Jim Cote
United States
Maine
-
I saw that on the Vassal forum. I think it's short-sighted.
-
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
-
ekted wrote: short-sighted.
i think that is on Gamesworkshop's mission statement.
can this company do anything right anymore ? their stock prices are tanking, customers are leaving.. it shouldn't be long before someone buys them out.
-
Chris Geggus
United Kingdom
Brentwood,
Essex
-
Are GW now going to be subject to the same vitriol, abuse and criticism that Mayfair have been over the last few days? In my humble opinion the behaviour of GW is much more restrictive and unfriendly than anything that Mayfair have done.
What is it with some of these companies? Is it ego or is it the bean counters whispering in their ear all the time about lost business, missing profits,exploited products etc.? Perhaps some of them should step back and remember that they exist because we buy their products, not because they are doing us a favour!
Enough of me. Just take it as read that I believe GW are out of order in this instance.
-
Ben Foy
United States
Ellicott City
Maryland
-
SouthernMan wrote: But the files still appear to be there if you have the direct url - some of these can be found at this list http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/23350 -but I have checked the missing pagenumbers on the site and think I have the full list of urls for the missing GW games, so PM me if you are after something.
Don't do that!
If GW finds that the people running the Vassal website have not done enough to remove GW content, they could sue. There are plenty of good games to play on Vassal, just ignore the GW games.
-
Chapel
United States
Round Rock
Texas
Only for the love of the game...
-
BFoy wrote: just ignore the GW games.
Been doing that since 1997.
-
Randy Shipp
United States
Irving
Texas
-
BFoy wrote: SouthernMan wrote: But the files still appear to be there if you have the direct url - some of these can be found at this list http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/23350 -but I have checked the missing pagenumbers on the site and think I have the full list of urls for the missing GW games, so PM me if you are after something. Don't do that! If GW finds that the people running the Vassal website have not done enough to remove GW content, they could sue. There are plenty of good games to play on Vassal, just ignore the GW games.
Additionally, I think it's a bad idea to use BoardGameGeek as a clearinghouse for this kind of information. There's no sense bringing any of that sort of unwanted attention on this site, especially over VASSAL modules for friggin' GW games. :-)
Let's just respect their business decision, right or wrong (but certainly their prerogative) and move on. If it's that bad a decision, we'll read soon about their bankruptcy filing.
Randy...
-
Rich P
Colombia
Sheffield
United Kingdom
I didn't know what to do with my UberBadge, so I left it as a GeekBadge.
I'm on a world tour right now, with limited access to BGG. My microbadges will spell out where I am at the moment.
-
If anything, I'm surprised they haven't done this sooner. GW are well known for "protecting their intellectual property", sometimes in ways that fans find disappointing.
-
J.L. Robert
United States
Sherman Oaks
California
-
SouthernMan wrote: But the files still appear to be there if you have the direct url - some of these can be found at this list http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/23350 -but I have checked the missing pagenumbers on the site and think I have the full list of urls for the missing GW games, so PM me if you are after something.
Don't expect that to be there for very long. I don't think the folks running Vassal would want to leave themselves open for a lawsuit that would likely bankrupt the site. That would take Vassal away from EVERYONE.
-
Ken Bradford
United States
Fayetteville
Tennessee
-
People wouldn't have to resort to playing their games on Vassal if they'd just REPUBLISH THE GAMES THAT PEOPLE WANT. No, a 17th codex which outdates half your figures doesn't count, nor do $100 wartanks.
Choke on lead minis, GW.
-
Kristian Madsen
Sweden
Uppsala
-
I wonder if this is what tipped them off (the as-of-now-next-to-most-recent picture for Talisman).
If not, it is at least a remainder of what was... It looks like a nice module -- bad move GW (but perhaps inevitable in light of Talisman going to xbox live et al)!
