"No battle plan survives contact with the enemy," if you believe Von Moltke, and there's certainly nothing like the real world to get in the way of your plans. At the start of the year I decided that from now on I wanted start a new painting project until I had finished the last. That discipline was enough to get my Chaos Dwarf army painted, but it seems to be collapsing or at least compromised in the face of events.
By now I should have finished Aiko and Gorilla for Bushido. Getting my temple models up to date was my next goal, after some time spent focusing on individual models I was going to go back to units, possibly with Kings of War or Clash of Empires (I still have a lot of plastic Normans and Saxons to paint).
It's not my fault that Games Workshop chose now to wind up Specialist games, prompting a last desperate rush of orders so that I got as many models as I could while they were still gettable. It's hardly surprising in the face of all this Epic stuff that my mind has been wandering and I have been using up valuable painting time in a frantic sessions of gluing and sorting. My armies were in disarray, I needed to know what I had so that I knew what to glue. It's not entirely my fault.
I am justifying this on the grounds that gluing isn't painting and so I haven't, technically, broken my rule. I can will get back to Aiko soon and my project will not have been interrupted. Unfortunately, soon is proving to be an increasingly elastic concept. Just Ork fighter-bombers and a Warlock Titan to go, I promise. All rogue thoughts of scratch building a Lord of Battle for a Daemon World army will be put aside, at least until Bushido is done. Definitely. I'm almost certain of it.
Events conspire in other ways to mess with our plans. Okay, I knew that having Salute at the end of one month and the UK Games Expo at the end of the next was going to be financially punishing, but I didn't know Mantic would launch its most interesting Kickstarter and that Games Workshop would try to do away with Specialist games in the same month. I can't put these expenses off, its now or never on all of them.
It helps to remind myself that these things are transitory. After a couple of years of barely thinking about Epic, I have suddenly gone obsessive, a bit like Inquisitor a few months back. Before long something else will distract me. This is why I set goals for myself in the first place, so that I might actually get something finished in the face of increasing lethargy. I will get back to Bushido soon, almost definitely.
Wednesday, 15 May 2013
Tuesday, 14 May 2013
License to Game
Since Mantic's open day news has got out that their first line of licensed miniatures is going to be Mars Attacks. Certainly an unexpected development. My initial reaction was to wonder 'why?' It doesn't strike you as the most obvious license to pursue. Apologies to devoted fans, but it isn't exactly the biggest name franchise around. But it does have a very distinctive look and it's retro sci-fi looks seems reasonably popular at the moment.
Thinking about it some more, it occurred to me that the most obvious licenses don't necessarily make the best wargames. Take Lord of the Rings for example, thanks to Tolkein's obsessive attention to detail we know about pretty much all the major battles in Middle Earth's history as well as the personal history of most of its heroes. We also know that a lot of major characters we're only involved in very specific conflicts. The Army of the Dead and the Mumakils were only seen at one battle. The Fellowship was only together a group for a brief period and fought as a group on only one or two occasions. This limits the value of your shiny new 'Fellowship of the Ring' boxed set if you think about it.
Lord of the Rings players are essentially stuck either replaying the same scenarios, trying to find plausible encounters that fit into Tolkein sanctioned history, playing 'what if' or alternate universe scenarios (what if Gandalf had been evil instead of Saruman, what if Boromir had survived the Orc ambush, what if Sauron had attacked Helms Deep etc) or just ignoring the background entirely and just playing it as a game. I know plenty of people are happy with the last option, but I always felt that if you were going to ignore the background, why bother playing a Lord of the Rings game at all?
So the popularity of a particular license doesn't mean that it makes a suitable game. Which brings me to a license that has been on my 'most wanted' list of games for a while: Avatar - The Last Airbender. To clarify, I am not talking about James Cameron's smurfs in space mega-epic or the dismal M Night Shyamalan travesty of a film. I am talking about the original Nickolodeon, strongly anime influenced cartoon series.
