[GZG] Giving thanks...

There is so much to be thankful for. I'm not trying to start a thread where
everyone pipes in with what they are thankful for.

But I really have to thank Jon for being a decent guy. Because:
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/28/games-workshop-decla.html

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI don't think
it's unreasonable to protect your IP. Â It would be like me making models for
Full Thrust and calling them class names out of FB1 or for releasing a version
of FT rules with all the current books of rules put together and trying to
sell it. Â I'd be surprised if any IP owner lets people get away with that.
They could lose control over their IP very easily for simply not having
enforced their rights to it. Â The poster who said they were a published
musician and didn't mind fan contributions might not like it if their musing
ends up sound track to something unpleasant or someone rewords the song to
have opposite meaning or it gets nominated as the theme song of the right wing
political party. Then let them scream. Â I am grateful that Jon has a more
flexible IP policy and that he hasn't minded that my club got to rewrite our
own set of the FT rules to make a cohesive whole and as such got to enjoy the
game a lot more.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lMy sense of it
is more like: You published ships that used the FT construction rules. Jon
then slaps you for "competing" with the Fleet books. But then I don't buy GW

Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn.com

From: John Tailby
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 12:23 AM
To: gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [GZG] Giving thanks...

I don't think it's unreasonable to protect your IP.

It would be like me making models for Full Thrust and calling them class names
out of FB1 or for releasing a version of FT rules with all the current books
of rules put together and trying to sell it.

I'd be surprised if any IP owner lets people get away with that. They could
lose control over their IP very easily for simply not having enforced their
rights to it.

The poster who said they were a published musician and didn't mind fan
contributions might not like it if their musing ends up sound track to
something unpleasant or someone rewords the song to have opposite meaning or
it gets nominated as the theme song of the right wing political party. Then
let them scream.

I am grateful that Jon has a more flexible IP policy and that he hasn't minded
that my club got to rewrite our own set of the FT rules to make a cohesive
whole and as such got to enjoy the game a lot more.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Mon, Nov 30,
> 2009 at 10:59 AM, Michael Brown <mwsaber6@msn.com> wrote:

> My sense of it is more like: You published ships that used the FT

Exactly.

Creating a quick reference sheet that didn't exist doesn't affect copyright,
but it might infringe on a trademark. So legally they could ask you to take it
down.

The problem is that the reference sheet is added material for the game, which
in turn makes the game *more *attractive to potential purchasers ("Look at all
the cool fan material!")

They are within their legal right to pull this stuff. That doesn't make the
decision stupid and small minded, which it is.

> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:08:00AM -0600, Allan Goodall wrote:

> They are within their legal right to pull this stuff. That doesn't make

There are good and bad ways to do it. Having an individual approach the person
and say "hey, this is great, but because we're worried about
trademark dilution (or whatever) we'd like you to take it down" - good.
Getting the lawyers to send out C&Ds - bad. Of course the latter is also
much cheaper...

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Mon, Nov 30,
2009 at 11:26 AM, Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org>wrote:

> There are good and bad ways to do it. Having an individual approach
Pagan publishing has the creators of derivative content put a disclaimer on
their work that basically says, "Yes, I created this, but the trademarks
belong to Pagan Publishing."

There are other companies that tightened their intellectual property without
completely pissing off their customers.

The question, which we can't answer right now, is "How will this affect their
sales in the long run?" A lot of what they are pulling is stuff that
long term -- and not necessarily "still buying" -- customers have
produced
and/or used. A lot of the younger fans are going to continue to visit
the stores and buy the stuff there without really knowing what the older
players are griping about. I'm sure the GW staff won't allow much dissent at
their stores.

It will be interesting to see if there's a long term negative impact, or if it
will explode on the Internet and then quickly die down.

I can't think, though, that pulling this stunt just before Christmas is a good
idea...

> Allan Goodall wrote:

Cynically put, it won't matter a bit. Specialist games are completely
irrelevant. Old time gamers will gripe but still buy the stuff they need. The
bulk of their sales comes from parents who buy stuff for their
12-year old kids. These won't even know this happened.

> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 08:32:00PM -0600, Allan Goodall wrote:

GW have certainly done plenty of things to hack off their fans in the UK.
(Starting in the 1980s when they were still a general gaming company.) It
hasn't done them much harm; their entire business model
seems to be based on hooking the _new_ generation of kids, not on
keeping existing players. From a purely financial point of view, being a toy
vendor rather than a wargame vendor clearly works for them...