/kgm
-
J.L. Robert
United States
Sherman Oaks
California
-
kgm3219 wrote: I wonder if this is what tipped them off (the as-of-now-next-to-most-recent picture for Talisman). If not, it is at least a remainder of what was... It looks like a nice module -- bad move GW (but perhaps inevitable in light of Talisman going to xbox live et al)! /kgm
I had forgotten about this development.
Perhaps this move isn't entirely GW's call. It may be a condition for XBL to carry the online version of Talisman.
-
Bobb Beauchamp
United States
Palatine
Illinois
-
Ahiksking wrote: Are GW now going to be subject to the same vitriol, abuse and criticism that Mayfair have been over the last few days? In my humble opinion the behaviour of GW is much more restrictive and unfriendly than anything that Mayfair have done.
What is it with some of these companies? Is it ego or is it the bean counters whispering in their ear all the time about lost business, missing profits,exploited products etc.? Perhaps some of them should step back and remember that they exist because we buy their products, not because they are doing us a favour!
Enough of me. Just take it as read that I believe GW are out of order in this instance.
And this means they should allow or endorse free use of their products?
With Talisman in particular coming to XBL (soon, I hope), I can see why they'd target this game in particular. And if the XBL version does well, they may show some interest in supplying that market with other ports of their older games.
-
Hey Nonny Mouse
United States
Longmont
Colorado
-
Ahiksking wrote: Are GW now going to be subject to the same vitriol, abuse and criticism that Mayfair have been over the last few days? In my humble opinion the behaviour of GW is much more restrictive and unfriendly than anything that Mayfair have done.
The comparison did come up on the Mayfair threads, actually. And GW has always been subject to more vitriol, abuse and criticism on any given day than Mayfair has seen in the past year. It just usually doesn't make it to BGG  .
-
Rage is just love with more volume
United States
White Trash
Idaho
-
Yeah! Who do they think they are??? They have a lot of nerve protecting their copyrights. Bastards!
-
Brad Wagnon
United States
Aurora
Colorado
Cybertronic: Superior by design.
-
MWChapel wrote: BFoy wrote: just ignore the GW games. Been doing that since 1997.
Good advice. GW consistently takes actions that are designed to maximize business profits, but in most cases cause problems for their customers. Obsoleting entire armies, constant "codex inflation", outrageous prices, new edition every two years and now withdrawing a tool that would help more people enjoy their games...
They are doing nothing illegal, or immoral. But, it has impacted their image in my eyes, and many others.
-
Anselmo Diaz
United Kingdom
Crawley
West Sussex
-
I just hope GW goes down the sink. Their prices are extortionate, specially as their main income comes from adolescent boys. I honestly don't know how they manage to fund their hobby.
It's, on average, even more expensive than CCG's, as there are more materials involved: paints, brushes, room to store all the game components... plus exorbitant loads of your free(not anymore) time to wash, glue(or even drill to attach some parts), prime, paint, (decals?) and varnish your miniatures.
Add that to an ever changing rulebook, with lots of errata and you get a so-so game, that takes effort to get to know the rules, takes forever to get ready to play, and forever to play too.
All in all, a lot of effort, money and time to get to the gaming table.
I suppose this appeals to some people who like the "hobby" aspect of this sort of thing. And the advertising, through their own magazine: White dwarf, is nothing short of amazing. But then, you may well realize that the people(artists) that feature on that magazine are actually hardcore fans(or GW staff), that they all seem to have a large garage full of GW goodies, and oh boy, do their miniatures, dioramas and whatnot look incredible? Yes, they do, as well as their owners look skinny and yellow for lack of exercise and lack of going out in the sun, as they can't afford such mundane activities!
Me, I'm very happy balancing my work, family, and hobbies together. I enjoy reading, traveling and also gaming, which I am able to do spending but a tiny fraction of what I would have to were I a GW fan, not to mention the ridiculous amount of time.
