Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah. I've never heard of WOTC talking to GW before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
I very much doubt that the LotR and Hobbit lines will be axed - GW has a contract for the license of those properties, so they will be paying money whether or not they get to see pence or shilling.

I think it'd be less a case of cutting the game and more a case of just not renewing the license.

 Civik wrote:
I remember a while ago being given a demo of LotR, and enjoying the game mechanics... But instead of making me want to play LotR, it made me wish we had a 40k analogue.

But then, I also wanted to try Epic, but finding a game is difficult to say the least. I'm not certain that it had a large following except in smaller gaming circles.

Epic had a very large following before epic 40k nerfed it and GW let it die on the vine. For the most part Epic was the third core game of GW for many years.

 BryllCream wrote:

silent25 wrote:
Hasbro has approached GW ever couple years about selling out and GW normally said "No thanks". This year, "We're listening".

Actual source on this?

Industry insiders who prefer to remain anonymous. Who else?

Backfire wrote:

silent25 wrote:

Time to seriously ask, would GW be better under Greg Leeds (current head of WotC) or Tom Kirby?

No. I quit Magic after WotC ruined it. I started to play 40k because it was like Magic was in the good old times.

Tell me how. Really do.

 ChocolateGork wrote:

Backfire wrote:

silent25 wrote:

Time to seriously ask, would GW be better under Greg Leeds (current head of WotC) or Tom Kirby?

No. I quit Magic after WotC ruined it. I started to play 40k because it was like Magic was in the good old times.

Tell me how. Really do.

Back in the old times, all the colours were actually different with very distinct character, many of the cards were quite innovative (Garfield used to say that he loved to design cards which broke the core mechanics). Sure, lots of the stuff was whacky from balance viewpoint, but it wasn't really an issue if you played limited environment.

Then they began to issue new expansions at accelerated rate, which often featured cards which did exact same thing as the old cards, but either weaker/stronger, instantly obsoleting the old cards: also, demands of the tournament play meant that severe restrictions were put on how the cards could be designed, meanining most of them were pretty boring. I won't even go to stuff like awful Pokemon card layout as it happened after we quit. Also, power creep became really noticeable, combined with hectic release rate it was just too tiresome and expensive to keep up. Also, almost entire playerbase became obsessed with tournament decks, which are usually pretty boring, and it was difficult to get good old-fashioned casual play organized anymore. Basically, the game just stopped being fun and became obsessed with competition.

If all their ranges bar 3 are dropped isn't there a real danger of stagnation? Surely cutting ranges is bad for profits?

yeah card games often suffer from over competitiveness, least I think so

The specialist games were nearly dead anyway and the main games are stagnant. There just isn't that much imaginative or innovative stuff being produced for a games 'workshop'. The only new game they've made in years is Dreadfleet, and that just priced to me that GW don't know what makes a good game any more. All they can do is rehash the main rule sets again and again and rerelease past glories like Space Hulk and supposedly Blood Bowl in the near future.

The codecies exhibit bad power creep and a tendency for poor fiction content. GW have never been particularly high brow but the last few years has seen some complete rubbish that would only amuse pre-adolescent boys. The codecies also seem more formulaic as GW focus more on writing books to sell figures, so there's a fast model, a big creature, a large flying model, etc. The way armies seem to need an oversized walking thing for one, Grey Knights get the dreadknight, Tau have their big Gundam thing. And they look rubbish in both armies.

Noone voting for, "Amazon, Waterstones and other book stores?"

The mmpb for Angel Exterminatus being cancelled may have just been an ordering blip or something. However, it fits GW's insane (troll) logic.

They've already started it with all their 'direct exclusives.'

"Horus Heresy novels got on the NYT bestsellers list, if we take it off other book stores, everyone will flock to buy them for full price directly from us! And then they'll all start collecting Space Marines too! We'll make millions!"

Slipstream wrote:
If all their ranges bar 3 are dropped isn't there a real danger of stagnation? Surely cutting ranges is bad for profits?

Especially since WHF and 40K feel kind of....finished, in terms of model range. With stuff like the Birdboat, there's a slight feeling of desperation.

