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.

 Manchu wrote:
There are certainly some folks who hate everything about 40k, maybe especially the hobby side of things, but they buy the stuff because it's what their friends play. That doesn't make them GW's target market. Losing those folks to X-Wing doesn't make X-Wing direct competition. Maybe it will help to note that FFG did not mind licensing Flight Path to WizKids for Attack Wing (Star Trek and D&D). Even considering that X-Wing and Attack Wing share vastly more in common than X-Wing and 40k, FFG realized that the lines were not competing on any level but the most general (i.e., disposable income generally, in which terms every one of these companies compete with themselves). Customers who would only buy one or the other would do so regardless of the line itself; that is because of limited funds or just not liking one or the other IP.

FFG didn't originate the Flight Path system, afaik, so wouldn't have a say about who else licensed it, unless they negotiated some sort of exclusive contract. Which AW suggests they didn't.

Flight Path is licensed to WK by FFG.

 Azreal13 wrote:
FFG didn't originate the Flight Path system, afaik, so wouldn't have a say about who else licensed it, unless they negotiated some sort of exclusive contract. Which AW suggests they didn't.

FFG did. Supposedly it is based to some degree on a real-world air combat game, but there are a lot of air combat games with some similar mechanics for resolving movement. FFG owns it, and they licensed it (along with the other core mechanics of X-Wing) to WizKids for the Attack Wing games.

X-Wing's maneuver system was..."inspired" by the one in Wings of War (now, I think, Wings of Glory). According to the WoW creators via BGG, the story goes something like this: they were approached by FFG with an eye to both licensing the flight system used by WoW, and hiring on the two lead designers to consult on the design of what would eventually become X-Wing.

Supposedly contracts were drawn up and it was more or less a done deal. Then the company producing WoW went out of business and that game was out of print and there was some legal wrangling trying to figure out who even owned the rights to the WoW game - which is why it was later relaunched with a new name and new publisher.

According to them, FFG more or less saw this as a good excuse to get for free what they were going to pay for originally, and they tore up the contracts and informed the WoW creators they would be releasing their own unique game system, and later launched X-Wing. If you've ever played WoW, the movement systems are VERY similar, but with some noticeable changes (at least as many as between X-Wing and Attack Wing), and significantly slimmed down in terms of complexity.

Would explain why I thought they didn't..

 Manchu wrote:
There are certainly some folks who hate everything about 40k, maybe especially the hobby side of things, but they buy the stuff because it's what their friends play.

Who said anything about hating everything about 40k? Maybe they like the rules, maybe they like the fluff, maybe they even like the spectacle of painted armies on the tabletop but hate having to do the work of assembling and painting models to get there. Your theory that people who don't care about (or actively dislike) modeling and painting are not GW's market is in direct contradiction to the reality of lots of people who dislike modeling and painting buying GW products. If they aren't GW's target market it's only because GW defines their target market so insanely narrowly that only the most rabid fanboys count.

Losing those folks to X-Wing doesn't make X-Wing direct competition.

Only if your definition of "direct competition" is so narrow that GW has no competition at all. And that is not a useful definition.

Maybe it will help to note that FFG did not mind licensing Flight Path to WizKids for Attack Wing (Star Trek and D&D). Even considering that X-Wing and Attack Wing share vastly more in common than X-Wing and 40k, FFG realized that the lines were not competing on any level but the most general (i.e., disposable income generally, in which terms every one of these companies compete with themselves). Customers who would only buy one or the other would do so regardless of the line itself; that is because of limited funds or just not liking one or the other IP.

Alternatively, FFG decided that the money they receive from licensing the game mechanics is more than the money they lose by letting a competitor use their system instead of making a Star Trek miniatures game with slightly different rules. Or FFG decided that the customers they lose to "let's play Attack Wing instead" would be offset by the customers they gain from "I like this game, let's play the Star Wars version now". Making a business deal with a company does not mean that they aren't competition.

 Peregrine wrote:
Making a business deal with a company does not mean that they aren't competition.

Nor does the end of a relationship with a company mean that they are competition.

GW does define its market very narrowly, which means that - from its perspective - it has very narrow competition. From the perspective of somebody with only $100 to spend, 40k and X-Wing are obviously competing product lines. But that vision of competition is no more meaningful to GW than GW's is to the guy with only $100.

