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.

The recent demise of Bastion Studios (Ex Illis) and the change in management at Wargames Factory has got me thinking. Aren't we (consumers) responsible for the fate of the companies that produce games and miniatures as well as innovation in the hobby?

Ex Illis failed because no one bought it. I'm not here to discuss the rules, company policies, models etc. A business needs customers to make money. No customers means no money, and eventually the business fails. Even if you put out a good product, such as Confrontation third edition, you can still fail if your company makes poor decisions.

I'm curious about your thoughts on...

1. If everyone is so concerned about the state of the companies in the hobby, why aren't you buying every game that comes out? If you have limited funds and time, why are you supporting GW? We can't complain about every game company that fails when every purchase you make is either Warhammer or Warmachine.

2. Innovation is lacking in this hobby. Why would anyone innovate if you keep giving the companies that do the same thing over and over money? Everyone loves to bitch about GW, yet you still buy their products. Why would they change or innovate when that involves risk? All they have to do is release a new edition of 40K and WFB every few years. Privateer Press took a chance with their system and models and they succeeded, but the system is still based on a traditional table top game.

3. Finally...how many games do we really need? Warhammer 40K, WFB, Warmachine, Hordes, Warhammer Historicals, Flames of War, Uncharted Seas, Firestorm Armada, DBM and it's variants, as well as all the other solid historical systems. There is something out there for everyone. When this hobby started years ago, weren't you limited to historical games and whatever miniatures you could get through mail-order and at conventions? Now we have the Internet, a game store in almost ever major US city, high quality games with great production values, and the ability to meet people online to learn about even more games. I don't think that a game company or two failing is a sign of the end of the hobby. I think we are in a golden age of miniature wargaming. I think the hobby may shrink due to people who buy games and loose interest after a few years, but I see guys at the game store who started playing as a teen and still show up on weekends and for tournaments. So new blood is coming in. Remember...wargaming is not golf, we can't expect there to be widespread mainstream participation in the hobby.

Thanks for reading if you got this far. I'm not looking to start any arguments or debate the business practices of GW. I think the hobby has matured and unless a new company comes along with a game that really blows people away (Warmachine in 2004) or has some innovation that is useful and not just a gimmick, we may be at the limit of the number of companies that can produce a game and survive.

2112 wrote:1. If everyone is so concerned about the state of the companies in the hobby, why aren't you buying every game that comes out? If you have limited funds and time, why are you supporting GW? We can't complain about every game company that fails when every purchase you make is either Warhammer or Warmachine.

one of the benefits of being a GW gamer is that you're likely to find other players when you move. i stepped away from minis gaming around 2005 and focused more on RPGs for almost 5 years. when i decided to get back into the minis side of the hobby, guess how many of the games i had in the basement still were around? that vor: the maelstrom army and warzone capitol force were now pretty much useless except as proxies for other games. that huge collection of d&d minis that i used to play the skirmish game? just an RPG collection now. AT-43 was just starting out when i stopped minis gaming so i didn't pick up much of their stuff except for when FFG had their 75% off "we're dumping them as their distributor" sale but they're effectively gone too. i may rail against GW's business practice of trying that prices people out of the hobby but they produce nice looking products that are USABLE years later for the most part.

2112 wrote:
2. Innovation is lacking in this hobby. Why would anyone innovate if you keep giving the companies that do the same thing over and over money? Everyone loves to bitch about GW, yet you still buy their products. Why would they change or innovate when that involves risk? All they have to do is release a new edition of 40K and WFB every few years. Privateer Press took a chance with their system and models and they succeeded, but the system is still based on a traditional table top game.

FOW and PP are big boys in the industry and they didn't exist 10 years ago. i think if you make a quality product that appeals to a large portion of gamers, you will succeed (or at least get by). if you make boneheaded decisions like rackham and bastion, you won't. change =/= innovation necessarily. i suspect that 10-15 years from now, the scifi/fantasy market will resemble what historicals was 10 years ago with a graying and shrinking but loyal player base as more people gravitate towards electronic gaming.

Keep in mind that Privateer press was one of the "little guys" not too long ago, and many many people DID switch from GW to them and support them for a number of the reasons the OP mentions.

