bacon
Junior Strategist
Posts: 134
|
Post by bacon on Dec 27, 2019 0:46:56 GMT
so everyone ignoring that company can give away free stuff in promoting, using your words they steal too. Because they do not have any profit from this. Hey, are any economists here or this is regular "sofa analytics" thread? No one in this thread argued that PP cannot decide to give away free promotional products. Who are you even replying too? Arguing the pedantics of which law is actually broken does not answer the base question of is it moral or justifiable to buy recasts of models? As long as PP continues to produce a given model, any lost sales that result from recasters undercutting PP is damage to PP's income. While "stealing" is not necessarily the correct way of describing this interaction, it makes a functional shorthand to express it. The only time I could ever consider buying a recast justifiable is when a model has been out of production for so long that legitimate copies of the model from the original producer's inventory are no longer available.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Dec 27, 2019 5:11:58 GMT
It is incredibly cheap and embarrassing how people are trying to defend piracy.
Who has tried to defend piracy?
I have only been pointing out the payments of the situation. The only thing I have said positive about recasting is the advantage the materials provide for modification. That is exclusive to the hobby itself, not the economics or morality.
Or one Crusader gets sold second-hand 11 times, and is in the same situation. No, not at all. People who resell dont retain use of the crusader after it is sold. If PP sold 5 crusaders and each crusader was resold 5 times each, there are still only 5 crusaders in the market: the ones that pp originally sold. If a recaster buys 5 crusaders and recasts them 5 times each then there are 30 total out in the market, but pp only got paid for 5 of them. Yes, buying used is not helping PP right now but buying used means you are using a model whose cost at some point went PP. Buying from a recaster cuts from PP's profit because they get nothing beyond the original models the recaster bought to make the casts; in my example it is 25 lost sales.
Still missing the point. Resell Crusader 11 times, no money to PP. Recast Crusader 11 times, no money to PP. That is the only point I was ever trying to make, and everyone seems to gloss over that to try and convince me against something I never stated.
Yes, selling a recast does make the market worse, over all. I have not stated otherwise. Even worse, if every Crusader was resold 5 times, than one includes in the recasts, your calculations do get much much worse for the economics.
Or one Crusader gets sold second-hand 11 times, and is in the same situation. Except then there's still that one crusader that PP already profited off of. Not 10 additional recast crusaders that PP did not see any income from.
Still 11 sales of a Crusader that PP never gets money for, and that has been my only point. Why are you trying to argue against something I have not stated?
|
|
|
Post by challenger on Dec 27, 2019 8:57:37 GMT
WMH is one of the most expensive mini games around. It also has a declining player base.
PP get more benefits from just getting people sitting down and actually playing the game than they do from excluding people who could just go to cheaper games (read: literally almost all mini wargames except maybe 40k and AoS, except they both have better small skirmish games like Kill team to soften the blow).
Players who wouldn't have bought in the first place buys recast mini --> plays and joins a community --> that community attracts more players --> those extra players purchase official PP models --> original recast bro might pick up a solo or two from the FLGS for their army rather than go through the hassle of waiting for a recast solo to save a few $$ --> PP profits.
But it's all a moot point anyway, give it a decade and everyone will be 3d printing their armies at a quality it'll be impossible to tell if they are official or not
|
|
privvy
Junior Strategist
Formerly The Nomad on PP's forums
Posts: 317
|
Post by privvy on Dec 27, 2019 18:16:00 GMT
Except then there's still that one crusader that PP already profited off of. Not 10 additional recast crusaders that PP did not see any income from.
Still 11 sales of a Crusader that PP never gets money for, and that has been my only point. Why are you trying to argue against something I have not stated?
I'm not sure how that's relevant in any way then. PP already sold that Crusader, they got their money for it. Second hand sales with just about anything don't generate income for the producer.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Dec 27, 2019 18:33:21 GMT
Still 11 sales of a Crusader that PP never gets money for, and that has been my only point. Why are you trying to argue against something I have not stated?