For the unfamiliar, Avatar (as I insist on calling it, it got here before James Cameron) is set in a world somewhat influenced by medieval China in which individuals are able to manipulate or 'bend' the four elements, Water, Earth, Fire and Air, by performing sequences of martial arts inspired manoeuvres. The titular Avatar is the one individual capable of bending all four elements and who is reincarnated throughout history. When the series begins the Fire nation has been engaged in a 100 year war against the other nations (Earth Kingdom, Water Tribes and Air Nomads) Avatar is a 12 year old Air-bender, the last of his people whom the Fire Nation wiped out in a failed bid to get rid of him. The story focuses on the Avatar and his friends attempts to end the war.
So we have four distinctive factions each with their own signature powers and looks. The world is on the cusp of an industrial revolution, so the series introduces us to steam-powered ships, tanks and airships, as well as stone vehicles controlled by earth-benders. The series also has a nice line in animals that are a combination of two real world animals, but usually a different size. So we have a cross between a komodo dragon and a stag beetle that is the size of an elephant and ridden into battle by soldiers who can throw fire balls. The Avatar gets about on a six legged flying buffalo.
The series is open ended enough that there's plenty of scope for 'further adventures' involving the main characters or, alternatively, there's one hundred years of war to play with. As well as opportunities for some very distinctive and colourful armies, I can also envisage some interesting game mechanics based on the way element-bending works.
Then there's the spin-off series Legend of Korra that ups the technology level bringing in planes and robot suits.
Of course the fact that its owned by a Children's TV channel means a wargame is very unlikely to happen Games companies would likely ignore it as being too far removed from the major demographic and Nickelodeon would probably not be interested in a game based on full-scale warfare. That said, there was a CCG a while back and if the Kickstarter ever happens, I'll be first in the door with a pledge.
But it does make you question whether the licenses that end up as games are necessarily the ones that should.
Thinking about it some more, it occurred to me that the most obvious licenses don't necessarily make the best wargames. Take Lord of the Rings for example, thanks to Tolkein's obsessive attention to detail we know about pretty much all the major battles in Middle Earth's history as well as the personal history of most of its heroes. We also know that a lot of major characters we're only involved in very specific conflicts. The Army of the Dead and the Mumakils were only seen at one battle. The Fellowship was only together a group for a brief period and fought as a group on only one or two occasions. This limits the value of your shiny new 'Fellowship of the Ring' boxed set if you think about it.
Lord of the Rings players are essentially stuck either replaying the same scenarios, trying to find plausible encounters that fit into Tolkein sanctioned history, playing 'what if' or alternate universe scenarios (what if Gandalf had been evil instead of Saruman, what if Boromir had survived the Orc ambush, what if Sauron had attacked Helms Deep etc) or just ignoring the background entirely and just playing it as a game. I know plenty of people are happy with the last option, but I always felt that if you were going to ignore the background, why bother playing a Lord of the Rings game at all?
So the popularity of a particular license doesn't mean that it makes a suitable game. Which brings me to a license that has been on my 'most wanted' list of games for a while: Avatar - The Last Airbender. To clarify, I am not talking about James Cameron's smurfs in space mega-epic or the dismal M Night Shyamalan travesty of a film. I am talking about the original Nickolodeon, strongly anime influenced cartoon series.
Picture by Allagea on Deviantart.com
For the unfamiliar, Avatar (as I insist on calling it, it got here before James Cameron) is set in a world somewhat influenced by medieval China in which individuals are able to manipulate or 'bend' the four elements, Water, Earth, Fire and Air, by performing sequences of martial arts inspired manoeuvres. The titular Avatar is the one individual capable of bending all four elements and who is reincarnated throughout history. When the series begins the Fire nation has been engaged in a 100 year war against the other nations (Earth Kingdom, Water Tribes and Air Nomads) Avatar is a 12 year old Air-bender, the last of his people whom the Fire Nation wiped out in a failed bid to get rid of him. The story focuses on the Avatar and his friends attempts to end the war.