Read what you've written again.

You've just said that GW don't view X Wing as competition while simultaneously agreeing that X Wing is competition?

Nope, that's not what I said.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Oh I agree, I think GW is going to make a major faceplant because they don't take the rules/game side seriously.

Outside of 40k's lame duck ruleset, what has GW done in the past few years that makes you think they don't take the rules/game side seriously?

The ruleset you name as Lame Duck is their flagship breadwinner Then their releasing of hugely promote and then Limited Production boardgames like Space Hulk, which FFG would have sold for years (despite their well-earned track record of game edition ADD). The speed that they move on to the next thing they produce as a "game" and completely ignore the previous game.

I'm no FFG white knight (they have plenty of games I don't like, and even my favorites have mechanics that I think can be clunky at times), but the last successful non-core (the two Warhammers) "boardgame" was Dreadfleet, which was a perfectly fine boardgame, but was killed by it not being anything like what the market wanted, while any hal-decent company could have seen what GW non-core games were being clamored for.

 Manchu wrote:
Nor does the end of a relationship with a company mean that they are competition.

And nobody is saying that it does. FFG was in competition with GW before the license deal ended.

GW does define its market very narrowly, which means that - from its perspective - it has very narrow competition.

Except that, according to GW, their definition of their market is "people who enjoy buying GW products". That definition is utterly useless in analyzing GW as a business, except to say "what a bunch of incompetent morons". Any definition of the market that is broad enough to be useful in analyzing the situation puts GW in competition with FFG.

The argument has been that withdrawing the license shows that X-Wing competes with 40k. But it's nothing more than an assumption to claim that GW withdrew the license, as opposed to FFG dropping it/choosing not to renew it.

GW's outlook makes good sense after a fashion. They are not interested in selling an alternative to someone else's products. And their entire business model is focused on eliminating the possibility, via brand development, of someone making alternatives to theirs. They compete for disposable income generally. They do not consider their lines interchangeable with others on the market, they aren't even interested in "the market" we are implicitly talking about, and have even worked tirelessly towards creating an entirely insular market for their lines. In some ways, I expect FFG to follow suit (and the Asmodee/FFG attack on discount retailers is the first step).

 Manchu wrote:
Nope, that's not what I said.

More or less..

From the perspective of somebody with only $100 to spend, 40k and X-Wing are obviously competing product lines.

Which is the only definition, what people will decide between when spending money, that matters. GW can have all the ideas about who they're selling to, but who is actually buying is what's important.

But then, given the Ivory Tower GW built, it wouldn't be a huge surprise there's a significant dissonance between who they think they're selling to and who's actually buying.

 Manchu wrote:
The argument has been that withdrawing the license shows that X-Wing competes with 40k. But it's nothing more than an assumption to claim that GW withdrew the license, as opposed to FFG dropping it/choosing not to renew it.

I would say that any of FFG's minis games are a competitor for 40K, just like any other miniatures company's game line is a competitor for 40K - in that it's an expandible minis game for which every dollar spent on it is not going to GW. By your same rubric Warmachine is not a competitor for 40K, as they are in different genres and mechanical styles.

I think it's that GW does not want their RPG/boardgame licensing dollars providing for a growing competitor. But I think they are shooting themselves in the foot with as big a gun as they could find.

The crazy part is that they could have had a flightpath similar product line before Xwing even existed, had they bothered to support it.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
The ruleset you name as Lame Duck is their flagship breadwinner Then their releasing of hugely promote and then Limited Production boardgames like Space Hulk, which FFG would have sold for years (despite their well-earned track record of game edition ADD). The speed that they move on to the next thing they produce as a "game" and completely ignore the previous game.

I used the term lame duck because it is apparently how GW's own designers see the 7th edition, and that they are currently running 7th on autopilot while they work on the 8th. The 7th edition also launched in 2014, when Kirby still held the reigns, and everything that has come out since Rountree took over seems to be going in a very different direction. For instance, Space Hulk was a specialist game at a time when GW didn't really do specialist games, but Rountree's reign created a specialist game division that's bringing back Blood Bowl with planned support for many years. Similarly, if the rumors are true, there's a sequel/expansion coming out for Silver Tower, which has also seen continued support through the associated app. Heck, the most recent White Dwarf has additional rules for Space Hulk, so they are even supporting it now (even if you can't buy it anymore). So I'm not sure you can say that the Games Workshop that is making products today is operating with the same focus that it did when 7th edition came out.