Many people knock PP for their models and concepts, but I think it is rather refreshing that they aren't trying to produce yet another 40K clone destined for failure like so many other games that have come and gone.

A number of games/companies/figure producers (aou know them: the ones trying to ride the coat-tails of GW's IP) out there now are on borrowed time as it is because they don't simply want to be an alternative to GW they want to try to beat them at their own game which is their first mistake...

Unfortunately, we are consumers in a niche market. There's not much room for expansion from other sources that aren't already established.

I don't bitch about GW. I actually like their products a lot, and even if I had the money to branch out into other company products, I would not stop being a GW customer.

At the end of the day, consumers are not responsible for a company failing. Lack of innovation, or innovation that does not appeal to the market, is what kills them. If a company is good, and has good products for a price people are willing to pay, then it will survive. If it does not, people won't buy it's products and it will fail.

As for Wargames Factory, i think they had decent sales, when product was available. If they had more greatcoats, and the greatcoat heavy weapons, they'd be selling a ton of them right now.

Ex-Ex-Illis? eh. Not all games fly. It had a strange hybrid system that just didn't fly. Arcane Legions had the same problem.

But FOW, Warmachine, and Malifaux are all going strong. Not all games survive. Not alll Good Games survive. But certainly there are some doing well, and innovating.

It's a hard economy, more pressure on companies to do good, easier to fail.

2112 wrote:

1. If everyone is so concerned about the state of the companies in the hobby, why aren't you buying every game that comes out? If you have limited funds and time, why are you supporting GW? We can't complain about every game company that fails when every purchase you make is either Warhammer or Warmachine.

I am not concerned with the state of companies in the hobby. There are literally hundreds of them. I do not complain about the loss of companies what I try to do is learn why they went under. Ex-illis in my opinion went under because it was perceived as way to complicated and a needless innovation. If you are going to use rules that are so heavily computer moderated why not just play a computer game? And it looks like WF changed management (not sure yet if they will go under) because the original owners overextended their credit and then when sales were not what they thought they came out on the short end of the stick.

2112 wrote:
2. Innovation is lacking in this hobby. Why would anyone innovate if you keep giving the companies that do the same thing over and over money? Everyone loves to bitch about GW, yet you still buy their products. Why would they change or innovate when that involves risk? All they have to do is release a new edition of 40K and WFB every few years. Privateer Press took a chance with their system and models and they succeeded, but the system is still based on a traditional table top game.

Not all innovation is good. At one time Edison tried to make furniture out of concrete. It wasn't a good innovation and neither was Ex-illis.

2112 wrote:
3. Finally...how many games do we really need? Warhammer 40K, WFB, Warmachine, Hordes, Warhammer Historicals, Flames of War, Uncharted Seas, Firestorm Armada, DBM and it's variants, as well as all the other solid historical systems. There is something out there for everyone. When this hobby started years ago, weren't you limited to historical games and whatever miniatures you could get through mail-order and at conventions? Now we have the Internet, a game store in almost ever major US city, high quality games with great production values, and the ability to meet people online to learn about even more games. I don't think that a game company or two failing is a sign of the end of the hobby. I think we are in a golden age of miniature wargaming. I think the hobby may shrink due to people who buy games and loose interest after a few years, but I see guys at the game store who started playing as a teen and still show up on weekends and for tournaments. So new blood is coming in. Remember...wargaming is not golf, we can't expect there to be widespread mainstream participation in the hobby.

We need as many games as can successfully keep themselves going. Who cares how many it is. We are in a golden age of miniatures and we are going to see many more companies come and go. And hobby shops have been around in most cities for decades. This is nothing new and fantasy miniatures have been relatively wide spread since the 70s.

2112 wrote:
Thanks for reading if you got this far. I'm not looking to start any arguments or debate the business practices of GW. I think the hobby has matured and unless a new company comes along with a game that really blows people away (Warmachine in 2004) or has some innovation that is useful and not just a gimmick, we may be at the limit of the number of companies that can produce a game and survive.

I think you don't have the proper perspective on this. There are literally hundreds of successful miniature companies. The loss of two start ups is a drop in the bucket. Just off the top of my head I will name a bunch of rules that have been successful:

Warhammer
Warhammer 40k
LoTR
Warhammer Historicals
Command Decision
Fire and Fury
Black Powder
Unchartered Seas
Hordes
HoTT
DBM
DBA
Firestorm Armada
Warmachine
Armati
General de Brigade
Flames of War

And that is just a small number of the popular rule sets out there.