So we have four distinctive factions each with their own signature powers and looks. The world is on the cusp of an industrial revolution, so the series introduces us to steam-powered ships, tanks and airships, as well as stone vehicles controlled by earth-benders. The series also has a nice line in animals that are a combination of two real world animals, but usually a different size. So we have a cross between a komodo dragon and a stag beetle that is the size of an elephant and ridden into battle by soldiers who can throw fire balls. The Avatar gets about on a six legged flying buffalo.
The series is open ended enough that there's plenty of scope for 'further adventures' involving the main characters or, alternatively, there's one hundred years of war to play with. As well as opportunities for some very distinctive and colourful armies, I can also envisage some interesting game mechanics based on the way element-bending works.
Then there's the spin-off series Legend of Korra that ups the technology level bringing in planes and robot suits.
Of course the fact that its owned by a Children's TV channel means a wargame is very unlikely to happen Games companies would likely ignore it as being too far removed from the major demographic and Nickelodeon would probably not be interested in a game based on full-scale warfare. That said, there was a CCG a while back and if the Kickstarter ever happens, I'll be first in the door with a pledge.
But it does make you question whether the licenses that end up as games are necessarily the ones that should.
Monday, 13 May 2013
Printing the Future
So someone has successfully 3D printed a gun and it's only a matter of time before we're all shooting each other over the last seat on the bus. In the world were guns are tiny and less likely to fire successfully, 3D printing looks set to make a significant, if hopefully much less traumatic, impact (the day of printing a 3D Space Marine Legion and taking over the planet are probably a good couple of decades away yet).
At the moment 3D printing is still too expensive to be a viable alternative to most companies miniatures, but prices are falling and Games Workshop are trying there very best to overtake them in the opposite direction. This has, understandably, panicked a number of people. If recasting is a problem now, imagine what it will be like if you can simply 3D scan a miniature and produce as many copies as you like.
If 3D printing really does become common place, then I foresee it completely changing the way we go about buying models. If we can make endless copies, then the value in a model lies in the pattern, not the physical object. We are almost there already, very little of the cost of a plastic model is in the material used to make it, most of it is in the design, sculpting and tooling. Eliminate the tooling and that's a major cost saving. Imagine a future where miniature companies sell 3D designs which can be downloaded and printed freely.
Of course such a step would not be wholly without precedent. Some of us having been buying scenery from companies like Fat Dragon Games and World Works for years now. These companies provide PDF files that you print and assemble at home. Once you have the PDF you can print as many copies as you like. The fact that these companies have been around as long as they have shows that this can be a viable business model.
Of course, anyone who has bought PDF scenery knows that the major cost isn't the PDF, which is usually very cheap, but in the card, glue and printer ink. The cost of a 3D printed future will depend on the cost of plastic suitable for 3D printers. And lets face it, if they ever embrace the technology you can guarantee that Games Workshop will start producing its own range of 'high quality' 3D printer plastic that is 'highly suitable for printing miniature' for some reason or another. But until someone invents matter replication, the cost of an army is still likely to increase with its size.
One major advantage of 3D printing is the opportunity for customisation. If a company supplies you with a basic printer pattern, there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to modify it, changing pose or iconography. One pattern could be good for dozens of different variants.
There are already companies like MaxMini and Kromlech whose business if largely in creating custom parts for existing miniatures. Imagine if you could build your own parts or buy custom parts you could print yourself, say a collection of Space Marine shoulder pads. This might be the first step for the wargaming industry. I can't see the big name companies being early adopters, but a small, lean operation might start out by producing custom parts for use with other models downloadable through their own website. And based on past experience, this company would pretty much have to have a Kickstarter campaign.
We could on the brink of a major change in how this hobby is marketed and sold.
At the moment 3D printing is still too expensive to be a viable alternative to most companies miniatures, but prices are falling and Games Workshop are trying there very best to overtake them in the opposite direction. This has, understandably, panicked a number of people. If recasting is a problem now, imagine what it will be like if you can simply 3D scan a miniature and produce as many copies as you like.