So rather than simply ignoring 40k because it is 40k, ignore it because the 7th edition came out at the height of GW's hubris and anti-consumer attitude - which may no longer apply. Since Rountree took over, what evidence has there been that GW doesn't care about rules?

 Manchu wrote:
The argument has been that withdrawing the license shows that X-Wing competes with 40k.

No, the argument is that there have been rumors and speculation about GW being unhappy with X-Wing (and FFG's miniatures games in general) competing with 40k and that could have been a factor in refusing to renew the license. X-Wing was in competition with 40k before the license was officially ended, and would have continued to be in competition with 40k even if the license had been renewed.

They are not interested in selling an alternative to someone else's products.

Except they indisputably are selling alternatives to someone else's products. Their delusional statements about "we have no competition we are special snowflakes" does not change the reality of the situation.

And their entire business model is focused on eliminating the possibility, via brand development, of someone making alternatives to theirs.

Only if you define "alternatives" as "28mm plastic model kits in the 40k setting", which is an utterly useless definition. Even if you reject the idea that X-Wing is competition for 40k you have to acknowledge that other 28mm scifi miniatures (sold as unpainted model kits) are alternatives in the market.

In some ways, I expect FFG to follow suit (and the Asmodee/FFG attack on discount retailers is the first step).

I wouldn't expect it at all. FFG has too many different product ranges, and doesn't have their own retail chain to enable GW-style ignorance of the competition. It's hard to pretend that you're the only company in the market when your products are sold in mainstream stores alongside board games from other companies. The "attack" on discount retailers makes much more sense as an attempt to protect physical retail stores over online discounters than as some GW-style attempt to create their own separate sub-market.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
The ruleset you name as Lame Duck is their flagship breadwinner Then their releasing of hugely promote and then Limited Production boardgames like Space Hulk, which FFG would have sold for years (despite their well-earned track record of game edition ADD). The speed that they move on to the next thing they produce as a "game" and completely ignore the previous game.

I used the term lame duck because it is apparently how GW's own designers see the 7th edition, and that they are currently running 7th on autopilot while they work on the 8th. The 7th edition also launched in 2014, when Kirby still held the reigns, and everything that has come out since Rountree took over seems to be going in a very different direction. For instance, Space Hulk was a specialist game at a time when GW didn't really do specialist games, but Rountree's reign created a specialist game division that's bringing back Blood Bowl with planned support for many years. Similarly, if the rumors are true, there's a sequel/expansion coming out for Silver Tower, which has also seen continued support through the associated app. Heck, the most recent White Dwarf has additional rules for Space Hulk, so they are even supporting it now (even if you can't buy it anymore). So I'm not sure you can say that the Games Workshop that is making products today is operating with the same focus that it did when 7th edition came out.

So rather than simply ignoring 40k because it is 40k, ignore it because the 7th edition came out at the height of GW's hubris and anti-consumer attitude - which may no longer apply. Since Rountree took over, what evidence has there been that GW doesn't care about rules?

There's still plenty of stuff, which may be attributable to incompetence as much as indifference, several of the FAQs have either contradicted themselves or the rules as they already exist.

Then there's issues such as the BA 1st Capt not being an eligible choice for a formation meant to represent the BA 1st Company which keep creeping in.

Not the symptoms of a lovingly crafted product.

My hope is that the juniors have been left to cut their teeth on the bones of 7th, while the senior (or, more precisely, more talented) designers crack on with 8th.

If I'm understanding Manchu's point, it's similar to saying that a bus company, a subway, an overland train company and an airline are not, in fact, competitors. While to the casual observer they are all transportation companies and thus clamoring to get people where they need to be, they are not in the main competing directly. A person who needs to get to another continent will not be looking at the subway just like the person who needs to go over a couple blocks is not booking airplane tickets. Conversely, airlines don't usually bother flying within the same city and a subway isn't going to market service to people who live outside their reach in the suburbs. There might be limited competition between a bus service and trains, but in many cities they are in fact complimentary with one connecting the other's lines (arguably this is the model that GW and FFG had under the license). Being in the same market and providing similar services does not automatically translate into direct competition as the needs being served may diverge wildly even if they are broadly the same.