2112 wrote:1. If everyone is so concerned about the state of the companies in the hobby, why aren't you buying every game that comes out? If you have limited funds and time, why are you supporting GW? We can't complain about every game company that fails when every purchase you make is either Warhammer or Warmachine.

A game will struggle if it fails to provide a product people want at a price they're willing to pay. Why should we feel obligated to keep a company afloat when they're providing a product that we don't want, or charging more than we feel we should be paying?

2. Innovation is lacking in this hobby. Why would anyone innovate if you keep giving the companies that do the same thing over and over money? Everyone loves to bitch about GW, yet you still buy their products. Why would they change or innovate when that involves risk? All they have to do is release a new edition of 40K and WFB every few years. Privateer Press took a chance with their system and models and they succeeded, but the system is still based on a traditional table top game.

There's plenty of innovation. Every game has a new setting and a new system. Meanwhile the market leader continues to chug along offering more or less the same product it has for twenty years. It seems the developers are far more interested in offering innovation than the consumers are in buying it.

Remember...wargaming is not golf, we can't expect there to be widespread mainstream participation in the hobby.

This is a really important point, and remember miniatures is much more of a hobby than an industry. There is exactly one major business in this industry in GW, and while a couple of other companies have become viable companies, they're simply not on the scale of GW, and history is beginning to show that we may not be able to tolerate more than a couple of companies of that size. Basically, this hobby is not that big, and it's quite bizarre that we've got one public company out of it.

I think the hobby has matured and unless a new company comes along with a game that really blows people away (Warmachine in 2004) or has some innovation that is useful and not just a gimmick, we may be at the limit of the number of companies that can produce a game and survive.

I don't think it's that hard to produce a game with a ruleset that's good enough for the demands of the market, or with miniatures that are acceptable. Nor is a unique gimmick all that hard (Warmachines is hardly that incredible an idea, afterall). What's hard is to get all three of the above, and then time your entry into the market so that you can build a big enough player base, fast enough.

Most companies succeed at one or two of the above, or do all three but just come into the market at the wrong time. This generally results in promising early sales, but with a plateau as players find they're aren't enough people to play with. Interest drops off, and so do sales. The company stutters along until the cash finally runs out.

Gaming is a niche market, but historicals have been more or less stable for the last few decades.

This is generally because many historical rulesets don't particularly care whose models you use if they are the right scale. The idea of only using one company's product for a game is an aberration in the hobby. It was not a core tenet of 40k when it started (hell, you HAD to use other stuff as there just weren't models for half the stuff).

It appears Ghost studios out of china was the manufacturer for both of these companies. It might be that these announcements are related to one another. It's pretty easy for a molding supplier to sabotage a startup business if they wanted to. Or less nefariously, Ghost studios decided not to extend any more credit to struggling companies.

No.

If Ex-Illis had more of what I wanted, I would have bought it.

It did not have what I wanted. I did not buy it.

^This also.

It doesn't matter if the product is new, flashy, innovative or whatever. If it does not appeal to me, I don't buy it.

I have a small gaming budget. I have a corresponding narrow gaming focus. I don't stray from this. Yes, over time it allows me to accrue a quite hefty amount of gear, but it has also left me with several dead systems that were novel and innovative - and they were still crushed by the GW dinosaur safe bets.

So, lets say I have a gaming group of 5 freinds.

One of us really likes Ex Illis, one or two think its ok but wont buy it unless a couple other people do. And the other three think hte minis are ok, but overprices and the system concept is ridiculous.

End result is one guy wit hthe Ex Illis stuff, a couple fence sitters, and three of us laughing at the guy that bought the Ex Illis stuff instead of some new Warmachine or 40k stuff.

This is pretty much the dynamic of any game- it has to be gripping enough to make enough people in a gaming group want to play it- so the rest of the group can see how cool/fun it is.

I cant really recall how many games have come and gone like this- but Ive got more than a few refugee minis from extinct game systems and companies.

Yes, its entirely your fault. You should go forth and find some small company to support and purchase lots of product, and then make your friends, family, and random strangers do the same!