I'm not sure how that's relevant in any way then. PP already sold that Crusader, they got their money for it. Second hand sales with just about anything don't generate income for the producer. Because you are forgetting the other half. PP does not get money from second-hand sales. PP does not get money from recast sales. Same result for PP.
|
|
privvy
Junior Strategist
Formerly The Nomad on PP's forums
Posts: 317
|
Post by privvy on Dec 27, 2019 19:38:26 GMT
I mean, that makes sense if you forget or ignore every other part of recasting, but the end result is only the same on the most basic level. The only way that's relevant in any way is if you expand on it, like the responses to your rudimentary premise have.
If PP produces 100 crusaders, then they sell 100, they profit off of all 100. Doesn't matter if they get sold second hand after or not, the profit is in the books. If PP sells 1 to a recaster and 99 to people, they profit off of the 100. If the recaster goes and makes 10 more, then that's 10 crusaders that PP did not profit off of and will in no way profit off of. Or if PP makes 100 and the recaster buys one and sells recasts for much cheaper, maybe they don't sell all 100 because people get them cheaper elsewhere. So PP loses the initial profit.
Your idea is completely irrelevant without expanding on it.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Dec 27, 2019 21:52:58 GMT
I mean, that makes sense if you forget or ignore every other part of recasting, but the end result is only the same on the most basic level. The only way that's relevant in any way is if you expand on it, like the responses to your rudimentary premise have. If PP produces 100 crusaders, then they sell 100, they profit off of all 100. Doesn't matter if they get sold second hand after or not, the profit is in the books. If PP sells 1 to a recaster and 99 to people, they profit off of the 100. If the recaster goes and makes 10 more, then that's 10 crusaders that PP did not profit off of and will in no way profit off of. Or if PP makes 100 and the recaster buys one and sells recasts for much cheaper, maybe they don't sell all 100 because people get them cheaper elsewhere. So PP loses the initial profit. Your idea is completely irrelevant without expanding on it.
You're not expanding yours, but limiting it. You expand the recast but ignore the second-hand being expanded in a similar way. They sell 100 Crusaders, then 99 get resold 3 times, and 1 gets recast 100. How many sales did PP not get out of that, which one has a larger proportion, recast or second-hand?
|
|
|
Post by jagius021 on Dec 28, 2019 0:21:27 GMT
The secondary market is an encouraged part in any hobby game (minis, magic, etc). Counterfeits are not, they undercut the market greatly and hurt the producer. Want a case and point from people who have far more data regarding the economic state of this? Look at wizards of the coast. They have the Reserved list that is STILL in place, and that is just for the secondary market, they make no money there. Yet they still crack down on counterfeits, including those cards on the reserved list that they themselves vowed not to reprint. This is a company who has spent thousands upon thousands of dollars into researching market trends, backed by one of the biggest toy producers. If counterfeits weren't damaging, they wouldn't care. Recasts are the same.
A big difference between secondary market and recasts is simple: used vs new. I have plenty of second hand models, and most sport awful paint jobs. If I want to paint that model myself, I need to strip it and or reprime it. A recast is a new, untouched model. So if I want my lime green molik Karn to match my traditional skorne theme, I'll need to do work or just buy a new model. Sure, some people are selling primed models, or silver models, or even new in box models on eBay. But those came from pp first. Pp made their money on it. A recast bypasses pp.