If I want to play with Space Marines, then X-Wing is no good to me regardless of how affordable/accessible it may be. If I want to zip around in a TIE Fighter, then it doesn't matter how awesome/expensive the new Deathwatch kits may or may not be. If instead I want to replicate the battles seen in old war movies, then neither X-Wing nor 40k is going to be of use. In none of those cases is the consumer need being satisfied by the product, because the consumer's need is not "I must by a gaming widget" so much as the need is driven by the preferences of buyer and what they are looking to accomplish.

Might have it all wrong, but that's what I've picked up from the posts.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Since Rountree took over, what evidence has there been that GW doesn't care about rules?

The fact that the rules are still garbage, the FAQs are full of "WTF is that" rulings, and new books aren't any better than the old ones. If there are signs of GW caring about the rules at all it's only because the previous standard was set so incredibly low that even the weakest token attempts to fix things look like miracles. GW still falls well short of where they should be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Krinsath wrote:
If I want to play with Space Marines, then X-Wing is no good to me regardless of how affordable/accessible it may be. If I want to zip around in a TIE Fighter, then it doesn't matter how awesome/expensive the new Deathwatch kits may or may not be. If instead I want to replicate the battles seen in old war movies, then neither X-Wing nor 40k is going to be of use.

The problem is that this is an absurd argument. It's essentially saying that every game is its own special snowflake and nobody in the industry competes with each other, which is obviously false.

 Krinsath wrote:
If I'm understanding Manchu's point, it's similar to saying that a bus company, a subway, an overland train company and an airline are not, in fact, competitors. While to the casual observer they are all transportation companies and thus clamoring to get people where they need to be, they are not in the main competing directly. A person who needs to get to another continent will not be looking at the subway just like the person who needs to go over a couple blocks is not booking airplane tickets. Conversely, airlines don't usually bother flying within the same city and a subway isn't going to market service to people who live outside their reach in the suburbs. There might be limited competition between a bus service and trains, but in many cities they are in fact complimentary with one connecting the other's lines (arguably this is the model that GW and FFG had under the license). Being in the same market and providing similar services does not automatically translate into direct competition as the needs being served may diverge wildly even if they are broadly the same.

If I want to play with Space Marines, then X-Wing is no good to me regardless of how affordable/accessible it may be. If I want to zip around in a TIE Fighter, then it doesn't matter how awesome/expensive the new Deathwatch kits may or may not be. If instead I want to replicate the battles seen in old war movies, then neither X-Wing nor 40k is going to be of use. In none of those cases is the consumer need being satisfied by the product, because the consumer's need is not "I must by a gaming widget" so much as the need is driven by the preferences of buyer and what they are looking to accomplish.

Might have it all wrong, but that's what I've picked up from the posts.

By that argument, nothing competes with anything, which is blatantly untrue.

 Peregrine wrote:

But if you can afford $Y, you are likely able to throw money at both X-Wing and GW.

This is wrong for two reasons:

1) Being able to afford a GW game does not imply being able to afford a GW game and some other game at the same time. Obviously at some point you have so much money that you can buy whatever you want, but there are plenty of people who have limited budgets and have to save up money for their GW purchases. Spending $20/week on new X-Wing stuff instead of saving $20/week to buy a GW kit once a month means not buying GW games anymore if your "fun stuff" budget is $20/week. Even if you have $30/week (and can afford GW's prices) taking 2/3 of your hobby budget away from GW and giving it to FFG means a significant drop in GW spending, and quite possibly an end to GW spending because the leftovers go into beer money or whatever.

2) Even if you treat money as infinite time is not. If I have $100/week for a hobby budget I can obviously afford to buy both 40k and X-Wing, but do I have time to play both games? If I only have enough time to keep up with one game I can spend $100/week on 40k with no money left over, or I can spend $15/week on X-Wing and spend the other $85 on flying airplanes. By successfully competing with GW for my gaming money FFG takes away more than just the $15/week I spend on FFG's game. And it doesn't matter how rich I am GW is not getting that money back until they convince me that they have the better product.

Now, obviously there are people who have the time and money to play both X-Wing and 40k, but just like any other situation where two companies are competing for the same customers having some people buying from both doesn't mean the competition doesn't exist.