This post contains a bit of sarcasm, but seriously, go buy some Hamsters. And Op, since your only 2 hours away, come to Siege of Augusta this weekend and I'll give ya a demo.

2112 wrote:1. If everyone is so concerned about the state of the companies in the hobby, why aren't you buying every game that comes out? If you have limited funds and time, why are you supporting GW?

Because I cannot afford to buy minis as a form of charity, nor do I have the space to store minis much beyond the ones I'm working on at the moment. I can look at GW minis in person, decide which ones I absolutely know I want, and buy those. I'm much more suspicious about buying another comapany's minis unless I have a chance to see them in person first.

2. Innovation is lacking in this hobby. Why would anyone innovate if you keep giving the companies that do the same thing over and over money?

Because a good good product is a good product, and stands on its own merits. There is a tendency among fans of successively niche products to view the success of less niche products as a result of their customers being mindless sheep, as opposed to the company actually releasing a good product.

GW is not a bad company. I just feel they are badly run and have the potential to double their market if they'd just solve their inconsistent quality issues and get a realistic idea of what is a reasonable cost for their product.

Besides, I don't think innovation is lacking in this hobby. Product from nearly every company I know of is significantly better than it was when I entered the hobby.

At the moment, my barometer for the health of smaller companies is Studio McVey. If they can sell out of the resin models I am interested in before I can get around to buying them, then as far as I'm concerned the industry is quite healthy.

3. Finally...how many games do we really need?

I'm not really married to the idea that the hobby needs any games, but I have no problem with there being more out there.

mikhaila wrote:A lot of sense

I was just going to post pretty much the point mikhaila made, but saying as he made it already, I won't!

In a bull market, any fool can make money. In a downturn, that's when you see the weeding out of the companies with problems. Ultimately those problems are management responsibility - taking poor risks at the wrong time or without sufficient information, or situations arise that they couldn't forsee and hedge against. Not necessarily their *fault*, but still their *responbility*. Ultimately all business is a risk, the good will survive, and the bad will fail. The trick is that you hope your good decisions outweigh (and come before!) your bad ones!

chromedog wrote:If it does not appeal to me, I don't buy it.

I have to echo this point.

When Firestorm Armada came out I was all jazzed to play it. A nice new ship game, sounded great. Then I saw the ships... and I wasn't inspired by them. I'm a very visual person (ironic given I hate painting), and I tend to choose flashy things or aesthetically pleasing things over effective things. It's like in Tekken - I'll take a weaker character with flashy cool looking moves over a powerful player with a traditional standard fighting technique.

In the end of the day it didn't matter how good Firestorm Armada's rules were, I wasn't inspired by the ships. They did nothing for me. I don't like Star Trek, but I'd play a Star Trek game 'cause I think the ships look cool. I'd play a Star Wars game because the ships look cool. I don't want to play Armada because it doesn't appeal to me - there's a whole race in that game who's ships look like flying lightsabres.

So I don't think it's 'our fault'. It's just the market weeding out the weaker ones and letting the strong (or obstinate, in GW's case) survive.


*NB: A friend of mine recently got some Firestorm Armada ships to use in our Rogue Trader campaign, and I was surprised at how big they are - but I'm still not racing out to buy them.

2112 wrote:Ex Illis failed because no one bought it. I'm not here to discuss the rules, company policies, models etc. A business needs customers to make money. No customers means no money, and eventually the business fails.

What bizarre constraints you have placed on this discussion. You ask if somehow we caused a company fail and explicitly rule out discussion of any contributing factors which caused it to fail. It's like you're selling hamburgers filled with broken glass, and asking why they don't sell (besides the broken glass).

it was the broken glass.

2112 wrote:If everyone is so concerned about the state of the companies in the hobby, why aren't you buying every game that comes out?

Who says we're concerned? I could care less if most of these small places close up shop tommorow. Most of them offer a half-ass product, poor QC, and horrible customer service.

This is the miniature business, not miniature welfare. I'm not making a donation when I buy a mini, I'm buying a product. I want to buy something super overpriced and poorly manufactured in a chinese sweatshop that also - inexplicably -makes me feel smug, I'll go to the apple store.