If 3D printing really does become common place, then I foresee it completely changing the way we go about buying models. If we can make endless copies, then the value in a model lies in the pattern, not the physical object. We are almost there already, very little of the cost of a plastic model is in the material used to make it, most of it is in the design, sculpting and tooling. Eliminate the tooling and that's a major cost saving. Imagine a future where miniature companies sell 3D designs which can be downloaded and printed freely.
Of course such a step would not be wholly without precedent. Some of us having been buying scenery from companies like Fat Dragon Games and World Works for years now. These companies provide PDF files that you print and assemble at home. Once you have the PDF you can print as many copies as you like. The fact that these companies have been around as long as they have shows that this can be a viable business model.
3D Printed, sort of
Of course, anyone who has bought PDF scenery knows that the major cost isn't the PDF, which is usually very cheap, but in the card, glue and printer ink. The cost of a 3D printed future will depend on the cost of plastic suitable for 3D printers. And lets face it, if they ever embrace the technology you can guarantee that Games Workshop will start producing its own range of 'high quality' 3D printer plastic that is 'highly suitable for printing miniature' for some reason or another. But until someone invents matter replication, the cost of an army is still likely to increase with its size.
One major advantage of 3D printing is the opportunity for customisation. If a company supplies you with a basic printer pattern, there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to modify it, changing pose or iconography. One pattern could be good for dozens of different variants.
There are already companies like MaxMini and Kromlech whose business if largely in creating custom parts for existing miniatures. Imagine if you could build your own parts or buy custom parts you could print yourself, say a collection of Space Marine shoulder pads. This might be the first step for the wargaming industry. I can't see the big name companies being early adopters, but a small, lean operation might start out by producing custom parts for use with other models downloadable through their own website. And based on past experience, this company would pretty much have to have a Kickstarter campaign.
We could on the brink of a major change in how this hobby is marketed and sold.
Friday, 10 May 2013
An Epic farewell
Games Workshop's decision to finally kill off Specialist games has prompted me to pick up the last few Epic models I really wanted before they are gone forever. I say forever, that isn't quite true as I'm sure there will be plenty of models traded around Ebay and at convention bring and buy sales for years to come.
I didn't need a lot, I have pretty extensive armies for Orks, Eldar and Space Marines with a few quirky extras including old Chaos models and Imperial Knights, but it was a nice opportunity to fill in a few gaps. Though it has had the disturbing tendency to drag me back for more. I've put in three separate orders so far. I have told myself that that is definitely it, but then I said that about the last two orders as well.
This sudden focus on Epic has reminded me that it is, more or less, the game that got me into wargaming in the first place. Hero Quest and Warhammer 40,000 are entitled to a considerable amount of the credit, but Epic was the first game I really built and army and the first Games Workshop only game (Hero Quest was a co-production with MB games) I owned. My first Games Workshop models was a box of Epic Orks. I ordered them because of the promise of hundreds of models, not realising how small they were.
Actually, in the early 1990s, Epic was a pretty good starting point for a new player. For a start, almost all the infantry, as well as some of the light vehicles, were available entirely in plastic and the early Epic boxes did contain a few hundred individual models. One or two boxes would easily cover all your infantry needs. In contrast to Warhammer or 40K, where you would often need four or five blisters to form a whole unit, Epic vehicle formations could be had in one or two (Games Workshop had a frustrating tendency to sell tanks in packs of two and require them to be used in groups of three). It was cheap to start an army, and it could be easily expanded in bits.
The drawback was the rules. In 1990, to get the full rules you needed two boxed sets, Space Marine and Adeptus Titanicus, the supplement book Codex Titanicus and about half a dozen White Dwarfs. But then I started out buying models I liked the look of and not worrying about rules. And the rules problem was fixed when second editon was released in 1991.
But the real draw for a ten year old was that Epic allowed you to build up armies that really looked like armies with hundreds of infantry, battalions of tanks and building sized giant robots. In contrast, Warhammer 40,000 armies of the time looked like little more than a couple of gangs.
Of course current Games Workshop marketing encourages players to build huge armies in 28mm scale and the range of tanks and huge things has certainly expanded. But Epic was the game that made massive battle seem affordable to at least one 10 year old.
