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.

 ProtoClone wrote:
You know, they dedicate entire college courses to these kinds of subjects and successful businesses still fail. You can't pinpoint why on a general level, only specific instances pertaining to that company.

True that! Its also much easier to analyse after the fact than to predict.I am not a business student/businessman, but I believe that gaming companies outside of basement/garage set-ups need to keep generating income. You have to keep selling models, but the models themselves have long lifespans. I figure you need to keep attracting new blood while also convincing existing players to expand/replace their own collections. While the road has had the odd bump, GW has succeeded at this for three decades.

I think that Flames of War had a number of problems: design, it ran out of periods and competition. The game design worked well for the original forces, but the special rules were major problem by 2013 (heavy artillery, tank destroyers etc). Game balance was in peril, with the Blood Guts and Glory book being particularily troublesome. The Early War release had the BAR fiasco. EW never really took off, while the Pacific and WW1 languished. The V4 reboot drove away many older players with a botched MW release.

Plastic Soldier Company and Zvedsa were releasing 1:100 competition in plastic, and with no IP on the models BF was in trouble. I think that the cards that feature heavily in V4 were an attempt to have some sort of IP. I think that it just drove more people away. The success of Team Yankee is probably keeping the company afloat, and hopefully they can find their way. FOW is still hanging on around my area, and I keep running tournaments and trying to generate interest. Its just a lot more work since V4 came out.

Edition change does seem to be a major factor. It effects a large number of people at once, as opposed to local factors. Further, the edition change is something that people did not already buy into per say. They may not like to walk away from a game that they invested money and time into, but they never really bought into the new edition. If it is distasteful enough, they will flee.

Other factors that could effect groups at a certain period of time are going back to school, etc. However, in most cases communities are broad enough that some people leaving for school will not sink the community.

With respect to edition change, it screams for companies to make better games, thus edition changes will not be needed. Classic games like chess have been around for centuries. In terms of keeping people buying models, make better models. The companies that produce great models do seem to sell them.

 spaceelf wrote:

With respect to edition change, it screams for companies to make better games, thus edition changes will not be needed. .

Yes, and no.


Quite often, a 'better' game depends entirely on what players choose to do with it. 2nd edition 40k was a perfectly good (if buggy) skirmish game. GW could have simply revised those rules enough to clear up some of the things that needed clarification and released that as 3rd edition... but at the time, people were trying to play bigger and bigger games, and the 2nd edition rules were groaning at the seams as a result. 3rd edition was GW's attempt to give their players the game that they actually wanted to play, which was one that allowed for more models on the table without needing a week and a half to play. So as frustrating as it was at the time (particularly for Sisters players) to have to go and buy all the rules all over again and acclimatise to what was almost an entirely new game, it made for a better game at that time.

The trick is making sure you're across what your customers actually want... as WotC found out, it's easy to get it very, very wrong.

Edition changes seem to be a weak point specifically because they break momentum. Whatever you were working towards, or looking forward to, or planning to get - poof. In theory, a new edition should replace your momentum with a new, better, stronger momentum, but in practice, it tends to replace a certain amount of compulsion with hype, and hype is not as long lasting or as effective.

How many X-Wing players were lost in the months leading up to 2.0? Now FFG has to win those players back, rather than keep them on. But then, I think the argument could be made that many of them - perhaps even a majority of them - weren't really happy with X-Wing anyway, and the edition change just gave them the excuse they needed to move on.

 spaceelf wrote:
Edition change does seem to be a major factor. It effects a large number of people at once, as opposed to local factors.

One great example of a game falling off a cliff was Warzone.

In the mid to late-ish 90's Warzone came along with a very rich background, interesting models (of varying quality) and a really good d20 based ruleset. 40k Stopped being played and everyone was building and playing Warzone. Expansions came out, really cool settings on different planets and then they released a new edition and it fell off a cliff.

Why?

The factions became very similar, the personality of the game was stripped out, the rules were 'streamlined' and became boring.

How did this happen?

A few friends were plugged into the online community (for what it was back then) and they said that there was a VERY loud minority who heavily influenced 2nd edition and led to its rapid demise. It was a very stark lesson on the power of loud minority pressure and a company not understanding what the majority of their gamers wanted.