While product quality is of course an issue (Personally, I do not have to look long at, for example, Aeronef miniatures to say that I will not be playing the game unless I find another miniature line to play it with) and personal appeal definitely is important (I do not think the 40k universe aesthetic carries well into a space combat game (it is not a good sign when I cringe at over half the models in the game) and when GW resigned BFG to the slow death of "Specialist Games" it was a given I would not get into it) there is also the simple element of luck - being in the right place, at the right time. This is as true of miniatures gaming as any other business and, for that matter, personal careers.

The best example of this might be Spartan Games. Their rules system is decent: there is no real competition in the fields of fantasy and steampunk naval gaming, but Firestorm Armada is certainly the equal of any other fast n'dirty spaceship game out there at the moment. Their miniatures are really nice - althouh H.B.M.C doesn't like Firestorm Armada's aesthetic, there is no doubt that Spartan struck a chord with Uncharted Seas, produced some harmomy with Firestorm Armada, and really brought out the whole big band experience with Dystopian Wars. Their rise has been meteoric; the recent D6G interview with Neil Fawcett reveals that orders quickly grew from hundreds to thousands of figures in a very short time period and is now rising. They also have a clear commitment to supporting their game systems.

In addition, they came out at a time when many gaming companies were achieving success with a less opaque approach to design and marketing than before. Spartan held a dialogue with their fans on the forums, much like PP did (in a smarter manner, but then again they are a more experienced company) with their Mk2 Field Test and Wyrd did with their fan-driven rules hole plugging (to name two other recent successes) and while they made some mistakes (US had a brief rules-by-committee period), they maintained a positive image. It remains to be seen whether Spartan will maintain their rise, but things are looking good. However, had US come out five and especially ten years ago (which it, again from the Fawcett interview, could have) there might not have been room for it. The miniatures gaming internet presence might not have been built up enough, people's fantasy naval gaming nostalgia might still have been undeveloped, CAD design and their method of producing the models might not have been as well developed as it was when they came out.

We are in a golden age of (non-traditional historical) miniatures gaming at the moment - people like me, who quit miniatures years ago, have returned in recent years, and many companies are booming. It is a sign of the times that Penny Arcade, which is likely the world's most successful webcomic with a very large web presence and reach, currently has a heavy focus on Warmachine (http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/1154119140_QHUxe-L.jpg) - I've been getting demo requests and queries from people that have never played a pen-and-paper RPG, much less a miniature game, in their lives. The market seems to be expanding somewhat, thanks in a great deal to the internet, even if it is definitely still a difficult place for newcomers to establish themselves as viable businesses.

So when it comes to Ex Illis, it might just have been a bit too early. Or too late. It seems they were unable to hit that "sweet spot" that would have ensured success.

Also, they're, you know. French.

The way I see it I'll play a game (and thus support it) if it has a faction like the Inquisition in 40k; with the same themes and ideals. That may sound selfish; but its what I like, its what appeals to me; so why not stick with 40k till another comes along? Reason being this is what brought me to like miniatures themselves.

UK video games market is down 29% in two years.

Eearly rumours are that the chinese supplier link between Ex-illis and WF is just coincidental. Apparently the problem with Ex-illis is just not enough sales revenue being generated, rather than any more complex shennanikins.

Too expensive? Too "European" for US/UK tastes? Too "computery"? Answers to all of these are probably "yes". They certainly were for my proclivities. No amount of marketing or tinkering with their programme would have altered that.

Sorry. Good idea. Not for me though, and presumably not for enough others either.

2112 wrote:2. Innovation is lacking in this hobby. Why would anyone innovate if you keep giving the companies that do the same thing over and over money? Everyone loves to bitch about GW, yet you still buy their products. Why would they change or innovate when that involves risk? All they have to do is release a new edition of 40K and WFB every few years. Privateer Press took a chance with their system and models and they succeeded, but the system is still based on a traditional table top game.

Not all change is good. In the case of Ex Illis and Studio McVey, their innovations make me less inclined to buy their products, because I'd prefer that their changes (worst-of-both-worlds computer-assisted gaming and limited edition miniatures) die out.

At the risk of sounding callous: Some companies deserve to fail.

I'd say that we're sometimes the cause of these companies to fail, mismanagement or other factors notwithstanding. I would not call it our fault however.