I didn't need a lot, I have pretty extensive armies for Orks, Eldar and Space Marines with a few quirky extras including old Chaos models and Imperial Knights, but it was a nice opportunity to fill in a few gaps. Though it has had the disturbing tendency to drag me back for more. I've put in three separate orders so far. I have told myself that that is definitely it, but then I said that about the last two orders as well.
This sudden focus on Epic has reminded me that it is, more or less, the game that got me into wargaming in the first place. Hero Quest and Warhammer 40,000 are entitled to a considerable amount of the credit, but Epic was the first game I really built and army and the first Games Workshop only game (Hero Quest was a co-production with MB games) I owned. My first Games Workshop models was a box of Epic Orks. I ordered them because of the promise of hundreds of models, not realising how small they were.
Actually, in the early 1990s, Epic was a pretty good starting point for a new player. For a start, almost all the infantry, as well as some of the light vehicles, were available entirely in plastic and the early Epic boxes did contain a few hundred individual models. One or two boxes would easily cover all your infantry needs. In contrast to Warhammer or 40K, where you would often need four or five blisters to form a whole unit, Epic vehicle formations could be had in one or two (Games Workshop had a frustrating tendency to sell tanks in packs of two and require them to be used in groups of three). It was cheap to start an army, and it could be easily expanded in bits.
The drawback was the rules. In 1990, to get the full rules you needed two boxed sets, Space Marine and Adeptus Titanicus, the supplement book Codex Titanicus and about half a dozen White Dwarfs. But then I started out buying models I liked the look of and not worrying about rules. And the rules problem was fixed when second editon was released in 1991.
But the real draw for a ten year old was that Epic allowed you to build up armies that really looked like armies with hundreds of infantry, battalions of tanks and building sized giant robots. In contrast, Warhammer 40,000 armies of the time looked like little more than a couple of gangs.
Of course current Games Workshop marketing encourages players to build huge armies in 28mm scale and the range of tanks and huge things has certainly expanded. But Epic was the game that made massive battle seem affordable to at least one 10 year old.
Tuesday, 7 May 2013
The Eternal Battle
I spent a lot of money at Salute this year. I usually do. My general pattern of spending, when it comes to wargames, is to do most of it at conventions. I then buy only a few bits and bobs through the rest of the year. The problem is that this is becoming a habit. When I first went to Salute, I spent a lot because it was an opportunity to get my hands on models and games that I couldn't easily get for most of the year. But it's now becoming something of a tradition. I'm spending a lot of money because I always do.
I've built up quite a haul over the past few years and still haven't assembled, let alone painted, a lot of it. Oliver Cromwell is done, but I have a couple of hundred Warlord English Civil War figures still on their frames. At the Salute just gone, my attention focused on slightly more expensive figures. Most of my money went on figures for Bushido and 7TV. This at least left me with a manageable amount of stuff to build and paint.
I'm concerned that I am acquiring far more than I can possibly do anything with. I know this is the perennial wargamers problem. but I think it's becoming particularly acute in my case. It comes to something when you are casting around for things to spend money on at an event because you don't want to go and not spend anything.
Taking a step back, I have plenty of models for most of the games I actually want to play and would rather focus on getting them painted and playing with them. And yet, the conventions loom and I end up persuading myself that I just need one or two more things for each army, and before you know it I have another bag full of metal and plastic.
I'm planning to attend the UK Games Expo for the first time ever this year (no particular issue with it I just never seemed to get organised before) and I'm hoping to make it an experience about playing games and not just buying them. It can be the test, can I go and enjoy a gaming weekend without having to take half of it home with me? I have plenty to be getting on with from Salute, this event does not have to be about spending money.
I've built up quite a haul over the past few years and still haven't assembled, let alone painted, a lot of it. Oliver Cromwell is done, but I have a couple of hundred Warlord English Civil War figures still on their frames. At the Salute just gone, my attention focused on slightly more expensive figures. Most of my money went on figures for Bushido and 7TV. This at least left me with a manageable amount of stuff to build and paint.
