Jump to content

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


HollowHills

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Orbei said:

Sarouan, I am curious if you watched the Hoeg's law video on the NDA? Regardless, we seem to have quite different views on acceptable business practices and the purpose/value of content creators. 🙂 I don't want to go down a rabbit hole of back and forth on the matter. It's good that this won't negatively impact you.

I vaguely watched it, but honestly I didn't really dig it too deep because well...as I said, it all goes down to "don't sign it if you don't agree with it".

People aren't forced to sign a NDA to post youtubes videos talking about GW products. Or post on a forum. Or post on social medias in general.

And purpose/value is indeed for content creators...but not especially the viewers, here. Because who is getting the products free / well in advance thanks to a partnership with GW ? The content creator who signed with GW...certainly not its viewers.

So yeah, I totally get why some of these content creators try to make a noise about it and try to make it look like it matters for their viewers as well...I mean, yes in a way, but not really in another...they're likely to get a video from their favorite content creator, either way.

After all, a dishonest youtuber will still be dishonest, abusive NDA signed or not.

Edited by Sarouan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the important part for the customer is very simple, you cannot know if a review as a paid advertisement or a real review

anyone making a YT video, write in Forums or post on social media that is positive about something new from GW could be under that NDA and is not allowed to tell you
someone coming here on how awesome the new rules are after his first game, could as well be someone under NDA and you don't know for real unless you bought into things yourself

now with free warscrolls gone, no chance to try things before you buy it and with the knowledge that any positive talking about that product could be just advertisement from GW

there is a reason why independent reviews exist or you could rate products yourself and of course you rather by the 5 star product but you don't know if all the 5 star ratings are fake or not

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Kodos der Henker said:

the important part for the customer is very simple, you cannot know if a review as a paid advertisement or a real review

That's true. You also cannot be totally sure of a youtuber's own bias talking more than his real objective opinion.

 

35 minutes ago, Kodos der Henker said:

anyone making a YT video, write in Forums or post on social media that is positive about something new from GW could be under that NDA and is not allowed to tell you

And the other way around : someone posting a positive review being automatically suspected of being a NDA / partnership with GW. Or someone posting a negative review being automatically a "honest person saying things as they are".

Ash from Guerilla Miniature Wargames often get comments saying he's been paid by GW and his opinion isn't genuine because he gets free products from them in advance and so on. That's not necessarily true...see his reviews on Cursed City if you want to see more about this.

It's also a problem, but if you look GW negatively, you tend to give less importance to it in comparison. And it's not that weird either...you look at what is comforting you in your beliefs first, after all.

 

35 minutes ago, Kodos der Henker said:

someone coming here on how awesome the new rules are after his first game, could as well be someone under NDA and you don't know for real unless you bought into things yourself

That will be the only way to be 100% sure if it suits yourself or not. ;)

A good thing you don't especially have to buy it first, though...most of my local shops allow me to flip some pages and see if the book suits me before buying it. :P

 

35 minutes ago, Kodos der Henker said:

now with free warscrolls gone, no chance to try things before you buy it and with the knowledge that any positive talking about that product could be just advertisement from GW

Please. Free warscrolls weren't used for "trying things before you buy", it was just to see what are the aptitudes / characteristics of the unit. Moreover, without the cost in points and other rules from the Battletome, it wasn't enough to really "try things before you buy".

Even with free warscrolls, people were still looking for reviews showing the battletome and go to the point of the video where points / army special rules and optimizations were.

Free warscrolls were just a part that is sadly gone now...but true players willing to wait and see never relied on them only to make their informed opinion as if they wanted to buy the unit or not. Those were always waiting for the full battletome review (or consulting it at their local shop, which is still a favorite way to be sure 100% and make a honest opinion themselves :D ).

I guess new players could be "fooled" by the warscroll to click on the "buy" button (if they came here first, chances are someone leads them here and took the time to explain how the game works previously), not having the full picture with battletome review...but then, in a way, having free warscrolls gone makes sure that mistake can't happen again. :P

 

35 minutes ago, Kodos der Henker said:

there is a reason why independent reviews exist or you could rate products yourself and of course you rather by the 5 star product but you don't know if all the 5 star ratings are fake or not

Even with independant reviews, the problem is still here. Because "independant" doesn't mean "honest" nor "objective" - or even you can't have any personnal interest influencing your own opinion one way or the other (for example, you simply hate GW and want them to disappear - you'll tend to be quite mean to say the least in your own reviews about their own products, even if you're technically "independant"). Not even talking about the subjective way a star system can be set by one independant and another may have a different view on it. Not all "5 stars" have the same values for everyone reviewing.