The company died and pulled its great fanatasy game Chronopia down with it.

 Sqorgar wrote:
How many X-Wing players were lost in the months leading up to 2.0?

I know at least in Australia, not many. The "gap" came from people not purchasing, because there were new versions of things coming that were fully up to date with 2nd edition, instead of buying last editions stock and having useless cards. Now that it is out, the community has exploded again to its previous numbers. That said, the players that are still around are pretty die hard, and they evolve as the game does for the most part. Those who left because of card creep and having to make unnecessary purchases for cards (myself included) are having to be won back, that's undeniable, but they are doing a decent job at doing it

 Rygnan wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
How many X-Wing players were lost in the months leading up to 2.0?

I know at least in Australia, not many. The "gap" came from people not purchasing, because there were new versions of things coming that were fully up to date with 2nd edition, instead of buying last editions stock and having useless cards. Now that it is out, the community has exploded again to its previous numbers. That said, the players that are still around are pretty die hard, and they evolve as the game does for the most part. Those who left because of card creep and having to make unnecessary purchases for cards (myself included) are having to be won back, that's undeniable, but they are doing a decent job at doing it

Even the old stock is moving my area, the local stores have it all at 20% off and with the cards in the conversion box that players are already picking up a lot of the stuff makes for good impulse buys.

Now whether there's enough forward impetus to really make the game a phoenix rising again? I personally think there is just from the rave reviews from experienced players (maneuvers matter again! Skill at flying is important now! etc etc).

 ScarletRose wrote:

 Rygnan wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
How many X-Wing players were lost in the months leading up to 2.0?

I know at least in Australia, not many. The "gap" came from people not purchasing, because there were new versions of things coming that were fully up to date with 2nd edition, instead of buying last editions stock and having useless cards. Now that it is out, the community has exploded again to its previous numbers. That said, the players that are still around are pretty die hard, and they evolve as the game does for the most part. Those who left because of card creep and having to make unnecessary purchases for cards (myself included) are having to be won back, that's undeniable, but they are doing a decent job at doing it

Even the old stock is moving my area, the local stores have it all at 20% off and with the cards in the conversion box that players are already picking up a lot of the stuff makes for good impulse buys.

Now whether there's enough forward impetus to really make the game a phoenix rising again? I personally think there is just from the rave reviews from experienced players (maneuvers matter again! Skill at flying is important now! etc etc).

On that note, our FLGS has put 1E X-Wing stock on 40% off. I actually went a little bananas and picked up several sets I had passed over at the tail end of 1E. Also, two new players have started, though we have one player who is doing his best to try and not have to pick up the 2E version. Overall, I'm won over - 2E X-Wing has been positive for me once you manage to get past repurchasing the cardboard (which I'll admit is a pretty good-sized hurdle).

What I can't figure out is what state Star Trek Attack Wing is in. D&D Attack Wing clearly died, but STAW has had a "stealth" 2E version with new starters, but I don't hear of anyone buying or playing. STAW seems to be a game for this pile of declining/dead games as interest has definately waned since they stopped doing new models and have just been recoloring/reprinting. I'm not sure what caused it to fizzle so - Star Trek reboot? Discovery? Lack of tournament support? Lack of new releases?

I played a lot of X-Wing competitively. I dropped out around the time just before the great decline most people are referring to.

For me it had two reasons:
1. Because of how FFG handles their release and support. X-Wing expansions dropped at breakneck speed and you had to get multiple of every little new ship because the cards were scattered among them and '3x new ship' (laser turrets ughhh) was bound to be the new meta. Then, you know FFG is just going to drop support or gut the game to start 2.0 at some point doing it all over again like they do with their LCGs.

Basically their marketing model is "you have to buy multiples of everything we release if you want to stick around". They know that is unsustainable so it's all just leading up to 2.0.
I have a hard time still getting into any FFG game that is not standalone.