I'm concerned that I am acquiring far more than I can possibly do anything with. I know this is the perennial wargamers problem. but I think it's becoming particularly acute in my case. It comes to something when you are casting around for things to spend money on at an event because you don't want to go and not spend anything.
Taking a step back, I have plenty of models for most of the games I actually want to play and would rather focus on getting them painted and playing with them. And yet, the conventions loom and I end up persuading myself that I just need one or two more things for each army, and before you know it I have another bag full of metal and plastic.
I'm planning to attend the UK Games Expo for the first time ever this year (no particular issue with it I just never seemed to get organised before) and I'm hoping to make it an experience about playing games and not just buying them. It can be the test, can I go and enjoy a gaming weekend without having to take half of it home with me? I have plenty to be getting on with from Salute, this event does not have to be about spending money.
Thursday, 2 May 2013
Paint and Prejudice
In the spirit of my news resolution to not start any new painting projects until my current one was complete, I spent most of my painting time in the first third of the year on Chaos Dwarfs. This meant a lot of 'industrial' painting, repeating the same processes over and over again on very similar models, then 'dipping' in Army Painter quick shade before varnishing. The results were reasonably impressive* but the process gets pretty tedious pretty quickly.
After all that a change is good as a rest and I have been focusing all my attention on a single model. In this case Warlord Games Oliver Cromwell, acquired for my Dad, who is something of a Civil war buff, by my little brother. He's proven too lazy to paint (Dad not brother) and so the task has been palmed off on me. It's unusual, because for the first time in a long time, I've been painting a model not intended for use as a gaming piece.
I have occasionally acquired models solely because I like the look of them, but the motivation has rarely been there to get them painted. I suppose this is partly because, until relatively recently, I didn't consider my painting skills worth displaying. I'm under no illusions that I'm up to competition winning standards now, but I will put my models in a glass fronted cabinet without feeling embarrassed. In spite of this, I still favour models that can, in theory, be used for gaming even if I only rarely play the game.
This is a bit odd, because when it comes to choosing armies/factions/crews/gangs for games, I invariably choose the models I like the look of without recourse to the rules (which sometimes leads to some decidedly uncompetitive armies). So at one level I pick models because I like the look of them and at another require them to be of use in a game.
It's just one of a number of minor prejudices on irrational preferences that, I'm sure, everyone has. For example, I've had no problem with pre-painted models when they're supplied randomly, but shun them when I know what is in the box. So I have a small horde of Heroclix, Horrorclix and Star Wars miniatures, but always avoided AT43, even when it was popular. No real reason for this, I just instinctively avoided it. Similarly, I would never include a model in my army that someone else had painted, even if they did a far better job than I could.
Returning to the business of painting models not for use in games, I did use to try and produce a Golden Daemon entry on an annual basis. I had no expectation of winning, or even placing, but I liked having a goal to focus on and having the 'excuse' to work on a model that wasn't part of an army. So maybe I was sub-consciously rebelling against my own self-imposed rules?
I can't really offer a justification for my preferences or make any profound statements about it. I suppose a great deal of human behaviour is essentially arbitrary and capricious. Or maybe I am slowly going bonkers?
*Yes there will be pictures. I can write these things during my lunch break, but my arms don't stretch far enough to reach my camera, unfortunately.
After all that a change is good as a rest and I have been focusing all my attention on a single model. In this case Warlord Games Oliver Cromwell, acquired for my Dad, who is something of a Civil war buff, by my little brother. He's proven too lazy to paint (Dad not brother) and so the task has been palmed off on me. It's unusual, because for the first time in a long time, I've been painting a model not intended for use as a gaming piece.
I have occasionally acquired models solely because I like the look of them, but the motivation has rarely been there to get them painted. I suppose this is partly because, until relatively recently, I didn't consider my painting skills worth displaying. I'm under no illusions that I'm up to competition winning standards now, but I will put my models in a glass fronted cabinet without feeling embarrassed. In spite of this, I still favour models that can, in theory, be used for gaming even if I only rarely play the game.