But I agree having no ties with a company whose products you advertise certainly helps to be feel more free about what to say. Well...in a way again. The platform itself you're using doesn't especially allow you to say litterally anything you want as well, after all.

Edited by Sarouan
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To fair people already complain about early accessor being bias already (Rob from Honest wargammer has talk about this numerous times) stuff like toxic positivity and schilling has been concern about misinforming the community. 

At the end of the day, consumer just got to be smarter at either make their own decision, at who they listen to, and how they purchase stuff. Because their wallet are what matters in the end

like for me I honestly rarely watch any product review. The only exception is Ash’s book preview where he just literally read the book and I can just make some quick opinions on them for myself.

if it about how those who comfy into GW can get early access and then a leg up on the view and like counts which equals more ad revenues compare to those who don’t get thing early. Well that just how thing have ended up these day. access media bias is more of a broader problem then just GW small lake, like the movies and video games  industry have also been faulted for these kind of things too. GW are more likely to give early products to people like 2+tough or AoScoach who appear more positive about things and look at things half full then those who are more high strung about ( I mean look how this forum manager decided who become MODs lol)

Edited by novakai
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, if the leak is true and that Arch guy's screenshots appearing in his videos are legit as well...I think the intention of the leaker isn't really to warn the community about the "abusive NDA contract", but rather have the community weigh in so that the leaker (and other content creators as well) can have a better deal benefiting him.

But it's not for the sake of "the benefit of the viewers", here...it's more simply using it to gain a better deal, because they know they can have more weigh negociating if they're not alone (especially if the community is behind them). In a few words : gaining the butter, the money and the butter seller's smile. Not the viewers, the content creator. If he has a better deal, he'll be more than happy to sign it, keep his free stuff and still do whatever he wants in his videos, including giving subjective opinion leaning more one way or the other than it should be objectively.

Would make them sense he doesn't want to "ruin his relationship with GW" and would rather stay anonymous.

But again, it's just assuming everything is true...and yeah, it's better not to think to deep into it in the end.

Edited by Sarouan
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sarouan said:

To be honest, if the leak is true and that Arch guy's screenshots appearing in his videos are legit as well...I think the intention of the leaker isn't really to warn the community about the "abusive NDA contract", but rather have the community weigh in so that the leaker (and other content creators as well) can have a better deal benefiting him.

But it's not for the sake of "the benefit of the viewers", here...it's more simply using it to gain a better deal, because they know they can have more weigh negociating if they're not alone (especially if the community is behind them). In a few words : gaining the butter, the money and the butter seller's smile. Not the viewers, the content creator. If he has a better deal, he'll be more than happy to sign it, keep his free stuff and still do whatever he wants in his videos, including giving subjective opinion leaning more one way or the other than it should be objectively.

I mean let's suppose for a minute that was true, putting aside that you have zero evidence of that (and have just been making arguments about how we shouldn't assume it's real because there is not enough evidence - yet here you are speculating about someone who you don't even know the identity of, much less know anything about). Based on your view of the world...wouldn't that be totally legitimate? Just like it's legitimate for GW to try to get him to sign their very one-sided contract? You can't really wave away GW doing things for its own benefit with a "that's how the world works" and then criticize someone else for allegedly doing the exact same thing. 

If everybody's just out to make a buck for themselves and morality is for suckers, what goes for the goose also goes for the gander. 

Edited by yukishiro1
  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, yukishiro1 said:

I mean let's suppose for a minute that was true, putting aside that you have zero evidence of that (and have just been making arguments about how we shouldn't assume it's real because there is not enough evidence - yet here you are speculating about someone who you don't even know the identity of, much less know anything about). Based on your view of the world...wouldn't that be totally legitimate? Just like it's legitimate for GW to try to get him to sign their very one-sided contract? You can't really wave away GW doing things for its own benefit with a "that's how the world works" and then criticize someone else for allegedly doing the exact same thing. 

If everybody's just out to make a buck for themselves and morality is for suckers, what goes for the goose also goes for the gander. 