2. Because of the insanely cheap power creep, which goes hand in hand with their selling model of course. Twin Laser Turrets, ugh. Palpatine (smart: you had to buy a 100 dollar ship to get the Palp card), ugh. Those obnoxious twinbots when they released (God I hated those). Flying squadrons was an abandoned principle after the first three waves or so. I used to fly Tie Swarm mostly though until that became pointless

I sound way more sour than I actually am though. I had heaps of fun with X-Wing, won some tournaments, won a bunch of limited edition cards, dice and rulers and whatnot. But times come and times go

Edition change does seem to be a major factor. It effects a large number of people at once, as opposed to local factors. Further, the edition change is something that people did not already buy into per say. They may not like to walk away from a game that they invested money and time into, but they never really bought into the new edition. If it is distasteful enough, they will flee.

Edition change can be a factor.
A basic example is MK3 of WMH. Players bought into the game during MK2 and had decent armies to play - as in our gaming group. Then MK3 changed the game play of several armies. Not all of them were affected but some like Cryx and others were. Today, the WHM game play in our group is largely dead. There are just two dudes who show up on Wednesdays and play consistently against each other. But the other gamers around dont really care about their battles.

I find it funny because a decade ago, an edition change was when a game would really take off and get players. I think the edition change issue is a little worse these days where the internet facilitates a collective meta. The meta evolves so rapidly that most players really don't have time to test and experiment and just end up chasing the next big thing to keep up.

When the edition change happens there's a gap before the meta reestablishes itself where no one knows where to start, particularly in the massively expanded set of options that needed the reboot in the first place. This time also seems particularly prone for players to play gimmicky or under tuned lists and run into some power disparity that they quickly perceive as a huge flaw in the new edition that gives them all the confirmation bias they need to get off the meta track and try something new.

Actually I think its just because we've actually had a spate of bad edition changes. The previous edition of 40K and the early version of AoS were riddled with bad choices that lost people (the latter wasn't even really rules). Warmachine in the same, their MKIII was coupled to other choices that turned the new edition into a hotbed of contention and issues.

Of course GW has just had two outstanding edition releases coupled with very solid rules on a range of specialist games and its reacted with a massive market upswing in favour of them.

 Overread wrote:
Actually I think its just because we've actually had a spate of bad edition changes. The previous edition of 40K and the early version of AoS were riddled with bad choices that lost people (the latter wasn't even really rules). Warmachine in the same, their MKIII was coupled to other choices that turned the new edition into a hotbed of contention and issues.

Of course GW has just had two outstanding edition releases coupled with very solid rules on a range of specialist games and its reacted with a massive market upswing in favour of them.

Maybe? It feels like players are just way less tolerant of mistakes than they used to be. I mean, Shield Guard didn't function in any real capacity for like 3-4 iterations before they found something that worked for Warmachine MK2, but people were pretty patient with it. In MK3 we had "models technically can't charge knocked down models" and people declared the game dead even after the devs said not to play it that way and that a fix was coming (and arrived in like a week). Most of the previously well received edition changes were far from perfect, but players were excited and fought through the growing pains. These days, it feels like ever errata is a personal grievance that can only be amended with a developer's head on a pike.

Let me take you back to 2E D&D. Edition changes have ALWAYs been contentious, there’s just more ways for the gamers to communicate with others than the old “Letters to the Editor” that generally only printed the positive ones anyways.

Two things that people often fail to consider in the death of a game system:

1) The success of a larger game system. We are a limited market and a lot of game system succeeded and then failed with the respective launch of Warhammer 40k 7th and 8th edition. Warmachine was a good example - the popularity of Warhammer 8th edition put them in a precarious place in a lot of metas that could easily been shaken by the lightest excuses.

2) The community. It's hard to judge the greater community when you play with the same 5 guys every week, but many games have lived or died just on the basis of the perception of their respective communities. You might be having a great time with your 5 buddies, but if a new player finds joining you intimidating or unwelcome, than you are really one friend away from the whole meta dissolving. A lot of games became known for massive divisiveness in their player bases before their deaths. The hardcore players simply wouldn't allow other players in with a bunch of ridiculous hoops.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
Two things that people often fail to consider in the death of a game system:

1) The success of a larger game system. We are a limited market and a lot of game system succeeded and then failed with the respective launch of Warhammer 40k 7th and 8th edition. Warmachine was a good example - the popularity of Warhammer 8th edition put them in a precarious place in a lot of metas that could easily been shaken by the lightest excuses.

