Even "meaningless" votes tend to have tangible effect due to the fact that over time they shift politicians/parties on particular topics in certain directions as they try to solidify their support. Even in ridiculous systems like the US's electoral college. Because while you're not going to achieve anything as dramatic as to shift from a red state to a blue state, every so often you'll see "red" politicians adopting a handfull of weirdly "blue" policies, because it allows them just enough support to beat the other "red" option
No doubt, but a singular vote among millions is still insignificant. So an insignificant push towards what could possibly amount to a very small effect.
Keep in mind, my argument is not that you shouldn't vote, only that it is equal to or less effective than voting with your wallet. As I said before, every vote counts, weather political or financial.
You have noticed that big companies are capable of losing absurd amounts of money and screw up projects in wild and innovative ways all of the time without ever suffering any real consequences right? Sure the occasional CEO gets kicked out, and they might do a round of lay-offs to make the books look pretty again (hell, they might do a round of lay-offs anyway), but very rarely will you see any actual change, even if the company is deep in the red. Hell, in certain cases they destroy a project on purpose cuz it gives weird tax breaks.
I have seen companies shrug off major financial blunders, but eventually it catches up to them if they don't change course. Disney (or even Hollywood in general) is a prime example of this, as they've started to bleed a lot of money. I believe that the tide will turn soon.
I've also seen companies change course rapidly. Microsoft did this with their Xbox One when they announced that it will require a constant internet connect and games can't be shared. They got blasted by the fans and reversed their decision before the console was even released. Another example is the Sonic the Hedgehog movie that got absolutely roasted by the fanbase for their CGI depiction of Sonic. The company listened and redid the animation throughout the entire movie to match the fans' expectations, thus saving themselves from what would have been a huge box office flop.
More rarely, I've also seen a company implode near instanteously when G4 destroyed itself with Frosk's woke tirade and their subsequent trashing of the fans.
As for GW, they very much cater to the "voting with your wallet" principle. Why do you think there are so many SM/Primaris releases? If those lines suddenly stopped selling well, GW would transition to whatever was more popular. You see, even now, people are voting with their wallets, it just not may not be the vote we might be hoping for. As the video pointed out, GW are still selling out most of their new releases, so they have no incentive to change.
If something brings in more money, GW will do more of. If something brings in less money (or loses money!), GW will do less of it. It's not rocket science.
They've been predicting that for decades now.
Meanwhile the same old media continues to exist, and has simply added a digital component.
The social media replacement hasn't even been around for decades. It just got big recently. You think CNN has the same reach as they did 10 years ago?
And if "new age" social media is so powerless against legacy media, then why did the social media companies (often pushed by the government) work so hard to actively silence opinions they didn't want spread (Covid vaccines, 2020 US presidential elections, etc.)? The answer is because it is immensely powerful. A single podcaster like Joe Rogan has a larger reach than a major company like CNN. CNN is bleeding revenue while Rogan is making bank. That would have been something completely unimaginable two decades back.
Yeah, but it's not going to happen, cuz again, people don't really care if toys becomes a luxury product. Especially when the toy wasn't ever cheap to begin with, like with GW products.
Are you talking about the general public at large? Of course they won't care, but they don't buy the stuff anyways, so they don't have a vote. I'm sure many wargamers do care, and if enough of them come together, they would force change out of GW.
Less than you'd expect, more than GW would want.
I don't think any of us know. Change is in the air though and you can see the beginnings of it right here in real time:
I am excited about TOW but it has little to do with what people refer to as “releases”. The physical models I am not too fussed about which is where half the stir is coming from.
If you want to see my models you can find a thread for that in my signature, I just don't paint as much anymore since I've run out of space and need the money for a bigger house.
Need money to buy a bigger house?... then these boycotts I speak of, might just be useful to you in more ways than one!
I was fairly active on the tactics threads, but after having essentially the same discussion 50 times it gets a bit boring.
Didn't the Serapon just get a new book somewhat recently? Is AoS that tactically weak that after only a few months of discussion, the strategy/tactical discussions have completely dried up to the point of endless repetition? More than a decade after the release of WHFB 8th edition, we've explored new and interesting topics. Either dissecting things from a different angle or in greater depth. I get that the two games are not even remotely comparable in terms of tactical depth, but you're really painting your game in a bad light.
Lore threads I've never been particularly active in.
At least we agree on one thing!
, might simply never notice since they rarely buy a new battletome to begin with. At the same time, they can still be effective ambassadors for the game by playing the occasional game with a younger family member or something.