This is a bit odd, because when it comes to choosing armies/factions/crews/gangs for games, I invariably choose the models I like the look of without recourse to the rules (which sometimes leads to some decidedly uncompetitive armies). So at one level I pick models because I like the look of them and at another require them to be of use in a game.
It's just one of a number of minor prejudices on irrational preferences that, I'm sure, everyone has. For example, I've had no problem with pre-painted models when they're supplied randomly, but shun them when I know what is in the box. So I have a small horde of Heroclix, Horrorclix and Star Wars miniatures, but always avoided AT43, even when it was popular. No real reason for this, I just instinctively avoided it. Similarly, I would never include a model in my army that someone else had painted, even if they did a far better job than I could.
Returning to the business of painting models not for use in games, I did use to try and produce a Golden Daemon entry on an annual basis. I had no expectation of winning, or even placing, but I liked having a goal to focus on and having the 'excuse' to work on a model that wasn't part of an army. So maybe I was sub-consciously rebelling against my own self-imposed rules?
I can't really offer a justification for my preferences or make any profound statements about it. I suppose a great deal of human behaviour is essentially arbitrary and capricious. Or maybe I am slowly going bonkers?
*Yes there will be pictures. I can write these things during my lunch break, but my arms don't stretch far enough to reach my camera, unfortunately.
Wednesday, 1 May 2013
Copyright Contentiousness
So there has been another case of Games Workshop issuing a cease and desist order to a small company over a claim of IP infringement. This time Blighty Wheel Miniatures have put out a 'Mutant Komodo' that looks somewhat like a concept in one of their books. As per usual the debate has centered around the extent to which the miniature looks like the book, whether you can copyright that idea at all, how much of a bunch of bastards GW are and what a bunch of chancers small companies that copy their IP are etc, etc. Numerous amateur lawyers have been engaged to no great effect.
It got me thinking about the whole are of copyright, ip, trademarks and patents though. There's a bit of a tendency in the gaming community to treat the law as absolute and forget that laws can be contentious and the whole are of copyright is decidedly odd in a number of ways.
Copyright exists, essentially, to correct a problem with free market capitalism. The problem is that you can buy and sell goods and services, but not ideas. With goods and services something is supplied that is unique and unrepeatable (you can make many copies of a product, but you can't give the same copy to two people), with ideas once they get out they 'belong' to everyone in that anyone can, theoretically, here and understand them.
This is, unfortunately, very bad for innovation. Why spend money developing an idea if, once the product is released, anyone can copy it? It becomes even trickier in the digital age when many digital 'products' are effectively just ideas, being collections of data that can be transferred and copied at no cost. So copyright exists to allow innovators to financially benefit from their ideas and so encourage innovation.
So far so good. But as with many attempts to solve a problem inherent in a system, it introduces new problems of its own and rewards some decidedly dodgy behaviour.
Few people begrudge creators the ability to financially benefit from their created works, whether they be miniatures, games, books, plays, works of art etc. Similarly, it doesn't seem outrageous that the estate of creators should be allowed to hold copyright for a time after their death. This ensures that families of creators who may have died suddenly or prematurely and where relying on their income can still benefit from the created work. The problem comes when you start being able to sell 'rights' to a concept and we get into the bizarre situation where people really are buying and selling ideas. And this leads to some odd effects.
Most people who have bought a licensed product relating to the Lord of the Rings will have come across the Tolkein Enterprises logo. What they may not know is that this organisation has little to do with Tolkein and his family, but is actually owned by Saul Zaentz whose acquisition of the film rights to the Lord of the Rings has been translated into the ability to charge people for the right to use the concepts and characters in the books. Is this okay? I think it's questionable. He had nothing to do with the creation of the characters, but then he did pay for the rights and, arguably, took a financial risk that might not have paid off. Tolkein was able to realise the immediate value of his idea years before it was possible to produce a film based on them. But should the investment be paying off more than a quarter of a century later and should it allow an effective veto on anyone who wants to use these ideas but cannot stump up whatever fee is demanded?