I can enjoy little, unexpensive, gems such as Battle Line, Cold War, Iliad, etc... and also longer, slightly more expensive games such as BattleLore, War of the Ring, etc... if I feel like it. And doing so without the need for a garage
On the topic at hand, GW requesting the modules of their games to be removed from Vassal, it only goes to show how greedy they are.
I bought from GW before, most notably their old boardgames, but that was a long time ago. Nowadays, they are exclusively centered in making money, and doing so with little regard to their customers, as is manifestd by their customers themselves who, once in a while, complain about the lack of support, and the fact that the changing rules and miniatures catalogue means that yu NEED a new catalogue and minis every few years. Can't GW sell supplements for their existing customers, instead of making them pay, and pay AGAIN for the full product?
Obviously, now we know how they fund those luxuriously garages full of minis...
-
Mike Brunton
United Kingdom
Sussex
-
ekted wrote: I think it's short-sighted.
Unfortunately, it's not short sighted. It's almost certainly a legal requirement for GW (or anyone else) if they want to protect their trademarks and intellectual property.
Trademarks are a "protect 'em or lose 'em" thing. If you aren't proactive in defending them all the time, then come the day when a trademark dispute gets into court you've lost before you start. So there's no choice in the matter: you have to treat everyone who "infringes" (even if you think the usage is helpful to you) in the same way. If you don't, then bang go your intellectual property rights, and your income, and ultimately your company.
-
Randy Shipp
United States
Irving
Texas
-
Captain Fishpants wrote: Trademarks are a "protect 'em or lose 'em" thing. If you aren't proactive in defending them all the time, then come the day when a trademark dispute gets into court you've lost before you start. So there's no choice in the matter: you have to treat everyone who "infringes" (even if you think the usage is helpful to you) in the same way.
Of course, if you think their "infringement" is helpful, you just give them written permission to use it, with whatever restrictions you need, and on you go. :-) Plenty of other companies have offered their blessings, and I doubt it harms their copyright...as long as they're requiring a request and granting permission.
Randy...
-
-
rshipp wrote:
Of course, if you think their "infringement" is helpful, you just give them written permission to use it, with whatever restrictions you need, and on you go. :-) Plenty of other companies have offered their blessings, and I doubt it harms their copyright...as long as they're requiring a request and granting permission.
That sounds very common-sensical. As they themselves don't offer a similar service of their own, they ought to grat Vassal a license/permission or whatever. I don't see online gaming keeping people from buying the real games. Quite to the contrary: The extra exposure will get those on the fence into their stores and also offers an extra way for players to enjoy their products.
In any case, I'm glad I'm not into fantasy "ameritrash". But I feel for those who may have just lost the chance to play their favourite games online.
Really, the only Games Workshop game I'm remotely interested in is Blood Royale...
In any case, such a decision won't have a noticable impact on their sales, but it does highlight a problematic customer relationship philosophy. A little empathy for their customers hasn't hurt any business...
-
Mike Brunton
United Kingdom
Sussex
-
rshipp wrote: Of course, if you think their "infringement" is helpful, you just give them written permission to use it, with whatever restrictions you need, and on you go. :-) Plenty of other companies have offered their blessings, and I doubt it harms their copyright...as long as they're requiring a request and granting permission.
Randy...
Well, they may not be able to just give permission. As a public company, they have a duty to their shareholders to make money, not give stuff away. This is true for all companies with publicly traded shares, not just GW.
A privately held company can do whatever its owners want, which is why other companies can behave differently in cases like this.
Good Lord, I'm almost defending Games Workshop. I'd best go and lie down in a darkened room.  I'm sure they'd be as surprised as I am with this turn of events!
-
Bobb Beauchamp
United States
Palatine
Illinois
-
Captain Fishpants wrote: ekted wrote: I think it's short-sighted. Unfortunately, it's not short sighted. It's almost certainly a legal requirement for GW (or anyone else) if they want to protect their trademarks and intellectual property. Trademarks are a "protect 'em or lose 'em" thing. If you aren't proactive in defending them all the time, then come the day when a trademark dispute gets into court you've lost before you start. So there's no choice in the matter: you have to treat everyone who "infringes" (even if you think the usage is helpful to you) in the same way. If you don't, then bang go your intellectual property rights, and your income, and ultimately your company.