 Elemental wrote:

Slipstream wrote:
If all their ranges bar 3 are dropped isn't there a real danger of stagnation? Surely cutting ranges is bad for profits?

Especially since WHF and 40K feel kind of....finished, in terms of model range. With stuff like the Birdboat, there's a slight feeling of desperation.

Well, there's still lots of stuff to update, some ranges probably need almost complete overhaul (SoB most notably). It's not like they're running out of work just yet.

But yeah, it does feel that some armies are quite 'complete'. Hard to think what Space Marines, for example, need anymore.

Don't worry, come the new codex, they'll figure it out. It may not make any sense, but they'll figure it out. Hell, it could completely contradict previous fluff and still barely make sense within its own context, but they'll figure it out.

Backfire wrote:
Hard to think what Space Marines, for example, need anymore.

More flyers, and a big walker, obviously.

Wow there was a lot of completely false assumptions (under the guise of information) in the original post.

1. They haven't had stagnant sales volume.
2. White Dwarf sales have improved over the last 12 months. It also costs them little, I imagine, to print it, though they have paid to set up a separate studio/team entirely.
3. Black Library won't go anywhere, neither will Forge World. The HH stuff is making them a ton right now.
4. Increasing competition hasn't hurt them. In fact, they've actually managed to separate themselves from their top competitor (Privateer Press) in the last 12 months.
5. Every miniatures company has raised prices. GW, model-for-model, isn't more expensive than the other top tier products. The start up cost is the primary issue. Even still, their profit growth has reflected volume of sales, not price increases. If the price increases were as alarming as the OP falsely claimed, their margin wouldn't have gone up as much as it has against said increases. In fact, their growth has out-paced the price increases.
6. The Hobbit wasn't a "disaster." GW avoided it becoming one by issuing a very limited release. Even so, it sells well in parts of Europe.

GW isn't going bankrupt. They are nowhere near that point, actually. WotC has lost a ton of money on D&D 4th, and Hasbro has been limiting their funding anyway (hence the dwindling Magic Pro Tour), so they won't have the capital to buy GW.

Good gravy that original post was full of it. We get it: you hate GW. They are actually following the footsteps of a lot of their competitors by streamlining their core games and making them the focus of their push. By releasing stuff for Fantasy and 40k at a quicker pace, and not wasting resources on the fad games that never sustain themselves, they have a promising future. It's not like PP has a wide range of miniatures games either. Monsterpocalypse has been, by definition, a disaster.

The customers have shown with their wallets that a stronger release schedule (and therefore the balance that comes from rules written more closely together) of the core games is more important than a handful of extra, non-profitable side games. Until the core games are solidly updated and flowing, GW shouldn't mess around with the 'tweener games. This is like rebuilding a franchise from the ground up. New coaches, new players, develop draft picks, etc. Once that perennial, playoff-caliber team is on the field, you can start stretching into other areas of risk vs. reward, advertising, etc. For now, those specialist games will be relegated to the limited edition, once per year release in the fall that sells out in a hurry. Unless it's name is Dreadfleet, of course...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elemental wrote:

Slipstream wrote:
If all their ranges bar 3 are dropped isn't there a real danger of stagnation? Surely cutting ranges is bad for profits?

Especially since WHF and 40K feel kind of....finished, in terms of model range. With stuff like the Birdboat, there's a slight feeling of desperation.

But people have been asking, "What else can they really add?" since 3rd edition. They always find a way to tweak, add, or invent new things. Splash releases will help as well. As long as they keep injecting new rules dynamics or even unit types into the game, they will have a reason to make models. That's what they do. Even the non-monger rumors are always just tweaks of the existing codex, and then the real codex hits and has loads of new stuff in it. It just goes to show the fanbase is often far less creative than they give themselves credit for (and GW has more creativity than we give them credit for).

Couldn't we just as easily claim WM/Hordes is "finished"? How many more casters or units that do nothing without said caster can they make?

Flames of War? Should they just invent tanks and stationary guns that weren't actually used in WWII?

Malifaux 2.0 won't get very far...because it's Malifaux. Yay...another game with characterful, but limited model selection.