Where creators work for companies they usually sign over the rights to their ideas over to the company. Again they get the immediate financial benefit but forgo the long term benefits. It's worth remembering that 'Games Workshop' never created a single thing, because it's a legal entity not a person. The company paid for ideas, but is in a position to benefit far more than their creators ever did. Surely the research and development costs of Space Marines as a concept have been paid off by now? Why shouldn't any company be allowed to produce its own Space Marine model and allow consumers to decide which is the best?
I'm not sure about any of this and I'm not offering any real answers just trying to raise a few questions.
Just a final thought, if Games Workshops behaviour often seems like bullying you should try reading Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre and take a look at the behaviour of some drug companies. A significant part of their business consists of trying to find ways to extent patents on existing drugs to increase profits but also maintain the high cost of some life-saving drugs. Games Workshops behaviour can be bad, but it is unlikely to cost anyone their life.
It got me thinking about the whole are of copyright, ip, trademarks and patents though. There's a bit of a tendency in the gaming community to treat the law as absolute and forget that laws can be contentious and the whole are of copyright is decidedly odd in a number of ways.
Copyright exists, essentially, to correct a problem with free market capitalism. The problem is that you can buy and sell goods and services, but not ideas. With goods and services something is supplied that is unique and unrepeatable (you can make many copies of a product, but you can't give the same copy to two people), with ideas once they get out they 'belong' to everyone in that anyone can, theoretically, here and understand them.
This is, unfortunately, very bad for innovation. Why spend money developing an idea if, once the product is released, anyone can copy it? It becomes even trickier in the digital age when many digital 'products' are effectively just ideas, being collections of data that can be transferred and copied at no cost. So copyright exists to allow innovators to financially benefit from their ideas and so encourage innovation.
So far so good. But as with many attempts to solve a problem inherent in a system, it introduces new problems of its own and rewards some decidedly dodgy behaviour.
Few people begrudge creators the ability to financially benefit from their created works, whether they be miniatures, games, books, plays, works of art etc. Similarly, it doesn't seem outrageous that the estate of creators should be allowed to hold copyright for a time after their death. This ensures that families of creators who may have died suddenly or prematurely and where relying on their income can still benefit from the created work. The problem comes when you start being able to sell 'rights' to a concept and we get into the bizarre situation where people really are buying and selling ideas. And this leads to some odd effects.
Most people who have bought a licensed product relating to the Lord of the Rings will have come across the Tolkein Enterprises logo. What they may not know is that this organisation has little to do with Tolkein and his family, but is actually owned by Saul Zaentz whose acquisition of the film rights to the Lord of the Rings has been translated into the ability to charge people for the right to use the concepts and characters in the books. Is this okay? I think it's questionable. He had nothing to do with the creation of the characters, but then he did pay for the rights and, arguably, took a financial risk that might not have paid off. Tolkein was able to realise the immediate value of his idea years before it was possible to produce a film based on them. But should the investment be paying off more than a quarter of a century later and should it allow an effective veto on anyone who wants to use these ideas but cannot stump up whatever fee is demanded?
Where creators work for companies they usually sign over the rights to their ideas over to the company. Again they get the immediate financial benefit but forgo the long term benefits. It's worth remembering that 'Games Workshop' never created a single thing, because it's a legal entity not a person. The company paid for ideas, but is in a position to benefit far more than their creators ever did. Surely the research and development costs of Space Marines as a concept have been paid off by now? Why shouldn't any company be allowed to produce its own Space Marine model and allow consumers to decide which is the best?
I'm not sure about any of this and I'm not offering any real answers just trying to raise a few questions.
Just a final thought, if Games Workshops behaviour often seems like bullying you should try reading Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre and take a look at the behaviour of some drug companies. A significant part of their business consists of trying to find ways to extent patents on existing drugs to increase profits but also maintain the high cost of some life-saving drugs. Games Workshops behaviour can be bad, but it is unlikely to cost anyone their life.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)