R

Yeah, I can sort of relate to this. I was trying to keep the Online Blood Bowl
League afloat, and while we had a few infrastructure things that were dating
us (an IRC game client that was originally designed for Windows 95 being the
main one), the biggest thing that eroded us was GW's desire to version the
game rules so many times that we were about four or five iterations back. We
liked the 3rd edition rules (with our own tweaks for house rules) just fine,
better than we liked the newer ones, but the "living rulebooks" had gone
through about 5 versions since. The other main online league, FUMBBL, is using
living rulebook version 4, and GW is currently at about 5.1 now. However, we
in the OLBBL were down to a point that when the newer PC game came out, it was
pretty much the last straw and I had to more or less make the decision to
close the doors just this Sunday.

So consider me an "older player" that very possibly has played his last Blood
Bowl game as a result. Granted, I wasn't a miniatures customer anyway, but
it's much the same thing.

</rant>

E

[quoted original message omitted]

Thoughts on GW,

1) Their stuff is good and way overpriced.

2) They suffer hugely from rules creep, scale creep, power gamers and just
plain creep players (present company excluded.

3) Their sales model works, til now. Having been speaking to a couple of

gameshop owners/managers here in Sydney, Aus, the impression that THEY
are under is that GW sales have been falling for a few years and dramatically
in the last 2 before this year. I have been consistently told that sales have
fallen about 30% in that timeframe. The release of BloodBowl and Space Hulk
will probably turn this around for a while.

4) It seems that they attempts to constantly attract younger players is now
failing. In the couple of clubs here that I have regular dealings with there
are a number of gamers like myself who are introducing their children to
miniature gaming, and they are not going GW. Also when parents come to these
clubs seeking some place safe for their children to play, the club members are
steering them towards games other than GW.

In the club I have most to do with, 40K and WarHammer Fantasy are now minor
games.

5) Anything that lawyers do is expensive! They charge like wounded bulls

and you can bet that a single letter sent from a lawyer cost GW a pretty

penny or two.;)

Just my two bob's worth.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI sometimes
feel this forum is full of GW bashers looking for an opportunity to go off.

GW are "good but expensive", compared to who? last time I looked GW prices
were comparable with wargames foundry and other high end manufacturers. They
are also comparable to other similar games manufacturers like Privateer Press.

GW sales are falling. Yep that's been in their annual report for some time.
They had a huge growth in sales with their Lord of the Rings game, but when
the movies finished sales of that game went into a steeper than expected
decline.

Blood Bowl and space hulk won't make any significant blip in sales. Space Hulk
is a limited release and BB is a very niche product. Space marines sell more
than the whole of their fantasy games.

Selling to kids. GW Australia is the most expensive place in the world by
currency value to buy their products. GW unfortunately put a regional
distribution structure in the middle of their supply chain and this adds a lot
of cost at the retail level for no value. it's easily fixed by experienced
gamers who order from a UK mail order site or GW direct often for more than
25% of the Aus retail price. That really only leaves impulse buys and people
without an internet connection and a paypal or credit card to sell to.

Also you need to keep attracting younger members both into your club and your
game if you want them to grow or even sustain themselves. People change, kids
find other things that get in their way, academic study, drinking and girls
being common distractions, then marrage and kids houses etc.

Clubs also attract people by having a committed core of people that want to
play the game inviting others to play. If you don't have this then the period
will die off. Seen it happen in my club in both up and down cycles.

I like rule updates and big shiny army list books. If there were new rules for
FT 3 and shiny fleet books full of background material, pictures of ships, and
scenario rules I'd be buying them and be inspired to get more into the canon
FT universe and the authentic models as a result.

________________________________
From: Tony Wilkinson <twilko@ozemail.com.au>
To: gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Wed, 2 December, 2009 2:48:09 PM
Subject: Re: [GZG] Giving thanks...

Thoughts on GW,

1) Their stuff is good and way overpriced.

2) They suffer hugely from rules creep, scale creep, power gamers and just
plain creep players (present company excluded.

3) Their sales model works, til now. Having been speaking to a couple of
gameshop owners/managers here in Sydney, Aus, the impression that THEY
are under is that GW sales have been falling for a few years and dramatically
in the last 2 before this year. I have been consistently told that sales have
fallen about 30% in that timeframe. The release of BloodBowl and Space Hulk
will probably turn this around for a while.