All it takes is supplemental releases (Colossals/Gargantuans, Apocalypse, Imperial Armor, etc.) to refresh a game. New and expanded fluff, or even a new faction and suddenly there's thick new layers to a game.

 brassangel wrote:
1. They haven't had stagnant sales volume.

Yes they have. Just look at the numbers: their total revenue has not increased by (significantly) more than the percent price increase over the same period. If sales volume wasn't stagnant then their revenue increases would have to be significantly more than the result of the price increases alone.

4. Increasing competition hasn't hurt them. In fact, they've actually managed to separate themselves from their top competitor (Privateer Press) in the last 12 months.

Sure it hasn't. In a period of stagnant (or even declining) sales volume for GW and constant growth in their competition GW hasn't suffered any loss at all...

If the price increases were as alarming as the OP falsely claimed, their margin wouldn't have gone up as much as it has against said increases. In fact, their growth has out-paced the price increases.

I didn't say it was just price increases, I said it was price increase and cost cutting. GW has improved their profits through doing things like cutting store hours and only having one employee per store, but those aren't sustainable things. They give improved numbers at first, but it's not something that you can repeat and continue to get benefits from. Once GW runs out of things to cut that "growth" will end.

6. The Hobbit wasn't a "disaster." GW avoided it becoming one by issuing a very limited release. Even so, it sells well in parts of Europe.

Sorry, but no. When you still have stock of your "limited edition" starter set months after release day and even your own website barely bothers to cover the few new releases it's a sign that sales are pretty bad. I'm sure someone is buying it but overall it would be laughably idealistic to consider it a success.

(hence the dwindling Magic Pro Tour)

The Pro Tour isn't dwindling, WOTC is just shifting priorities a bit and moving a few events to a different kind of large tournament (which has just been significantly expanded) to reflect their massive popularity.

By releasing stuff for Fantasy and 40k at a quicker pace, and not wasting resources on the fad games that never sustain themselves, they have a promising future.

Until their fast release pace uses up all of the design space for their core games and they're forced to start releasing new stuff (that nobody wants) just for the sake of having new stuff. I'm sure it's doing great things for their 2013 numbers, but what will they do in 2015 when every core army has been updated to 6th edition and received all the new models they could possibly use?

The customers have shown with their wallets that a stronger release schedule (and therefore the balance that comes from rules written more closely together) of the core games is more important than a handful of extra, non-profitable side games.

Nonsense. The customers have only "shown" that with their wallets because GW completely neglected the side games, and even actively discouraged people from buying them. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, GW did their best to kill off the specialist games so it's really no surprise that they were officially dropped for low sales.

 Peregrine wrote:

4. Increasing competition hasn't hurt them. In fact, they've actually managed to separate themselves from their top competitor (Privateer Press) in the last 12 months.

Sure it hasn't. In a period of stagnant (or even declining) sales volume for GW and constant growth in their competition GW hasn't suffered any loss at all...

And, on top of that, especially in regards to the Specialist Games, we have other companies that are successfully making money off of games that are similar to the SG line. It may not be a loss of actual revenue on GW's part, as they've done nothing to promote the SG line in recent years, but it is certainly a loss of potential revenue, as indicated by the proliferation of space combat games, mass battles games using smaller scale models, skirmish-based SciFi and fantasy game, etc. For a company that loudly tries to proclaim its position of "King of the Wargaming Miniatures Hill," they certainly seem to be intentionally ceding quite a lot of that hill to other companies.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

4. Increasing competition hasn't hurt them. In fact, they've actually managed to separate themselves from their top competitor (Privateer Press) in the last 12 months.

Sure it hasn't. In a period of stagnant (or even declining) sales volume for GW and constant growth in their competition GW hasn't suffered any loss at all...

And, on top of that, especially in regards to the Specialist Games, we have other companies that are successfully making money off of games that are similar to the SG line. It may not be a loss of actual revenue on GW's part, as they've done nothing to promote the SG line in recent years, but it is certainly a loss of potential revenue, as indicated by the proliferation of space combat games, mass battles games using smaller scale models, skirmish-based SciFi and fantasy game, etc. For a company that loudly tries to proclaim its position of "King of the Wargaming Miniatures Hill," they certainly seem to be intentionally ceding quite a lot of that hill to other companies.