|
|
|
Post by Havock on Dec 28, 2019 1:28:31 GMT
it's been about a decade since I passed my Bar, but in the US Federal law, recasting and distributing the counterfeit merchandise is Intellectual Property Theft, also known as Piracy. If you are to ignore the IPT for too long without pursuing avenues of correcting the IPT, usually to the point that the property becomes a household name, then it contests the copyright and you may lose the copyright. This is why Disney will demand a nursery in backwoods nowhere remove a Disney mural that they did not approve of, and why everyone calls a photocopier a Xerox, despite Xerox being one producer of photocopiers. Stealing really isn't a thing in most places, except colloquially, but some jurisdictions recognize a difference between theft and stealing, usually the difference is that stealing is taking a specific piece of property, while theft would be just the general taking of property, be it physical or not. In the US, it is illegal to knowingly purchase or import a counterfeit good and can result in civil or criminal penalties. There's a few different kinds of theft. Larceny is the one that you're currently hung up on, where it is theft of physical goods, and there's different degrees of larceny. There's also Identity Theft and Robbery. Pirating isn't equivalent to theft, it is actually, legally, factually, theft. Now I'm going to muddy the water a little. If the recast is done in China, the legality of it is lost to me, but importing it is a violation if IP rights. There are also things PP "owns" that would not hold up in court. Most of the faction symbols with real world elements, such as the Menofix and the Cygnar Swan are pretty open to be copied since you can't really copyright that sort of design, but you can copyright the design with the IP of the faction. A court would likely decide that I can freely print and sell the Menofix symbol but I couldn't call it a Menofix and I couldn't explicitly market it as such or make any connection to the Protectorate Faction.
Good to have someone with actual knowledge here, I mean, I have a basic grasp of the stuff but it is very limited to my country (and it has been a long time since I actually had to do anything with it). Which may be where the differing definitions come from. US law is quite different from EU/Dutch law.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Dec 28, 2019 7:10:57 GMT
The secondary market is an encouraged part in any hobby game (minis, magic, etc). Counterfeits are not, they undercut the market greatly and hurt the producer. Want a case and point from people who have far more data regarding the economic state of this? Look at wizards of the coast. They have the Reserved list that is STILL in place, and that is just for the secondary market, they make no money there. Yet they still crack down on counterfeits, including those cards on the reserved list that they themselves vowed not to reprint. This is a company who has spent thousands upon thousands of dollars into researching market trends, backed by one of the biggest toy producers. If counterfeits weren't damaging, they wouldn't care. Recasts are the same. A big difference between secondary market and recasts is simple: used vs new. I have plenty of second hand models, and most sport awful paint jobs. If I want to paint that model myself, I need to strip it and or reprime it. A recast is a new, untouched model. So if I want my lime green molik Karn to match my traditional skorne theme, I'll need to do work or just buy a new model. Sure, some people are selling primed models, or silver models, or even new in box models on eBay. But those came from pp first. Pp made their money on it. A recast bypasses pp.
If they are built and primed, how do you know they are not recast until you heft it (and with the resin models, not even then).
The thing is, reselling has been part of the nature of non-consumable items since someone started selling land, so we have come to accept it without considering the ramifications of it. That is why it is usually considered bad form to try and make rules against it.
When you buy an item second hand, that is a sale that the developer is not getting. Why should they bother buying new in the box, giving that money to PP, when they can give it to someone else (sometimes cheaper)? It is that simple.
Did you know that video game companies have worked for decades on combating the very concept of any level of transferring of a title to another person, be it resale or gifting, for this very reason? It is only since digital keys came about that they have come close to combating it. It's also going in to the print media through ebooks as well.
|
|
|
Post by jagius021 on Dec 28, 2019 15:00:08 GMT
If buying used, you won't necessarily know. That wasn't the point I was making though. The way that producers of goods combat the secondary markets effect is through making new product worth more, or be perceived to be worth more (thanks consumer fetishism!) Than used. You don't see car commercials with some dunce putting a giant red bow on a 2002 grand Prix and giving it to his wife, you see next year's model in the driveway. A new in box model has infinite* possibilities. One that's assembled has less, one that's primed less so, and one that's painted and based even less. So they push the hobby end as well. A tie in is also this: GW contrast paints are amazing, but your model needs to be primed right. I've bought a few models new over used (and even one I already owned) in order to specifically be able to use the contrast paints on them. Now I'm not saying that was the goal of contrast paints, but it was a side effect.