4) It seems that they attempts to constantly attract younger players is now
failing. In the couple of clubs here that I have regular dealings with there
are a number of gamers like myself who are introducing their children to
miniature gaming, and they are not going GW. Also when parents come to these
clubs seeking some place safe for their children to play, the club members are
steering them towards games other than GW. In the club I have most to do with,
40K and WarHammer Fantasy are now minor games.

5) Anything that lawyers do is expensive! They charge like wounded bulls and
you can bet that a single letter sent from a lawyer cost GW a pretty penny or
two.;)

Just my two bob's worth. Tony.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lJohn Tailby
wrote:
> I sometimes feel this forum is full of GW bashers looking for an
Probably because a lot of us got started with GW games and have strong
nostalgia for "the way things used to be". When I got into 40K you randomly
rolled the weapons that your squad had. It was interesting, silly and a lot of
fun. For me it lost the "fun factor" a long time ago.
> GW are "good but expensive", compared to who? last time I looked GW
Reaper, Redbox, and Freebooter for starters produce miniatures as good for
less. GZG does to but then they have a slightly different take on
the Si-Fi angle. ;-)   Yes Australia is expensive but why there is such
a discrepancy between Gw and most other manufacturers that face the same

issue?
> Clubs also attract people by having a committed core of people that

> down cycles.
True but we never say that you can only play the games that are already there.
People are always free, and in the club I go to, always encouraged to bring
something different. By pulling fan produced stuff off sites like
BoardGameGeek, GW is saying that people shouldn't play anything that doesn't
come from them. Yes we always need new members, the nature of membership
changes, but that is something we should encourage not try and kill off.
> I like rule updates and big shiny army list books. If there were new
Up to a point yes. But expansions not continually rehashing something that
already works. And how long has it been since FT2 came out? GW seems to
rewrite the rules every couple of years, that's probably being too harsh but
certainly it is more frequent than would seem nessicary.

I' m sorry if you feel like people are ganging up on you John, but I think I
can safely say that many of us have enjoyed GW games and figures

in the past but that the company and it's style no longer appeal to us.

Tony Wilkinson  wrote on 12/03/2009 12:34:03 AM:

> Re: [GZG] Giving thanks...

> John Tailby wrote:

> I sometimes feel this forum is full of GW bashers looking for an

> Probably because a lot of us got started with GW games and have

Actually, I haven't heard a good rant on GW on this list for some time,
months?

I hear more griping about GW in my shop in a month than on this list in the
time I've been on, and I've repeatedly admitted WH40K is the biggest seller,
most played system we have. I hear more griping on most 40K lists I visit. If
anything, I come here to get away from the mix of complaints and slavering
adoration.

Even the store fanboys are smarter than to make a claim like the one above.

However, I'll leave at 'we disagree' about what is reasonable.

The_Beast

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lviacom did the
same to star trek look what happened to that.

> On Dec 3, 2009 1:17 PM, "Doug Evans" <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:

Tony Wilkinson  wrote on 12/03/2009 12:34:03 AM:

> Re: [GZG] Giving thanks...

> John Tailby wrote:

> I sometimes feel this forum is full of GW bashers looking for an
Actually, I haven't heard a good rant on GW on this list for some time,
months?

I hear more griping about GW in my shop in a month than on this list in the
time I've been on, and I've repeatedly admitted WH40K is the biggest seller,
most played system we have. I hear more griping on most 40K lists I visit. If
anything, I come here to get away from the mix of complaints and slavering
adoration.

Even the store fanboys are smarter than to make a claim like the one above.

However, I'll leave at 'we disagree' about what is reasonable.

The_Beast

Right you want a GW rant do you? they call it 40k for one reason thats the
average cost of a 2000pt army.lol

I wonder if those Wargames factory plastic Sci Fi troopers in great coats will
bring over more players to Stargruntand other sci fi systems, because you can
only use GW figures for GW games.

james

> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:34 PM, <tagalong@chariot.net.au> wrote:

Close but not quite accurate. Folks beat on GW all the time for their prices
yet Foundry stuff is pretty darn expensive. If I look at my entire collection
of minis (which I loath to do sometimes) I have lots of GW but I also have
lots of everything else. At the end of the day it isn't cost that keeps me
from buying something it's if I like the mini or not.

> I wonder if those Wargames factory plastic Sci Fi troopers in great

I can't speak for all GW types but in my local area the GW folks tend to cling
to their minis as if their life depended on it. So I doubt it. I, on the other
hand, have no problem using GW minis with SG2. I like the 40k fluff and SG2
lets you actually model some of that. If
Space Marines are supposed to be uber-elites I can make them that way.
I can also create elite IG squads...

D.