Somewhat true. But not at all applicable in this case, because if GW is worried about anything, it's their copyrights, and not a trademark. There are significant differences, chief among them that you don't need to actively defend a copyright or risk losing it.
As for GW being mean and not letting people play digital versions of their games for free: Talisman should be launched on XBL later this month, if they are still on schedule. People are going to have to pay to download the XLB version. A 4th ed. of Talisman was just released. It's not like this product is hard to find on the current market, or that a digital, for-pay version is about to hit the market. If I have access to the Vassal version, why am I going to plunk down $10 for download it to my 360? I'm not, and GW is going to make $0 off me, while I continue to play their game that...gasp...GW has actually put back on the market after years of people clamoring for just such an event.
Just goes to show...you can't please everyone. While the Talisman fans over the past years have been crying for a reprint, a whole different group has been quietly and unobtrusively playing free digital versions. Now the cries of the first group have been answered, but as a result, the second group now has something to cry about.
-
Matt Rice
Spain
Toledo
Toledo
-
MWChapel wrote: BFoy wrote: just ignore the GW games. Been doing that since 1997.
Hey!
Me too!
-
Richard Panek
United States
Colorado Springs
Colorado
-
Echtalion wrote:
Me, I'm very happy balancing my work, family, and hobbies together. I enjoy reading, traveling and also gaming, which I am able to do spending but a tiny fraction of what I would have to were I a GW fan, not to mention the ridiculous amount of time.
And all those stupid model railroaders who could just play Ticket to Ride- what are they thinking?
Cross-geek hate is an ugly thing...
-
Matthew Watson
United Kingdom
Edinburgh
-
In a similar vein, GW are not allowing a fan-produced Warhammer film to be shown: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7010484.stm
In that case, though, it seems that it is German copyright law that's clouding the issue.
-
Alexander B.
United States
Austin
Texas
-
Fun facts about GW (note that I'm not a GW fan nor enemy at this point, so this is simply meant to be historical information):
1) they deleted upwards of 50 of my forum posts (out of probably 500+ of them) from their forum. By deleted, I mean vanished as in someone whispering a word against some evil regime might vanish in the dead of night... no trace, no note, no comment, just *gone*. All mention of the deletions were also deleted (amazingly quickly also, like within 5 mintues 24 hours a day).
These comments ranged from anything from slightly critical remarks about GW (most of which were constructive critique), to the mere mention that other companies made minis, to mentions that they actually did not create the "mini hobby" as they claim.
I wrote the company an e-mail saying that calling it a "forum" was misleading when it was being constantly secretly censored without informing users tha this was being done. Within one month they changed the name of the forums to be called "moderated forums"... apparently they agreed with me that they were being misleading, and wanted to continue doing so with the minimum amount of informing the public, while covering their ass technically (not that I agree that the forum renaming made any difference legally).
2) they have disqualified tournament players from their tournaments for having so much as one tiny piece of a huge GW army--costing 1000s of dollars in GW parts--being from a non-GW miniature (or even part of a single mini!).
3) they sued a friend of mine who was attempting to start a small mini company. The guy had several armies, one of which was orcs with machine guns, (this was out before 40k existed). After GW released 40k, they sued him. The suit focused on a single mini of an orc riding a Nazi-like sidecar motorcycle. GW lost, but, apparently as intended, the legal fees cause the guy to close down.
4) I heard from several different sources of people with "friends in the company" that GW purposefully writes their rules in vague ways so as to generate "buzz" and sell magazines to "clairify" rules. After playing the game for 100s of hours long ago and seeing several editions of the rules, I have absolutely no doubt this is true.
Enjoy!
-
|
|