Zero evidence ? The screenshots appear in the Arch video, don't they ? I think it's as much evidence as your "leaked" NDA contract here.

And it's not up to me to judge if something is legitimate or not, like you seem to do with GW here.

Besides...GW isn't forcing that guy to sign their allegedly NDA contract. Does it look one-sided ? Well...we don't know what the guy gets in return, if true. So yes, since we don't have that information, it sures looks one-sided.

But to me, you're judging without having all the cards in your hand, IMHO. You're just too eager to blame GW and defend the poor "leaker" here.

Morality has also nothing to do here. Especially because it's not the same depending on the culture, education and surroundings. What is moral in one country may be immoral in another. That's why right-wingers love to invoke that...always implying theirs is the only that matters, obviously. ;)

Edited by Sarouan
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, novakai said:

At the end of the day, consumer just got to be smarter

*The tone of my post felt aggressive so I wanted to preface with a statement that it isn't meant to be.*

 

This is a blanket statement that excuses any actions taken by a million dollar corporation scientifically designed to affect the consumers ability to make smart purchases. 

 

That's not even a claim of big business being evil or anything, just that PR and marketing are huge industries designed around using psychology to influence people's decision making so saying it's not the companies fault is shifting the blame in a way I find egregious.

 

And I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but that argument always reads to me as "it's their fault if they fell for a con." Instead of blaming... yknow... the guy running the game?

Edited by The Red King
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sarouan said:

 

But to me, you're judging without having all the cards in your hand, IMHO. You're just too eager to blame GW and defend the poor "leaker" here.

 

And yet you've just judged someone you don't even know the identity of - simply declaring that you think he's doing it for selfish reasons, to get a better deal. This is why people are having trouble taking what you're saying seriously here - you're accusing others of doing what you have done to the n-th degree just a few posts previously. 

I have never said a single word about what I think the leaker's motivations are, BTW - as far as I can tell, you're the only one in this entire thread to speculate on that. The reason I haven't is because A) I couldn't possibly know, just like you couldn't possibly know and B) it doesn't really matter, I'm glad he brought this out there, no matter what his motivations were. I'm not really interested in deifying or vilifying him personally, we really shouldn't be talking about him at all and wouldn't be if NQA hadn't had a total meltdown. 

Edited by yukishiro1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sarouan said:

People clicking on the pre-order button as soon as it's online don't look after review for "information before buying", anyway.

Good point.

I used to be one of those "click now, learn later" buyers. Now I am a lot more cautious. Too many post-purchase regrets over the last few years.

Reviews are useful.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, The Red King said:

*The tone of my post felt aggressive so I wanted to preface with a statement that it isn't meant to be.*

 

This is a blanket statement that excuses any actions taken by a million dollar corporation scientifically designed to affect the consumers ability to make smart purchases. 

 

That's not even a claim of big business being evil or anything, just that PR and marketing are huge industries designed around using psychology to influence people's decision making so saying it's not the companies fault is shifting the blame in a way I find egregious.

 

And I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but that argument always reads to me as "it's their fault if they fell for a con." Instead of blaming... yknow... the guy running the game?

 
Bro you sound like you don’t trust other human being and find them all gulliable to mind bending tactics (which may be is one of those sad facts). 

But that not being con they are buying something they want and getting something they want, a con is buying something and getting nothing or  something you don’t want. 

I am not defending GW but I find their problem are tame and standard compare to Amazon and Facebook who collect and manipulate browsing data for their marketing. Amazon is like indirectly  responsible for most of these anti consumer decision other companies make because they are so big and hard to compete against. But my point then consumer are ultimately the one dictating the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is so much more evidence of toxic negativity than toxic positivity in this hobby. Just head over to Dakka and you will struggle to find a single positive post about AoS. There is a certain popular AoS twitch channel that I find painful to watch at times because they skew so negative. 

I'm genuinely not sure what people are referring to aside from the official site when they complain about toxic positivity. Maybe facehammer but at worst they slightly oversell a few abilities. 

If you want fair balanced reviews of AoS content just watch Warhammer Weekly. I honestly think the whole dev team should watch that show.  They could learn a thing or two. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Chikout said:

There is so much more evidence of toxic negativity than toxic positivity in this hobby. Just head over to Dakka and you will struggle to find a single positive post about AoS. There is a certain popular AoS twitch channel that I find painful to watch at times because they skew so negative. 