Great point there. Another reason I would buy X-wing or what ever Non GW item was because while I am spending on $25, I am getting my "high" of buying something than saving for a $50, $75 or $100+ product. In other words I am getting more "highs" buying Non GW product.

Damn. I think it just hit me. I think I finally understand why my loves buying new shoes even when she doesn't need to anymore. Thanks Peregrine.

 Azreal13 wrote:


By that argument, nothing competes with anything, which is blatantly untrue.

Not true at all. Multiple bus services will compete for the bus traffic, multiple airlines will compete for airline passengers and so forth. A commuter train will compete with airlines with one being faster and the other being generally cheaper. The point is that two companies can exist in the same market and never really go after the same market segment. That doesn't mean their customer base will never overlap, such as the man who needs to get across town today needs to get across the country tomorrow, but it means that their focus is not on pursuing those outside of their normal clientele.

 Krinsath wrote:
Not true at all. Multiple bus services will compete for the bus traffic, multiple airlines will compete for airline passengers and so forth. A commuter train will compete with airlines with one being faster and the other being generally cheaper. The point is that two companies can exist in the same market and never really go after the same market segment. That doesn't mean their customer base will never overlap, such as the man who needs to get across town today needs to get across the country tomorrow, but it means that their focus is not on pursuing those outside of their normal clientele.

But the equivalent of what you're applying to miniatures games is saying that a bus service with red buses doesn't compete with a bus service with blue buses because a customer that wants to ride on a red bus doesn't have any interest in a company offering rides on a blue bus. The various miniatures games are much closer to different bus services in the same city than to an in-town bus service and an airline.

Precisely that

I was going to use a different example, but my point was the same.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Krinsath wrote:
Not true at all. Multiple bus services will compete for the bus traffic, multiple airlines will compete for airline passengers and so forth. A commuter train will compete with airlines with one being faster and the other being generally cheaper. The point is that two companies can exist in the same market and never really go after the same market segment. That doesn't mean their customer base will never overlap, such as the man who needs to get across town today needs to get across the country tomorrow, but it means that their focus is not on pursuing those outside of their normal clientele.

But the equivalent of what you're applying to miniatures games is saying that a bus service with red buses doesn't compete with a bus service with blue buses because a customer that wants to ride on a red bus doesn't have any interest in a company offering rides on a blue bus. The various miniatures games are much closer to different bus services in the same city than to an in-town bus service and an airline.

In this specific analogy, as I said, I would say FFG is more of a bus service while GW is more of a subway. There are times where they are in direct competition, and certainly a bus can go to the same places as a subway if they so choose. Most don't though, because it's a waste of gas to cover those areas normally.

Some people who prefer the subway to buses will indeed walk rather than ride a bus. Others feel the same about the subway. Doesn't mean that the bus company wakes up in the morning thinking "we have to do something to knock down subway ridership..." nor that the subway feels that they need to hamper the bus company.

SnotlingPimpWagon wrote:@Silent Puffin

You can`t do much with X-wing figurines.

Only thing you can really do is strip and repaint them, but

I`ve got yet to see someone to do something "out of the box", very creative with any X-wing product. Only thing I can imagine, you can do with them, is an amazing diorama, there is that.

Oh WOW, how much you have missed then. All I can say is that there are some AMAZING conversions out there and you have missed a bit besides repaints.

 Krinsath wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Krinsath wrote:
Not true at all. Multiple bus services will compete for the bus traffic, multiple airlines will compete for airline passengers and so forth. A commuter train will compete with airlines with one being faster and the other being generally cheaper. The point is that two companies can exist in the same market and never really go after the same market segment. That doesn't mean their customer base will never overlap, such as the man who needs to get across town today needs to get across the country tomorrow, but it means that their focus is not on pursuing those outside of their normal clientele.

But the equivalent of what you're applying to miniatures games is saying that a bus service with red buses doesn't compete with a bus service with blue buses because a customer that wants to ride on a red bus doesn't have any interest in a company offering rides on a blue bus. The various miniatures games are much closer to different bus services in the same city than to an in-town bus service and an airline.

In this specific analogy, as I said, I would say FFG is more of a bus service while GW is more of a subway. There are times where they are in direct competition, and certainly a bus can go to the same places as a subway if they so choose. Most don't though, because it's a waste of gas to cover those areas normally.