This +1. Huge strategic blunder on GW's part. If they hadn't ceded those part sof the hill, there might not be any competition now. Remember, WarMachine started as a skirmish game, and has grown in size and scope to compete against the core games now. A skirmish market that GW retreated from during the LOTR bubble.

Sometimes, I wonder if the LOTR bubble was the best thing or the worst thing to happen to GW?

I would say probably 90% of the complaints about GW are about changes that have taken place following the company becoming publically owned, and therefore answerable to share holders.

So, in the context of those complaints, almost certainly the worst thing.

I don't think there are any "new" complaints at all. Been following GW on the internet since there's been an internet, and I just see the same things being rehashed over and over. 'twas ever thus.

silent25 wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

silent25 wrote:
Hasbro has approached GW ever couple years about selling out and GW normally said "No thanks". This year, "We're listening".

Actual source on this?

Industry insiders who prefer to remain anonymous. Who else?

I am calling BS on this. Who exactly are they talking to? A consortium of different stock holding companies? If this has been going on "every couple" of years then you should be able to come up with some business publication reference from say 6, 8 or ten years ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:
I would say probably 90% of the complaints about GW are about changes that have taken place following the company becoming publically owned, and therefore answerable to share holders.

So, in the context of those complaints, almost certainly the worst thing.

I would say 90% of the complaints are about price. "Same as it ever was."

I don't think there are any "new" complaints at all. Been following GW on the internet since there's been an internet, and I just see the same things being rehashed over and over. 'twas ever thus.

Well.. I have to ask what forums have you been a member of?

As someone who has been a member on forums since the early noughties (what should I call those.. ?! ) I have to say I don't agree; the level of moaning (plus the odd cry of dispair) is absolutely incomparable now compared to what it used to be. The 'week of terror', as it's affectionately known, with the introduction of Finecast and a price rise in the same week in the spring/summer of 2011 (hot on the back of the Rest of world trade ban), marked a particular low point.

And how could it be any different? The company didn't used to create anything like the number of reasons to complain (if one excuses marines changing from T3 to T4 )

Slipstream wrote:
If all their ranges bar 3 are dropped isn't there a real danger of stagnation? Surely cutting ranges is bad for profits?

Those ranges were stagnant for years because GW long ago abandoned Specialist Games, its just now that some people are noticing it.

The model that GW uses to combat stagnation of sales is revising the editions and army books every few years, it seems to work for them and others in the gaming industry.

Cutting unprofitable ranges is not bad for profits.

Look up "opportunity costs" for a reason to drop even something that is marginally profitable.

Absolutely nothing prevents GW from reintroducing one or more of these games in the future. Eventually it is likely that the LotR license will be lost or dropped. Hopefully GW will come up with a new third core game based on its own IP when that happens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:

I don't think there are any "new" complaints at all. Been following GW on the internet since there's been an internet, and I just see the same things being rehashed over and over. 'twas ever thus.

Well.. I have to ask what forums have you been a member of?

As someone who has been a member on forums since the early noughties (what should I call those.. ?! ) I have to say I don't agree; the level of moaning (plus the odd cry of dispair) is absolutely incomparable now compared to what it used to be. The 'week of terror', as it's affectionately known, with the introduction of Finecast and a price rise in the same week in the spring/summer of 2011 (hot on the back of the Rest of world trade ban), marked a particular low point.

And how could it be any different? The company didn't used to create anything like the number of reasons to complain (if one excuses marines changing from T3 to T4 )

Well I dont remeber all the forums but I was certainly on the rec.games newsgroups, portent and the old Warhammer Players Society, plus all the bitching and moaning by people that were my real life friends. It was mostly about pricing, some about broken rules and also about the fact that faqs were not published frequently enough in the White Dwarf. But mostly about pricing and lots of predictions 20 years ago that GW wouldnt last much longer and not ten more years for sure.

There is more bitching and moaning now because the number of players has grown and the number of forum users has exploded.

There is plenty to complain about but price is still at the root of it because if the stuff cost 75% less, then more people would be satisfied with what they get for their money.

Backfire wrote:

 ChocolateGork wrote:

Backfire wrote:

silent25 wrote:

Time to seriously ask, would GW be better under Greg Leeds (current head of WotC) or Tom Kirby?

