PDA

View Full Version : GW apologise to Micro Art Studio



jamesterjlrb
10-12-2010, 17:49
Some of you may have seen last Friday's what's new today where some dire avengers where shown and the text stated that the bases were made from citadel ruins. (This has since been edited to remove the mistake) The bases were in fact from Micro Art Studio and in today's (Friday 10th December) what's new today GW (or at least the webmaster) issued the following apology:


On a quick note, I would like to apologise to Micro Art Studio for my post last Friday, where I mistook some bases as being made by us, when in fact they were made by them - apologies to them for the honest mistake, and to anyone we misled. I am going to have my eyes tested tomorrow as penance and I will pay closer attention in the future. Also, if you are sending us pictures, could you please tell us if any of the parts are not made by Games Workshop so that we can avoid similar mistakes in the future.

GW are not known for being big on apologies, and while it could be argued that they had very little choice could this be a shift in PR policy?

Discuss. (in a friendly and forum rules abiding way please :))

scarletsquig
10-12-2010, 17:52
I wouldn't make anything big out of this, it's just a guy who updates a website making a small error and apologising for it.

Nothing more than that, I'd hardly call it the herald of a new tectonic shift in GW PR policy, a blazing dawn of a new era in GW-public interaction or any of the other hyperbole that has been mentioned while overanalysing this thing lately.

spetswalshe
10-12-2010, 18:01
I can't imagine they would have put them in if they knew from the start they were using a different company's products. I wonder if MAS actually contacted them about it after the gaffe? Or was it done by the featured modeller?

But no, it's a simple mistake and not a big deal. It's just strange to see GW actually admit that other companies exist in the miniatures hobby business. I imagine a fair few readers will be headed to the MAS website for the first time right now.

jack da greenskin
10-12-2010, 19:45
I can't imagine they would have put them in if they knew from the start they were using a different company's products. I wonder if MAS actually contacted them about it after the gaffe? Or was it done by the featured modeller?

But no, it's a simple mistake and not a big deal. It's just strange to see GW actually admit that other companies exist in the miniatures hobby business. I imagine a fair few readers will be headed to the MAS website for the first time right now.

Exactly. See the "please tell us before"? If you say "Oh the head is maxmini", they are never going to put it on the frontpage. And true about the other companies bit. Hortwerth who does maxmini is a moddelling god, and I hope he gets a load of business from this. I know a bunch of people who are ignorant to any other wargaming company, which is a shame.

In other news, whats new today is becoming more of a giant daily advert (like white dwarf you say?), perfect gift etc. Load of bull. And that's how Jack Cs it.

Bloodknight
10-12-2010, 20:07
Also, if you are sending us pictures, could you please tell us if any of the parts are not made by Games Workshop so that we can avoid similar mistakes in the future

Hehe, you'll instantly disqualify your stuff if you tell them that. Shame, really, but I can understand that they don't want to advertise other people's products.

viking657
10-12-2010, 21:13
Soon as I read it I thought what they really mean is:

If some parts are not GW then fat chance we will be publishing your pics

In another interesting point the bases in question were from the winner of best painted at the GT, a fine army I saw in the flesh, so they must be doubly annoyed as he never should have won or allowed to take part according to the no none GW parts policy!

But of course he should of won to you and me as it was a nicely painted army, amazing fire dragons.

Gw need to chill out over use of none GW parts on there minis - I mean whats next? Freaking because someone uses bird sand for basing instead of that 5 a pot stuff?

jamesterjlrb
10-12-2010, 21:30
I wouldn't make anything big out of this, it's just a guy who updates a website making a small error and apologising for it.

Nothing more than that, I'd hardly call it the herald of a new tectonic shift in GW PR policy, a blazing dawn of a new era in GW-public interaction or any of the other hyperbole that has been mentioned while overanalysing this thing lately.

Agreed. But i was interested to some of the the conspiracy theorists views. :p

Lars Porsenna
10-12-2010, 21:37
If you're going to use non-GW parts or minis in your armies, GW isn't going to bust down your door and stomp on all your stuff. That being said, however, at an event and on a webpage designed to promote their own products, they have very little incentive to advertize the products for a company they neither make money from nor sell. If you don't like this rule, then play in indie cons or events. This is what I do, and it makes my life quite a bit easier...

Damon.

jack da greenskin
10-12-2010, 23:28
If you're going to use non-GW parts or minis in your armies, GW isn't going to bust down your door and stomp on all your stuff. .