Some people who prefer the subway to buses will indeed walk rather than ride a bus. Others feel the same about the subway. Doesn't mean that the bus company wakes up in the morning thinking "we have to do something to knock down subway ridership..." nor that the subway feels that they need to hamper the bus company.

The bus company absolutely would think that if their numbers were falling in areas where the subway was doing well. In this case, a couple of years ago there wasn't any subway, and now there's subway everywhere.

Or the reverse, I got GW and FFG mixed up in the metaphor.

Davor wrote:

SnotlingPimpWagon wrote:@Silent Puffin

You can`t do much with X-wing figurines.

Only thing you can really do is strip and repaint them, but

I`ve got yet to see someone to do something "out of the box", very creative with any X-wing product. Only thing I can imagine, you can do with them, is an amazing diorama, there is that.

Oh WOW, how much you have missed then. All I can say is that there are some AMAZING conversions out there and you have missed a bit besides repaints.

Not to mention Mel and Gosric's awesome 3D printed models for XWing and Armada from Shapeways, which end up making the game every bit the model prep and painting hobby of any other minis game.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Krinsath wrote:


In this specific analogy, as I said, I would say FFG is more of a bus service while GW is more of a subway. There are times where they are in direct competition, and certainly a bus can go to the same places as a subway if they so choose. Most don't though, because it's a waste of gas to cover those areas normally.

Some people who prefer the subway to buses will indeed walk rather than ride a bus. Others feel the same about the subway. Doesn't mean that the bus company wakes up in the morning thinking "we have to do something to knock down subway ridership..." nor that the subway feels that they need to hamper the bus company.

The bus company absolutely would think that if their numbers were falling in areas where the subway was doing well.

They may think it, but they'd also probably realize their best return likely exists in going where the subway isn't given that subways are predictable, slow to change and generally not able to react to sudden shifts given the nature of their infrastructure (this sounds more like GW each post...). Sure, if the transit authority running the subway is a pack of gits you might dip your toe in the spite waters and see if people who are just mad at the subway can sustain a line, but competition with a heavy-lifter is liking picking a fight for little good reason when easier market segments to cater to exist.

So again, same field, same overall goal, same customers...not always direct competitors. That seemed to be the crux of the argument Manchu was advancing; you two take FFG and GW as rivals as fact on the face of it, while his point seemed to be the evidence presented does not have that as the only viable conclusion. COULD it be true? Absolutely. IS it true? Without more inside knowledge than anyone on this board has I don't know that we're ever going to reach that point in the discussion.

I take FFG and GW as rivals based on the fact that

a) it's obvious
b) every single X Wing player I know is (or more commonly, was) a 40K player.

You can't spend the same money twice, if you are a tabletop wargamer, GW or FFG (or PP, or Steam Forged, or CB) is a choice, ergo they are competing. The level of crossover is significant, the amount of niche within niche within niche (i.e. "will only game with Space Marines") is not.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I take FFG and GW as rivals based on the fact that

a) it's obvious
b) every single X Wing player I know is (or more commonly, was) a 40K player.

You can't spend the same money twice, if you are a tabletop wargamer, GW or FFG (or PP, or Steam Forged, or CB) is a choice, ergo they are competing. The level of crossover is significant, the amount of niche within niche within niche (i.e. "will only game with Space Marines") is not.

a) I wouldn't class them as rivals, and like others would presently describe them as competitors at the most superficial level as chasing entertainment dollars. While I expect that to change shortly, up until now I would not have said the money I spent on FFG decreased the amount I spent on GW. My spending on GW did decrease, but that was mainly because I had everything I cared to own from them (and likely more than I can paint/assemble in my lifetime)
b) that could easily be because you know many wargamers who like science-fiction, and in the UK one of the most common vectors for people to be wargamers was via GW and the sci-fi franchise was 40k. Thus, a large amount of overlap would be expected.

While you can't spend the same money twice and money is typically finite, there is not an exclusivity clause in buying products. If I drop $300 on Armada, that's not going to stop me turning around and buying the next Betrayal at Calth-type game if I feel the value is there. It might mean I juggle the budget around a bit or shop around more, but that's not really a competition thing. I say this as someone who has 30+ ship X-Wing battle scene (including all the Epic ships!) near his desk at work.

With their own hobbies I suspect people will more often buy what they want rather than simply what's the cheapest. However, the factors that go into defining "what I want" is so subjective as to be pointless for discussion.