2) The community. It's hard to judge the greater community when you play with the same 5 guys every week, but many games have lived or died just on the basis of the perception of their respective communities. You might be having a great time with your 5 buddies, but if a new player finds joining you intimidating or unwelcome, than you are really one friend away from the whole meta dissolving. A lot of games became known for massive divisiveness in their player bases before their deaths. The hardcore players simply wouldn't allow other players in with a bunch of ridiculous hoops.

This as well, especially the first point, look at Kings of War, R2 coincided perfectly with the launch of AoS, has GW released WHFB 9th and nailed it KoW would have been dead on arrival.

Ditto Gates of Antares, which like KoW is a very nice little game, however 40k's current iteration has essentially killed it (at least locally) - the collapse of Warlords forums didn't help

As for the second point, I never understood but certainly saw a lot of hostility towards LotR from Warhammer players, if you had that in a group that played WHFB LotR was essentially dead.

Cliques can do that to just about any game, they can also help a decent game survive

 LunarSol wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Actually I think its just because we've actually had a spate of bad edition changes. The previous edition of 40K and the early version of AoS were riddled with bad choices that lost people (the latter wasn't even really rules). Warmachine in the same, their MKIII was coupled to other choices that turned the new edition into a hotbed of contention and issues.

Of course GW has just had two outstanding edition releases coupled with very solid rules on a range of specialist games and its reacted with a massive market upswing in favour of them.

Maybe? It feels like players are just way less tolerant of mistakes than they used to be. I mean, Shield Guard didn't function in any real capacity for like 3-4 iterations before they found something that worked for Warmachine MK2, but people were pretty patient with it. In MK3 we had "models technically can't charge knocked down models" and people declared the game dead even after the devs said not to play it that way and that a fix was coming (and arrived in like a week). Most of the previously well received edition changes were far from perfect, but players were excited and fought through the growing pains. These days, it feels like ever errata is a personal grievance that can only be amended with a developer's head on a pike.

Over time, I think the players of any game get sourer - those who stay and should not, at least.
Until it reaches a climax, a bit like all the 40k whiners, I think they've been at the top of their game for years already, and some of them are still at it despite general satisfaction rising.

It's probably that MK3 has a lot more "fans" that have hated the game for a long while and hate it as a new edition.

Like 2nd ed players who hate 40k 3rd and above, and then you get 3rd players who hate 40k 4th and above, etc.
I'm sure these days you can find 7th ed players who hate 8th and will join the hatewagon for 9th.

I don't think there were many players of WMH before MK2 though, am I wrong?
Whenever I heard of WMH, it was kind of obvious in the way it was talked about, that people only recently discovered the thing, that it was all beauty and flowers and nothing bad, and so much better than GW, etc.

And then it kind of settled, then it became obvious that WMH had its own flaws, then some people started ranting about these, others started leaving, and WMH kind of entered the stage where a game is "just a game" instead of "the latest silver arrow", with its downsides, its haters, etc.

I don't think there were many players of WMH before MK2 though, am I wrong?
Whenever I heard of WMH, it was kind of obvious in the way it was talked about, that people only recently discovered the thing, that it was all beauty and flowers and nothing bad, and so much better than GW, etc.

And then it kind of settled, then it became obvious that WMH had its own flaws, then some people started ranting about these, others started leaving, and WMH kind of entered the stage where a game is "just a game" instead of "the latest silver arrow", with its downsides, its haters, etc.

I started playing WM/H in early Mk2 when i returned to tabletop gaming in my mid 20's. What drew us to is was the local community as it seemed to more mature and the game itself had a lot more to it that what GW was offering. More tactical depth if you will. I still feel this. GW makes amazing games and models but i feel like i am fingerprinting compared to the depth of tools and accuracy needed for a WM/H game.

My assessment of the community now is that we are just above the level of players we had in the UK in the middle of Mk2.

IMO, Mk3 was rushed out to take advantage of a apparent opening in the market but in that rush PP put aside their normal attention to detail which resulted in the poor game state at launch. Many new people did dip their toe into the water at the start of Mk3. I ran so many demo games for people who were disgruntled GW customers. But what became clear to me that many to them wanted a beer and pretzels level game, not a game where detailed tactics and individual model interaction,placement, facing and order of activation matters at a critical level.