So the way this ties in though, is that the counterfeits take up space as "new" product too. I've seen several Chinese recasts of colossals. They come on sprues and are labeled as new. If they didn't have the same conditions of worth as the new product, it wouldn't be as big a problem, but they do. Once it's assembled and painted on a table, it could be hard to tell the difference. It's not like there's certificate of authenticity on every model.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Dec 28, 2019 17:21:10 GMT
If buying used, you won't necessarily know. That wasn't the point I was making though. The way that producers of goods combat the secondary markets effect is through making new product worth more, or be perceived to be worth more (thanks consumer fetishism!) Than used. You don't see car commercials with some dunce putting a giant red bow on a 2002 grand Prix and giving it to his wife, you see next year's model in the driveway. A new in box model has infinite* possibilities. One that's assembled has less, one that's primed less so, and one that's painted and based even less. So they push the hobby end as well. A tie in is also this: GW contrast paints are amazing, but your model needs to be primed right. I've bought a few models new over used (and even one I already owned) in order to specifically be able to use the contrast paints on them. Now I'm not saying that was the goal of contrast paints, but it was a side effect. Actually recasting can have positive benefits to the hobby (not the business). Metal models are difficult to manipulate in to new forms, and recasting them in plastic or resin is good for that. But that's about as far as the benefits of recasting I'll acknowledge, and that only applies when the material is significantly changed.
Oddly enough, I have not lionized recasting any more than that. What may be good for the hobby may not be good for the business. I am just more demonizing reselling for a similar reason as the recasting: The artists are not getting paid. I don't see the point of lionizing the resale in favor of recasting in regards to that one point.
So the way this ties in though, is that the counterfeits take up space as "new" product too. I've seen several Chinese recasts of colossals. They come on sprues and are labeled as new. If they didn't have the same conditions of worth as the new product, it wouldn't be as big a problem, but they do. Once it's assembled and painted on a table, it could be hard to tell the difference. It's not like there's certificate of authenticity on every model. Good thing I have never supported such a concept, nor has anyone else in this thread. You are making arguments against something that neither I nor anyone else have stated. All I've been doing is demonizing the resale by pointing out one hypocritical aspect.
|
|
privvy
Junior Strategist
Formerly The Nomad on PP's forums
Posts: 317
|
Post by privvy on Dec 28, 2019 17:37:42 GMT
Good thing I have never supported such a concept, nor has anyone else in this thread. You are making arguments against something that neither I nor anyone else have stated. All I've been doing is demonizing the resale by pointing out one hypocritical aspect. But it isn't hypocritical to accept reselling and not approve of recasting. Reselling doesn't add counterfeit stock to the game. Recasting can directly take sales away from a company. Reselling does not, because the item is already sold and accounted for in the profits. It's very, very simple economics, to the point that I have to assume that you've been intentionally obtuse throughout this thread. If you really can't understand how accepting a legal action and not accepting an illegal action is not hypocritical, then I can't explain it enough to make you. I know that based on all your posts that I've seen, you tend to just disagree and are generally pugnacious, so my assumption doesn't feel like a stretch. Here, I'll try before I call it quits: If Sally has 5 apples and sells 4 apples, there's still 5 apples. Sally got her profit from selling apples. If Sally has 5 apples and sells 1 more to Tim, and Tim makes 5 wax apples from that apple, now there's 10 apples in the system, 5 real, 5 fake. If Tim sells his apples for half the price, then people wont buy Sallys apples. Now there's still 10 apples, but Sally sold less because Tim made more apples to sell cheaper. If Sally sells 4 of her 5 apples to John and John sells 2 apples to Mary, there's still 5 apples in the system. Sally already got the profit from her apples, they are no longer her physical property, but they may still be her intellectual property. She might not see additional direct income from the resale of the apples, but she isn't losing anything from the apples being resold because she has profited off the initial sale. The artist already was paid for the sale.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Dec 28, 2019 18:40:33 GMT
Good thing I have never supported such a concept, nor has anyone else in this thread. You are making arguments against something that neither I nor anyone else have stated. All I've been doing is demonizing the resale by pointing out one hypocritical aspect. But it isn't hypocritical to accept reselling and not approve of recasting. Reselling doesn't add counterfeit stock to the game. Recasting can directly take sales away from a company. Reselling does not, because the item is already sold and accounted for in the profits. It's very, very simple economics, to the point that I have to assume that you've been intentionally obtuse throughout this thread. If you really can't understand how accepting a legal action and not accepting an illegal action is not hypocritical, then I can't explain it enough to make you. I know that based on all your posts that I've seen, you tend to just disagree and are generally pugnacious, so my assumption doesn't feel like a stretch. Here, I'll try before I call it quits: If Sally has 5 apples and sells 4 apples, there's still 5 apples. Sally got her profit from selling apples. If Sally has 5 apples and sells 1 more to Tim, and Tim makes 5 wax apples from that apple, now there's 10 apples in the system, 5 real, 5 fake. If Tim sells his apples for half the price, then people wont buy Sallys apples. Now there's still 10 apples, but Sally sold less because Tim made more apples to sell cheaper. If Sally sells 4 of her 5 apples to John and John sells 2 apples to Mary, there's still 5 apples in the system. Sally already got the profit from her apples, they are no longer her physical property, but they may still be her intellectual property. She might not see additional direct income from the resale of the apples, but she isn't losing anything from the apples being resold because she has profited off the initial sale. The artist already was paid for the sale.
