forums can provide push back on some stuff. Like FAQ's or other product related issues. But policy tends to boil right down to customer buying behaviour very quickly.

I could however just be rounding into middle age and settling comfortably in my middle age curmudgeon role and be obviously wrong about everything. It's just my opinion at the end of the day. 

[The Red King]

 

3 hours ago, whispersofblood said:

grassroots change or organization is doomed to failure anyway because consumers are seemingly incapable of personal responsibility

My counter argument is: Personal responsibility is a buzzword refrain used by corporations to make you feel like you're not doing your part to save the planet so you cant complain when the truth is that corporate entities account for far more pollution and environmental damage than we could ever hope to counter by using cloth napkins and to parrot that refrain in any context is playing into the kind of inter-class conflict that corporations love to foster so that we don't look up.

The truth is that the debate is pointless. It ultimately boils down to pro and anti corporate individuals which is outside the scope of the kind of conversation we can reasonably carry on here on TGA.

6 hours ago, ArkanautDadmiral said:

If the person telling me GW is awful is still happy to spend their money with them, what are they hoping to accomplish by telling me how awful they are?

This is a catch22 whether you intended it or not. If I wasn't "happy to spend my money" the refrain would change to "well your opinion doesnt really matter because you're not even a player in the community anymore." Or "what are you doing on an AoS board if you don't play AoS?" Or at worst "bye you wont be missed." All sentiments that I have seen expressed here on this site before. 

This is going to sound overly dramatic but I'm not sure how else to phrase it so please know I do not take the matter as seriously as this is going to sound. 

 

I'm not you or anyone else's revolutionary leader. I'm not here to direct you in some uprising against corporate interests or GW and to set the bar for having an opinion at "you must immediately provide me with actionable commands or I won't take you serioisly" is a ridiculous goal post. 

There is no world in which covering up shady business practices makes the world a better place. There just isn't, so I don't understand people who feel the need to come and defend a billion dollar corporation from our mean and terrible slander (not really because slander would have to be... well untrue.)

 

Caveat emptor, buyer beware, personal responsibility. If you (this stopped being directed at the person I'm quoting almost immediately just so we're clear) want to use any of those as an excuse for allowing anti consumer business practices than you must either encourage the dissemination of information to potential customers or admit that you're just using a buzz word to deflect criticism from a corporation that you feel compelled to defend despite them caring less than 2 cents about your life even if they knew you existed.

[ArkanautDadmiral]

8 minutes ago, The Red King said:

 

My counter argument is: Personal responsibility is a buzzword refrain used by corporations to make you feel like you're not doing your part to save the planet so you cant complain when the truth is that corporate entities account for far more pollution and environmental damage than we could ever hope to counter by using cloth napkins and to parrot that refrain in any context is playing into the kind of inter-class conflict that corporations love to foster so that we don't look up.

The truth is that the debate is pointless. It ultimately boils down to pro and anti corporate individuals which is outside the scope of the kind of conversation we can reasonably carry on here on TGA.

This is a catch22 whether you intended it or not. If I wasn't "happy to spend my money" the refrain would change to "well your opinion doesnt really matter because you're not even a player in the community anymore." Or "what are you doing on an AoS board if you don't play AoS?" Or at worst "bye you wont be missed." All sentiments that I have seen expressed here on this site before. 

This is going to sound overly dramatic but I'm not sure how else to phrase it so please know I do not take the matter as seriously as this is going to sound. 

 

I'm not you or anyone else's revolutionary leader. I'm not here to direct you in some uprising against corporate interests or GW and to set the bar for having an opinion at "you must immediately provide me with actionable commands or I won't take you serioisly" is a ridiculous goal post. 

There is no world in which covering up shady business practices makes the world a better place. There just isn't, so I don't understand people who feel the need to come and defend a billion dollar corporation from our mean and terrible slander (not really because slander would have to be... well untrue.)

 

Caveat emptor, buyer beware, personal responsibility. If you (this stopped being directed at the person I'm quoting almost immediately just so we're clear) want to use any of those as an excuse for allowing anti consumer business practices than you must either encourage the dissemination of information to potential customers or admit that you're just using a buzz word to deflect criticism from a corporation that you feel compelled to defend despite them caring less than 2 cents about your life even if they knew you existed.

Everyone always has personal responsibility, it’s not a buzzword. That’s not to say a corporation doesn’t have any responsibility, but we’re never excused from being responsible for ourselves.

I’m personally responsible for everything I do, if I decide to gamble away all my money, that’s my responsibility. We have to be accountable for our own actions.

[The Red King]

2 hours ago, ArkanautDadmiral said:

Everyone always has personal responsibility, it’s not a buzzword. That’s not to say a corporation doesn’t have any responsibility, but we’re never excused from being responsible for ourselves.