I'm genuinely not sure what people are referring to aside from the official site when they complain about toxic positivity. Maybe facehammer but at worst they slightly oversell a few abilities. 

If you want fair balanced reviews of AoS content just watch Warhammer Weekly. I honestly think the whole dev team should watch that show.  They could learn a thing or two. 

 

Apparently this forum we are in right now. I mean like three years ago we actually had real people on the forum who actual did content creation for AoS but they all left because of how it is moderated and ultimately own and run by Ben Johnson. EDIT: Ben Curry woops

 

Edited by novakai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, novakai said:

Apparently this forum we are in right now. I mean like three years ago we actually had real people on the forum who actual did content creation form AoS but they all left because of how it is moderated and ultimately own and run by Ben Johnson. 

 

And yet here we are in a 9 page thread discussing this topic without much in the way of moderation. Also the forum is owned by Ben Curry who isn't a gw employee but is friends with Ben Johnson who is. And as for the people who left, I'm pretty sure at least one of them got hired by GW. 

The thing that upsets me the most is that the lack of digital battletomes and the the disappearance of digital White dwarf is a much more serious issue but this topic is the one that has got all the airtime. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, novakai said:

Apparently this forum we are in right now. I mean like three years ago we actually had real people on the forum who actual did content creation for AoS but they all left because of how it is moderated and ultimately own and run by Ben Johnson. 

 

As mentioned by @Chikout, it’s Ben Curry who owns the forum and he has nothing to do with GW apart from being friends with Ben Johnson. Also mentioned by @Chikout, this topic has gone on for ages and apart from pokes you have been given chance to say what you want within the rules of TGA.

Ben created this forum as he loves Warhammer and he wanted a place for people to talk about it, be excited about it and arrange and play in events. That’s it. There’s no alternative motive and it’s not a ploy by GW to brainwash people. Just a place to read about stuff to do with Age of Sigmar, such as battle reports, painting, background, events, etc. The limit is you guys and if all this forum becomes is a place to moan about things, do you think people will want to post cool stuff? The world is grim enough already, don’t add this forum to it!

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Maybe I haven't seen the right models, but so far not a single print I've seen didn't have striations, and that's a deal breaker for me.

I don't have anything I didn't prime (and primer hides the striations I have on my settings), but I'll print out something this weekend on the most detailed settings my relatively old printer can do.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are my thoughts on this. I’m not going to comment on whether the NDA is real/fake, others have put both sides of the argument out there, not really anything more to add. Except to say the only way we will know 100% is if GW confirm/deny or if more influencers receive a copy and are willing to tell.

On the subject of biased reviews, tbh I’m not too bothered if they are generally positive. I watched one “review” for the dominion box from Zona-something (can’t recall name). Video was entitled “why I don’t play AoS”, his opening words were “because it’s $*#t!”. He then goes on to recount the destruction of the old world and the early days of AoS. Apparently he hasn’t even tried the game. He opens his free dominion box, says nice models, then proceeds to kitbash some of the Stormcast into space marines. This video bugged me and if I worked at GW this is not the kind of thing I would want an influencer saying/doing with a free product they’ve been sent.

Here are my thoughts/questions/speculations on the NDA. First off I’ll preface my comments with a blanket if it is real. If the leaked NDA is a revised document that will gradually be sent to all YouTube content creators it would be very concerning. In the clause about business dealings with restricted customer, what is a business dealing? In my mind it’s taking money from, which a large number of you tubers do in the form of Patreon or premium memberships for extra content (miniwargaming, WargamerOnline, GMG to name just a few). Not sure if Patreon would be viewed as business dealing, or if it would be viewed as artist/content creator and backer? Is that a business dealing? 
If such channels were given this NDA to sign they would not be able to, as they would immediately be in breach. If they don’t sign, presumably they would lose the perk of having pre-release copies? If they did sign they would effectively cut off funding, ending their channels anyway.

Tin foil hat time! It seems odd that this comes out shortly after the launch of WH+ and IP policy changes. For a good number of years lots of content creators have been making money featuring predominantly GW games. Have GW seen this that people are willing to pay for batrep content and thought “that’s money that could be coming into our pockets!”. GW start producing their own content, then try to get rid of the competition by not supporting them with free stuff. I’ve not subbed to WH+ so no idea on the quality of the battle reports, but I would assume that they would be high quality productions. It makes me question whether this is part of a move where GW is trying position itself as the main source of all GW related content, all behind the paywall of WH+.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:

The limit is you guys and if all this forum becomes is a place to moan about things, do you think people will want to post cool stuff?