Im quite positive about WM/H atm. Mk3 is now in a very good state. We have great affordable starter sets etc. But its not a game for everyone or one that tends to attract young players.. And that is fine. people should play the game they enjoy. What we need to do as the WM/H community is work on being more inviting and playing all the other formats and scenarios other than the 2 list Steamroller format to bring in new player.

 wuestenfux wrote:

Edition change does seem to be a major factor. It effects a large number of people at once, as opposed to local factors. Further, the edition change is something that people did not already buy into per say. They may not like to walk away from a game that they invested money and time into, but they never really bought into the new edition. If it is distasteful enough, they will flee.

Edition change can be a factor.
A basic example is MK3 of WMH. Players bought into the game during MK2 and had decent armies to play - as in our gaming group. Then MK3 changed the game play of several armies. Not all of them were affected but some like Cryx and others were. Today, the WHM game play in our group is largely dead. There are just two dudes who show up on Wednesdays and play consistently against each other. But the other gamers around dont really care about their battles.

I think with WM, the effect was aggravated because the game changed direction again with theme forces abruptly becoming the default way to play (as in, the incentives were so heavy you'd be a mug not to), and usually necessitating extra purchases, given that many of them require duplicating units. Even now, many factions are uneven in terms of access to good themes (Cryx has four, Circle and Legion are much more limited). If the edition change had been one short, sharp shock, things would have turned out better, but it's dragged on too long.

 LunarSol wrote:

Maybe? It feels like players are just way less tolerant of mistakes than they used to be. I mean, Shield Guard didn't function in any real capacity for like 3-4 iterations before they found something that worked for Warmachine MK2, but people were pretty patient with it. In MK3 we had "models technically can't charge knocked down models" and people declared the game dead even after the devs said not to play it that way and that a fix was coming (and arrived in like a week). Most of the previously well received edition changes were far from perfect, but players were excited and fought through the growing pains. These days, it feels like ever errata is a personal grievance that can only be amended with a developer's head on a pike.

That's where the company's relationship with their customers comes in.

People were much more tolerant of PP's mistakes in earlier editions, because PP put a lot of effort into cultivating that relationship with their customer base. Mk3 came along at the same time as they were cutting all the fluffy, warm and friendly stuff and started turning into a clone of Kirby-era GW, and so players' attitudes towards the game in return took a distinct dive.

leopard wrote:

As for the second point, I never understood but certainly saw a lot of hostility towards LotR from Warhammer players, if you had that in a group that played WHFB LotR was essentially dead.

When the fundamental principle of the game (combat) is each player rolls a D6 and the player that rolls the highest wins, well, you will struggle with comments like 'its a miniatures version of risk'

 LunarSol wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Actually I think its just because we've actually had a spate of bad edition changes. The previous edition of 40K and the early version of AoS were riddled with bad choices that lost people (the latter wasn't even really rules). Warmachine in the same, their MKIII was coupled to other choices that turned the new edition into a hotbed of contention and issues.

Of course GW has just had two outstanding edition releases coupled with very solid rules on a range of specialist games and its reacted with a massive market upswing in favour of them.

Maybe? It feels like players are just way less tolerant of mistakes than they used to be. I mean, Shield Guard didn't function in any real capacity for like 3-4 iterations before they found something that worked for Warmachine MK2, but people were pretty patient with it. In MK3 we had "models technically can't charge knocked down models" and people declared the game dead even after the devs said not to play it that way and that a fix was coming (and arrived in like a week). Most of the previously well received edition changes were far from perfect, but players were excited and fought through the growing pains. These days, it feels like ever errata is a personal grievance that can only be amended with a developer's head on a pike.

Less tolerant? In case of the new 40k edition, the player base accepted/adopted the edition very quickly. This was different in mkIII where some armies were invalidated like Cryx.

The 8th edition of 40k made some significant improvements in putting all the armies on the same page though. So things like 4+ saves are relevant, vehicles and monstrous creatures are playing mostly the same game as infantry units, and the difference between ATSKNF and regular morale is no longer night and day.