Are you sure?

Torpedo Vegas
11-12-2010, 05:09
Are you sure?

I hear helicopters. Ready the void shields, the redshirts are coming.

Lord Inquisitor
11-12-2010, 05:14
The redshirts always die first...

Yeah, the cynic in me mentally translated "please tell us if any of the parts are not made by Games Workshop so that we can avoid similar mistakes in the future" as "similar mistakes like posting these pictures on our website in the first place!"

Mic
11-12-2010, 08:33
In other news, whats new today is becoming more of a giant daily advert (like white dwarf you say?), perfect gift etc. Load of bull. And that's how Jack Cs it.

"Dan" Who writes them now is new as far as I'm aware, they were certainly recruiting for the position last month, unfortunately though you're right, it does read and seem like that.

sigur
11-12-2010, 09:40
I wouldn't make anything big out of this, it's just a guy who updates a website making a small error and apologising for it.

Nothing more than that, I'd hardly call it the herald of a new tectonic shift in GW PR policy, a blazing dawn of a new era in GW-public interaction or any of the other hyperbole that has been mentioned while overanalysing this thing lately.

Good posting and I wholeheartedly agree. No big thing, not all that much to discuss.

MarcoSkoll
11-12-2010, 12:58
I'm hardly surprised it happened. GW haven't the greatest track record in spotting when parts aren't theirs.

Remember back here (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=4600022a), when they mistook the custom built assault cannons as from the Punisher kit?
That of course wasn't a "bad" mistake, as it wasn't another company's product, but still in the same vein.

Many of their staff only have a vague idea of the range and unless it looks totally out of place, they'll probably assume it's theirs.

And yeah... what this really means is "Tell us, so we don't do anything stupid like put it up on the website."

yabbadabba
11-12-2010, 13:51
Good posting and I wholeheartedly agree. No big thing, not all that much to discuss.Won't stop people using it as a chance to get over excited by GW's latest imagined slight, or to try and denegrate as much as they can.

Its a nothing and credit to GW for putting their hand up and giving the company a plug!

eldargal
11-12-2010, 15:21
I've bought a lot of Micro Art female heads and bases and such, big fan of their work and I didn't even notice the bases in the picture were from MAS so I can see how someone could make the mistake. An apology was warranted, and was given promptly.

Aiwass
11-12-2010, 19:12
GW already have one hidden Maxmini (I think is Maxmini,not sure) head in his web :)

Grimstonefire
11-12-2010, 22:45
There was also the Avatars of war warrior priest cloak incident. I always find it funny when they try and not only name, but link to the place they thought it was from, without actually looking to see if it's remotely similar.

RevEv
12-12-2010, 13:02
On the plus side - how many here have now looked at the micro-art studios web page?

Aiwass
12-12-2010, 14:45
I don't yet...

Shamutanti
12-12-2010, 20:28
On the plus side - how many here have now looked at the micro-art studios web page?

Not me, but then I use Iron Halo bases and thought the bases the Eldar were on were ugly anyway.

nedius
12-12-2010, 20:33
To be honest, I don't think that they would stop sharing really cool miniatures if something as simple as the base wasn't theirs. They would just not mention the part at all. Like in this example, if they'd known the bases weren't GW, they may well have still shared the minis, but not mentioned the bases at all.

Ultimately, the 'what's new today' is designed to inspire people to buy GW stuff. So of course, miniatures with cool bits taken from other GW kits will get presidence, but if they are still something sufficiently cool that they think it will still shift miniatures, some awsome kitbash mounted on a none GW base, they may well overlook something like that.

I think that it would be bits on the miniature themselves that would be the ones less likely to get through - say some 'nids armed with paulson games lashwhips or something?

Grimstonefire
12-12-2010, 20:50
They do have legal issues though with saying:

"Mr X, who sent us these pictures of his Dwarf trollslayers' for instance, if the description implies that the bases are part of a model GW sells. GW doesn't advertise for anyone else, so they will be checking everything from now on I'm sure.

Random question, but how many people here are actively posting pics to them on their twitter feed/ blog thing?

There some cool models on there that never get shown.

AndrewGPaul
14-12-2010, 12:08
They do have legal issues though with saying:

"Mr X, who sent us these pictures of his Dwarf trollslayers' for instance, if the description implies that the bases are part of a model GW sells. GW doesn't advertise for anyone else, so they will be checking everything from now on I'm sure.

No more than any other model on a custom base.