No. I wouldn't even enter this forum if that was the case.

Anyone remember any warhammer forum from post-2015? To much drama and bs... until this forum was created. It was an oasis for me, and I think for a lot of people. Of couse we all know that GW is an evil company that just wants to steal your soul.

But we are not here because GW, we are here because the community. And doesn't matter if some of us love or hate that company, our common ground is the love for AoS, their worlds and realms and the community behind it.

That's the main point for this forum. Don't lose it.

Edited by Beliman
grammar
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sarouan said:

Morality has also nothing to do here. Especially because it's not the same depending on the culture, education and surroundings. What is moral in one country may be immoral in another. That's why right-wingers love to invoke that...always implying theirs is the only that matters, obviously.

Just really briefly, but writing and presenting unfair or exploitative contracts definitely has a moral dimension. It's intimately related to paradigm ethical topics such as power imbalance and the possibility of meaningful consent, or the treatment of people as mere means to your own ends.

Your "live and let live" attitude is a credit to you as a person, but it needs to have it's limits if you don't want it to become self-defeating (paradox of tolerance).

1 hour ago, Gaz Taylor said:

The limit is you guys and if all this forum becomes is a place to moan about things, do you think people will want to post cool stuff?

One of the things I appreciate most about this forum is the general positivity of posters and their willingness to get excited about the hobby with others. I definitely have given gaming communities a miss before because they were too negative for me. That said, I think this thread and other threads critical of GW are important, and I think overall they have been had at a high standard of discussion and civility.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GrimDork said:

Here are my thoughts on this. I’m not going to comment on whether the NDA is real/fake, others have put both sides of the argument out there, not really anything more to add. Except to say the only way we will know 100% is if GW confirm/deny or if more influencers receive a copy and are willing to tell.

I don't know if it is real or fake, but the mentioning of the old logo is strange at least. While others where wondering why someone would fake it, it basicly gives people like Arch or GAMZA Content for their channels. Okay in case of GAMZA his last content is more with the IP policy because his latest videos are more about that you can print replicas of GW models that are costing 1/10 or 1/100 the price of GW models, actually missing the point that GW has to pay for more as only the material and can't sell a imperial knight for 10,-€.

I don't know if it has actually influence on GWs shares because the share value droped by 20,-€ in 20 days being on a value at the moment that they had in April the last time.

1 hour ago, GrimDork said:

On the subject of biased reviews, tbh I’m not too bothered if they are generally positive. I watched one “review” for the dominion box from Zona-something (can’t recall name). Video was entitled “why I don’t play AoS”, his opening words were “because it’s $*#t!”. He then goes on to recount the destruction of the old world and the early days of AoS. Apparently he hasn’t even tried the game. He opens his free dominion box, says nice models, then proceeds to kitbash some of the Stormcast into space marines. This video bugged me and if I worked at GW this is not the kind of thing I would want an influencer saying/doing with a free product they’ve been sent.

I think I remember that video, yeah it was a strange one.

 

I mean, I basicly hated AoS when it came out (mostly because of the compenium lists and their "funny rules") but became a fan of the world after the Generals Handbooks were released, mainly because of the posibilities and not being stalemate like the old world was in all the years I know it (even nullifying lore progress of the 6. edition of WHFB).

I still have the feeling that many people who are talking bad about AoS never have wrapped up with the system only using the arguments and information of the time when AoS was first released in July 2015.

 

1 hour ago, GrimDork said:

Here are my thoughts/questions/speculations on the NDA. First off I’ll preface my comments with a blanket if it is real. If the leaked NDA is a revised document that will gradually be sent to all YouTube content creators it would be very concerning. In the clause about business dealings with restricted customer, what is a business dealing? In my mind it’s taking money from, which a large number of you tubers do in the form of Patreon or premium memberships for extra content (miniwargaming, WargamerOnline, GMG to name just a few). Not sure if Patreon would be viewed as business dealing, or if it would be viewed as artist/content creator and backer? Is that a business dealing? 
If such channels were given this NDA to sign they would not be able to, as they would immediately be in breach. If they don’t sign, presumably they would lose the perk of having pre-release copies? If they did sign they would effectively cut off funding, ending their channels anyway.