No. I quit Magic after WotC ruined it. I started to play 40k because it was like Magic was in the good old times.

Tell me how. Really do.

Back in the old times, all the colours were actually different with very distinct character, many of the cards were quite innovative (Garfield used to say that he loved to design cards which broke the core mechanics). Sure, lots of the stuff was whacky from balance viewpoint, but it wasn't really an issue if you played limited environment.

Then they began to issue new expansions at accelerated rate, which often featured cards which did exact same thing as the old cards, but either weaker/stronger, instantly obsoleting the old cards: also, demands of the tournament play meant that severe restrictions were put on how the cards could be designed, meanining most of them were pretty boring. I won't even go to stuff like awful Pokemon card layout as it happened after we quit. Also, power creep became really noticeable, combined with hectic release rate it was just too tiresome and expensive to keep up. Also, almost entire playerbase became obsessed with tournament decks, which are usually pretty boring, and it was difficult to get good old-fashioned casual play organized anymore. Basically, the game just stopped being fun and became obsessed with competition.

You mean your play group became obsessed with competition. I have no trouble finding people willing to play with casual decks or play EDH.
And if your playing competitively why did you need to 'keep up' anyway?
The cards look nothing like Pokemon cards.
They release cards that do the same thing for balance reasons, and they are hardly ever rares, so they never really impact on the value of ones collection, the only things that HAVE gotten more powerful are creatures. And that's because creatures were gakky when the game first came out.
Power Creep is an issue with almost any game (like 40k).

Wizards has an amazing competitive scene, a balanced interesting game that you don't have to play competitively and they have great community events and support

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah. I've never heard of WOTC talking to GW before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
I very much doubt that the LotR and Hobbit lines will be axed - GW has a contract for the license of those properties, so they will be paying money whether or not they get to see pence or shilling.

I think it'd be less a case of cutting the game and more a case of just not renewing the license.

Now that, I can believe.

In the meantime they will continue to burn the property to the ground and salt the earth produce models for the existing game, with maybe a token expansion when each of the sequel movies comes out.

The Auld Grump

I dunno. I think they may be in for the whole Ltd. Ed box, starter-box, massive expensive 5000 page hard-back rulebook with each movie.

 ChocolateGork wrote:

Backfire wrote:

Back in the old times, all the colours were actually different with very distinct character, many of the cards were quite innovative (Garfield used to say that he loved to design cards which broke the core mechanics). Sure, lots of the stuff was whacky from balance viewpoint, but it wasn't really an issue if you played limited environment.

Then they began to issue new expansions at accelerated rate, which often featured cards which did exact same thing as the old cards, but either weaker/stronger, instantly obsoleting the old cards: also, demands of the tournament play meant that severe restrictions were put on how the cards could be designed, meanining most of them were pretty boring. I won't even go to stuff like awful Pokemon card layout as it happened after we quit. Also, power creep became really noticeable, combined with hectic release rate it was just too tiresome and expensive to keep up. Also, almost entire playerbase became obsessed with tournament decks, which are usually pretty boring, and it was difficult to get good old-fashioned casual play organized anymore. Basically, the game just stopped being fun and became obsessed with competition.

You mean your play group became obsessed with competition. I have no trouble finding people willing to play with casual decks or play EDH.

No, my play group quit, leaving only competive people to play with. So I quit too.

 ChocolateGork wrote:

Wizards has an amazing competitive scene, a balanced interesting game that you don't have to play competitively and they have great community events and support

Don't care about any of those. Doesn't matter how competive the game is, it's no longer fun.

Backfire wrote:

Back in the old times, all the colours were actually different with very distinct character

I am calling total BS on your version of how the game developed from early on.

I played magic from the dark expansion, forward three or four years and then later with my sons.
You greatly overstate this. It did not take too long before the colors started to break down.

Backfire wrote:

Then they began to issue new expansions at accelerated rate, which often featured cards which did exact same thing as the old cards, but either weaker/stronger, instantly obsoleting the old cards:

LOL People were screaming for new cards, it was fething insane how much store owners, distributors, speculators and players were thirsting for cards.