 Nurglitch wrote:
The 8th edition of 40k made some significant improvements in putting all the armies on the same page though. So things like 4+ saves are relevant, vehicles and monstrous creatures are playing mostly the same game as infantry units, and the difference between ATSKNF and regular morale is no longer night and day.

However, the game developed more into a board game, since maneuvering is no longer a big issue. If my tank chain can see your tank chain, I can shoot you. The standard of the game has become smaller. Not a bad move for several reasons.

 wuestenfux wrote:

Less tolerant? In case of the new 40k edition, the player base accepted/adopted the edition very quickly. This was different in mkIII where some armies were invalidated like Cryx.

I'm kind of getting to the opinion that Cryx is so accustomed to being overpowered that anything less is abandoned to the point where it appears non viable regardless. It's been overpowered for so long at this point that it makes up such a large percentage of the competitive community that the playerbase dries up rather quickly if they're not OP.

 LunarSol wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

Less tolerant? In case of the new 40k edition, the player base accepted/adopted the edition very quickly. This was different in mkIII where some armies were invalidated like Cryx.

I'm kind of getting to the opinion that Cryx is so accustomed to being overpowered that anything less is abandoned to the point where it appears non viable regardless. It's been overpowered for so long at this point that it makes up such a large percentage of the competitive community that the playerbase dries up rather quickly if they're not OP.

Indeed, whole armies became invalidated. PP tried to counteract here, e.g. with Una and their Scarsfell Griffons but this was too much and so this list got FAQed rather quickly. This example showed that PP did not make enough playtests as announced (three years of playtests before releasing mk3).

X wing struggled in all the areas I was in.
FFG releases were so slow and restocking almost none existent.
The price was a big issue for some. When Yanks are paying $12 for a ship and Brits are paying £12+...but then FFG always do this.
The announcing of 2.0 and the 33% price rise hasn't helped.
Failure from start to finish from what I've seen and experienced.

Dust on the other hand was a MASSIVE success until battlefront cocked up.

ValentineGames wrote:
X wing struggled in all the areas I was in.
FFG releases were so slow and restocking almost none existent.
The price was a big issue for some. When Yanks are paying $12 for a ship and Brits are paying £12+...but then FFG always do this.
The announcing of 2.0 and the 33% price rise hasn't helped.
Failure from start to finish from what I've seen and experienced.

Dust on the other hand was a MASSIVE success until battlefront cocked up.

I’m not sure I’d agree on Dust being a “massive” success, no one around here had even heard of it, and for years before battlefront got their hands on it, I’d been buying at a deep discount, both off FFG’s site & MM’s site.

X-Wing has certainly been struggling with the lull between editions and I’m curious to see if it can rebound. It’s costly to convert to 2.0, but I do feel that the improved play so far certainly feels like I’ve already got my money’s worth from it. My main concern is - where do they go from here? I don’t think simply reissuing the old ships is going to sustain them, and other than the Clone Wars, where can they go with ship designs that haven’t been done to death now?

ValentineGames wrote:

The price was a big issue for some. When Yanks are paying $12 for a ship and Brits are paying £12+...but then FFG always do this.

Everyone does this.

 Stormonu wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
X wing struggled in all the areas I was in.
FFG releases were so slow and restocking almost none existent.
The price was a big issue for some. When Yanks are paying $12 for a ship and Brits are paying £12+...but then FFG always do this.
The announcing of 2.0 and the 33% price rise hasn't helped.
Failure from start to finish from what I've seen and experienced.

Dust on the other hand was a MASSIVE success until battlefront cocked up.

I’m not sure I’d agree on Dust being a “massive” success, no one around here had even heard of it, and for years before battlefront got their hands on it, I’d been buying at a deep discount, both off FFG’s site & MM’s site.

DUST is like KoW or Team Yankee. They aren't a huge success, but they can be strong in local metas in which a couple players are willing to put the effort in to maintain the meta (recruit new players, host events, etc). DUST had a decent shot at being maintstream for a while, but that was before the first sexual harassment accusations flew against Pablo (which, in a #metoo light seem pretty tame compared to what we see now in days. The man is mostly a massive misogynist - which doesn't really have anything to do with DUST). It might have returned if the FFG and Battlefront dramas hadn't happened, but I suspect it'll stay a decently selling game that has a small, hardcore audience.