It may seem hypocritical if you were to assume that because I was noting one aspect was the same therefore I am supporting all aspects of it. But I am not conflating reselling with recasting, I am stating that this one aspect is shared between then and it is hypocritical to ignore one while demonizing the other for that one aspect.
You establish my point that you are literally arguing against something I have not stated. I am not supporting recasting at all. I am demonizing reselling on this one specific point because it is a matched point. All that has been said is to demonize recasting, not promote reselling.
Apples are a poor comparison. Apples are perishable, once one uses the apple, it cannot be used by another person. Wax apples can be used solely for decoration, while actual apples will rot and be useless for decoration after a short period of time. They are not used for the same purposes.
In addition, the seeds the apples carry can grow more trees. To continue your comparison, you'd complain that if Tim buried the seeds to grow his own orchard, he is cheating out Sally.
|
|
|
Post by jagius021 on Dec 28, 2019 18:53:26 GMT
If buying used, you won't necessarily know. That wasn't the point I was making though. The way that producers of goods combat the secondary markets effect is through making new product worth more, or be perceived to be worth more (thanks consumer fetishism!) Than used. You don't see car commercials with some dunce putting a giant red bow on a 2002 grand Prix and giving it to his wife, you see next year's model in the driveway. A new in box model has infinite* possibilities. One that's assembled has less, one that's primed less so, and one that's painted and based even less. So they push the hobby end as well. A tie in is also this: GW contrast paints are amazing, but your model needs to be primed right. I've bought a few models new over used (and even one I already owned) in order to specifically be able to use the contrast paints on them. Now I'm not saying that was the goal of contrast paints, but it was a side effect. Actually recasting can have positive benefits to the hobby (not the business). Metal models are difficult to manipulate in to new forms, and recasting them in plastic or resin is good for that. But that's about as far as the benefits of recasting I'll acknowledge, and that only applies when the material is significantly changed.
Oddly enough, I have not lionized recasting any more than that. What may be good for the hobby may not be good for the business. I am just more demonizing reselling for a similar reason as the recasting: The artists are not getting paid. I don't see the point of lionizing the resale in favor of recasting in regards to that one point.
So the way this ties in though, is that the counterfeits take up space as "new" product too. I've seen several Chinese recasts of colossals. They come on sprues and are labeled as new. If they didn't have the same conditions of worth as the new product, it wouldn't be as big a problem, but they do. Once it's assembled and painted on a table, it could be hard to tell the difference. It's not like there's certificate of authenticity on every model. Good thing I have never supported such a concept, nor has anyone else in this thread. You are making arguments against something that neither I nor anyone else have stated. All I've been doing is demonizing the resale by pointing out one hypocritical aspect. You seem to feel attacked by my contribution to the discussion. I can't find another reason why you would be so defensive about this. You seem to be trying to play devil's advocate yet are so entrenched in the position you're entertaining that you're taking it personally.
|
|