I’m personally responsible for everything I do, if I decide to gamble away all my money, that’s my responsibility. We have to be accountable for our own actions.

To continue your analogy and tie it back to what I mean it would be like if we were having a conversation about the many MANY psychological tricks that casinos employ to get people to gamble away their money and when we say "it's bad that they do that" the response is "well people should be smarter with their money." 

 

Yes. They should, but that's not the discussion. We're discussing the myriad of ways corporations go about trying to make sure they are less smart with their money. Your statement is true but it isn't really apropos to the complaint we're making. The fact that someone shouldn't go for the candy under a box with a stick and string attached to it doesn't in any way exonerate the person who set up the box and pulls the string.

Edited October 9, 2021 by The Red King

[ArkanautDadmiral]

9 hours ago, The Red King said:

To continue your analogy and tie it back to what I mean it would be like if we were having a conversation about the many MANY psychological tricks that casinos employ to get people to gamble away their money and when we say "it's bad that they do that" the response is "well people should be smarter with their money." 

 

Yes. They should, but that's not the discussion. We're discussing the myriad of ways corporations go about trying to make sure they are less smart with their money. Your statement is true but it isn't really apropos to the complaint we're making. The fact that someone shouldn't go for the candy under a box with a stick and string attached to it doesn't in any way exonerate the person who set up the box and pulls the string.

I can agree with that , hence why I said personal responsibility doesn’t absolve a corporation of responsibility. but it’s not what you said. You said personal responsibility is just a buzz word. Just as personal responsibility doesn’t absolve the corporation of theirs, the corporation doesn’t absolve us of our own. Maybe I misunderstood but you seemed to imply that personal responsibility doesn’t exist and it’s a buzzword manufactured by corporations. That’s why I took exception.

Just because a casino has tactics to try and make you spend more than you have doesn’t mean that you’re not also to blame for making the wrong choices. Both can be true. Just because someone got burnt by a shady business tactic or a scam or whatever doesn’t mean they didn’t make a wrong choice. I agree the scam shouldn’t happen, but they do, so we must look out for ourselves. Especially if the end game is the knowledge that the scam/shady tactic happens and not action to make it stop. If your end game is knowledge then it falls to personal responsibility to make the better choice with it.

We’re going round in circles with this though, because as I’ve already said, you’re preaching to the converted. Only I obviously put more onus on personal choice and responsibility than you who seems to sit the majority of it at the corporations door. That’s cool if you feel that way. I disagree though.

Ultimately my hope is that all the big content creators cover much less GW, and much more of other systems and hopefully affect the imbalance in the market place.

We could boycott GW official events, rather than GW as a whole. Protest outside stores etc. Stop visiting GWs sites for information and get it from third parties instead. Easy things that don’t stop people from playing with their models, and these are just ideas off the top of my head. That’s what I’ve been dissatisfied with, I’m never presented with ideas like this by the most vocal against GWs actions in these discussions, so it ends up feeling to me (and this isn’t aimed at the person I’m quoting or anyone in particular so we’re clear) like people just want to spout anti capitalist platitudes to satisfy a fetish more than anything. It seems like it’s all talk, literally. I can respect the people who say 3D print everything in this regard, even if I don’t agree, because at least they’re presenting an idea.

I suppose that’s the end for me in these conversations now, because I’m aware of the shady practices… so I suppose I’ll just carry on as usual then.

[Greybeard86]

4 hours ago, ArkanautDadmiral said:

I suppose that’s the end for me in these conversations now, because I’m aware of the shady practices… so I suppose I’ll just carry on as usual then.

It doesn't need to be so drastic, all or nothing.

For example, in the case of the NDA, you could stop supporting (no patreon, no views) reviewers that take GW's deals. We know that there is at least one "big" youtuber who revoked his "reviewer" deal with GW. If you do care about the "integrity" of reviews, this is an easy move which would nullify GW's attempt to control them.

In general, small gestures are powerful. If reviewers do not get GW deals, they can cover other miniature ranges freely (without fear of retaliation by GW). If other ranges get attention, people will buy more, and this will put competitive pressure on GW, which can only benefit us.

There are many more such things we can do as a community, ranging in the level of involvement. If you are against "only GW no 3rd party bits", do not go to GW events (or tournies that impose those rules). If you don't like GW's rules, embrace, within your community, older versions of the ruleset, or event third party rules. If you don't like GW's prices (e.g. gargants), print 3rd party giants (or by them printed on etsy).

These are just some examples of being a consciencious consumer without going full on revolutionary. Don't feel discouraged, that's what corporations bank on, blind spots and the feeling of indefension. You have plenty of power ;).

Edited October 10, 2021 by Greybeard86