Backfire wrote:

which often featured cards which did exact same thing as the old cards, but either weaker/stronger,

If they were weaker or stronger they couldnt be exactly the same could they. Of course there was redundancy in the set, there were certain core things that would be needed in every set. Your criticism just doesnt make any sense. People loved that they could get cards with divergent artwork and do things that the oop cards did.

Backfire wrote:

demands of the tournament play meant that severe restrictions were put on how the cards could be designed

So what, again your criticisms dont hold any water. Tournaments were wildly popular and they remain so today.

Backfire wrote:

Also, almost entire playerbase became obsessed with tournament decks, which are usually pretty boring, and it was difficult to get good old-fashioned casual play organized anymore.

Maybe you are stuck somewhere that there is no gaming community but many people were playing casual magic then and through the whole history of the game.

Backfire wrote:

Basically, the game just stopped being fun and became obsessed with competition.

A lot of people think competition is fun and there are many types of competitive play. Magic stopped being fun for you but your complaints are very inane.

Conspiricy theory time:

GW discontinues Specialist Games

GW is sold for Mahooosive amounts of money

Ex-GW bosses start a new company selling the specialist games, which they can do since the design rights are likely to have lapsed

Graphite wrote:
Ex-GW bosses start a new company selling the specialist games, which they can do since the design rights are likely to have lapsed

Nope. The rules can't be copyrighted at all (so you could publish your own version at any time), while the background fiction IP and trademarks (the reason anyone would buy them) stay with GW even if they discontinue some of the games that used it. Killing off the games to re-start them later would just be pointless and stupid.

JWhex wrote:

Backfire wrote:

Back in the old times, all the colours were actually different with very distinct character

I am calling total BS on your version of how the game developed from early on.

I played magic from the dark expansion, forward three or four years and then later with my sons.
You greatly overstate this. It did not take too long before the colors started to break down.

I don't understand what you mean by "it did not take too long before the colors started to break down". I quit after Visions, the colours were already getting pretty similar, what I've heard from other MTG playing people, there's little difference remaining now.

JWhex wrote:

Backfire wrote:

Then they began to issue new expansions at accelerated rate, which often featured cards which did exact same thing as the old cards, but either weaker/stronger, instantly obsoleting the old cards:

LOL People were screaming for new cards, it was fething insane how much store owners, distributors, speculators and players were thirsting for cards.

We were not. We had barely got acquinted with one edition, when new one came along, with hundreds of new cards, new mechanics etc coming out. After a while it got real tiresome, everyone I knew who played MtG quit largely because of this, I was pretty much the last.

JWhex wrote:

Backfire wrote:

which often featured cards which did exact same thing as the old cards, but either weaker/stronger,

If they were weaker or stronger they couldnt be exactly the same could they. Of course there was redundancy in the set, there were certain core things that would be needed in every set. Your criticism just doesnt make any sense. People loved that they could get cards with divergent artwork and do things that the oop cards did.

What I meant that they began to release cards like Moss artifacts - which were exact same but straight up better or worse than existing cards. It was just horribly lazy card design, as if they could not bother at all, and I guess they didn't. I never used them, they were so lame an idea. I'm not talking about more subtle nerf like Lightning bolt vs Incinerate, since there extra cost brings extra function.

JWhex wrote:

Backfire wrote:

demands of the tournament play meant that severe restrictions were put on how the cards could be designed

So what, again your criticisms dont hold any water. Tournaments were wildly popular and they remain so today.

Don't care about tournaments, so my criticism is perfectly valid.

JWhex wrote:

Backfire wrote:

Also, almost entire playerbase became obsessed with tournament decks, which are usually pretty boring, and it was difficult to get good old-fashioned casual play organized anymore.

Maybe you are stuck somewhere that there is no gaming community but many people were playing casual magic then and through the whole history of the game.

Casual games like "cool, this will let me test my new Internet Copypaste Tournament deck in casual fashion". Yeah, those games were real gripping.

JWhex wrote:

Backfire wrote:

Basically, the game just stopped being fun and became obsessed with competition.

A lot of people think competition is fun and there are many types of competitive play. Magic stopped being fun for you but your complaints are very inane.

I don't care about lot of people.