Tin foil hat time! It seems odd that this comes out shortly after the launch of WH+ and IP policy changes. For a good number of years lots of content creators have been making money featuring predominantly GW games. Have GW seen this that people are willing to pay for batrep content and thought “that’s money that could be coming into our pockets!”. GW start producing their own content, then try to get rid of the competition by not supporting them with free stuff. I’ve not subbed to WH+ so no idea on the quality of the battle reports, but I would assume that they would be high quality productions. It makes me question whether this is part of a move where GW is trying position itself as the main source of all GW related content, all behind the paywall of WH+.

The evolution of the last months really bugs me. I really have the feeling that shortsided decisions GW is making will damage or kill them in the long run.

The changes to the IP policy, the removal of free warscrolls.

I have the feeling, if you don't force people to pay for everything they will pay money more freely. See for example twitch (even though I only know the situation after the pandemic). Like with youtube you can watch the streams for free or go premium by spending money to support them so you can use the comment function.

Instead of forcing people to pay each month building all that overhead with Warhammer+ where we don't even know if it still exists in 10 years maybe losing the content we payed nearly 550€ in that time (I rather pay a price like this each month for buying product instead of renting it, and knowing that I still will own it in 10 years if it doesn't get destroyed by act of nature in that time). GW could have made a Warhammer License for Youtube generating revenue for every video with warhammer content (battlereport, painting tutorial, model- book or lore review, Let's plays) + having a fair share that way with the content creators of those videos who are basicly making free promotion for the company. It would at least be a healthier relationship between company and consumer.

I guess you have to use bank data to make a warhammer+ subscription, so it's not an option for me. I don't want to have my bank data on the internet so I only buy stuff where I can buy cash (ordering from a GW-store for example) or use transactions where I can top up the value of my account on the site with giftcards (steam, googleplay, paysafe, nintendo eshop)

Edited by EMMachine
typo
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, EMMachine said:

 

I don't know if it has actually influence on GWs shares because the share value droped by 20,-€ in 20 days being on a value at the moment that they had in April the last time.

I

 

well most company had a down turn in the last 20 days as the market in general drop, i doubt this had anything to do with GW action and and more of a stock market thing because of other problems in the world(Delta variant slowing recover, Evergrade debt problems, Europe energy crisis, ect)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2021 at 5:25 AM, Sleboda said:

Interesting.

I either own or have seen most of those. I disagree that their quality is the same as GW, but that's an opinion I suppose.

As to 3D stuff ... meh. It's got decades to go before it can offer what is available in injection today.

The bottom line is from a hobby perspective, it's never been a better time for availability of quality miniatures at an affordable price. Maybe not to quite the degree of GW- say 7/8 to a lot of GW's 9- but half the price or less.

One of the ways you can tell GW is feeling outside pressure is the aesthetic of the more recent stuff, Kruleboyz in particular. The existence of a wider, healthier market for fantasy products and a renaissance for its 70's/80's origins is making a lot of GW's stuff from the past decade look a bit plastic and directionless in comparison. GW are definitely leaning into that source material more. 

But again- you can buy models from the people who actually pioneered most of those miniatures. Again, for cheaper than GW. 

Basically my point is that for most of this century, GW has been the only game in town in respect to quality miniatures. Not only is that no longer the case, but smaller independents can easily and cheaply buy into the latest trends and commission quality talent on a freelance basis to produce it, usually within a pretty short window. Compare that with GW's glacial lead up times.

That's the main reason behind +. They want an ecosystem  in which you're all in, live and breathe only one grimdark licence and associated product. They have to be the only game in town, because the completion is getting stronger by the day.

The future of overpriced miniatures, hobby supplies and labyrinthine game systems is by no means guaranteed. But IPs and associated narrative content can survive and boom like nothing else right now, thats where GW's future is, and they know that. Hence all this stuff right now. 

Edited by Nos
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sandlemad said:

RE: the logo, I've seen it suggested that the NDA could have been the work of a legal firm working for GW which more or less stuck the client logo they had to hand on it. Apparently this could account for it being a bit boilerplate in some regards.

If GW has similar taste in legal firms as it does in video game developers, I could see this being all-too true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...