It's probably splitting hairs, but there's a particular difference in tone there that I feel needs distinguished. Either way, it's a question of providing a useful product or service. You're obviously not getting my patronage if you offer nothing I desire.

As far as Wargames Factory goes, they did have something I wanted, and so I bought 40 greatcoats, but they've not expanded their line (or even offered preorders for it), so they've received no further patronage from me. If they stay afloat long enough to manage that, then I'll buy from them again.

After refreshing my memory on what Ex-Illis was, I now remember reading about it. The whole thing sounded gimmicky, but admittedly, I never actually saw the implementation of it as played. At any rate, I stare at screens all day long and can barely bring myself to touch a computer or watch TV when I get home. One of the greatest parts of the tabletop is the ability to 'unplug' for a while. I don't want to have to stare at a monitor/cell phone while I'm playing a game.

To address your points directly:

1. I'm not, and I don't. I support GW (ignoring greatcoats and other purchases which don't) because of the fact that I play 40k. I'm already invested in 40k, so it's more practical for me to continue what I do. It would also require all of my friends changing.

2. If people wanted innovation that badly, then they'd either make it themselves, or they'd switch hobbies to something more 'innovative'. Or they'd have bought Ex-Illis. I'll be honest, I don't want innovation in my gaming. Would I complain about it? No, but it's not a systemic requirement. What is a requirement is having a good night with friends, drinking some beer, and relaxing. Warhammer allows for this, which is why number 1 above happened.

3. I might be dodging the question, but we need at any given time just as many games as there currently exist at that time, because that's all the market will bear. I don't really know what else to say on that point beyond this. New games are constantly being created, and old ones are being forgotten. It's kind of like a human's lifecycle, in a way. Just as (gross oversimplification) the 'modern age' allows us to increase the number of people alive at a given time, market conditions allow more games to survive and for longer at a time as well. There could well be a time in the future where in response to asking if anyone still plays 40k, they say "Warham...who?"

As much as I agree with the general thrust in this thread, that companies that fail probably aren't delivering what the market demands, there's a really odd idea going on that obviously what the market demands is a quality rules set... have you seen the rules for GW's main games?

It's pretty clear what really matters doesn't have much to do with the rules.

I think the primary reason small companies will fail in the mini-wargames market is the fact it's such a nich market.


the Companies that do exist are well established and have pretty much taken hold of their corner.

Battlefront has got WW2 down in both Rule sets and miniatures. someone wanting a WW2 game will go with FoW for ease. the only way to compete with Battlefront would be to produce miniatures of the same scale(because you can't copyright historical things) and get into a price war(which will end up being good for gamers and bad for the companies as it will drive prices down)

GW has well established Fantesy and Sci-fi games. while their actual production of new product and their profit orientated attitude may result in a far from friendly treatment of their customers, it does allow them to succeed at keeping the game alive. the fact they really don't allow competitor's models to be used also ensures that only their models are being used(which allows the company to remain afloat)


these companies have a pretty tight grip on their area of the market and this makes other games difficult for small companies to push. there is only so many Table Top Wargamers to go around and it really isn't wise to compete with the big boys.



Why would i buy some obscure company's game that, very few people play, might not be around in a year or 2, and even if it is not as many people will be playing it so i risk not getting any use out of my purchase if i move.


there will always be someone around who plays WHFB, 40K, or FoW so those miniatures are a safe purchase.

Grey Templar wrote:there will always be someone around who plays WHFB, 40K, or FoW so those miniatures are a safe purchase.

This is why I think new minis companies would be very wise to build games that are self-contained and are fun and sufficiently deep with just the original boxset. Because there's every chance the company won't be there in two years, I want to know the stuff I'm buying in the starter box will be enough by itself, in case no or little extra product comes. If new races and stuff does come along and it adds more variety to the game all the better, but I've got to feel safe with the original purchse.

The other idea here is that if one boxset is enough by itself, I'm not dependant on a friend also making an investment before we can play. If I alone buy the boxset, then I can get mates to play to see if they like the game, and then they're able to decide if they like it enough to buy any variant armies that come along down the track.

GW can get away with selling starter boxes that contain elements of two new armies because they're GW, so we know they'll be around a long time, and there's always other players. Other companies really need to look at different business models.

I wouldn't say our fault, per se, but definitely yours.