My numerous calls for competition in the industry have been misunderstood a number of times. In light of the recent poisonous version of the concept as practiced by FGA in their many 'bunkeresque' ravings (and accumulated paranoia), the very term has been given an unfortunate and dark meaning. With that as the recent background of the term, it is no wonder some have cast a sideways glance at me when I invoke the concept.

No, I do not mean the blood-thirsty, cut-throat, sell-your-own-mother type of competition envisioned by the boys from Fresno as they take up arms against assorted evil empires and cartels. (Right.) There are many types of dog-eat-dog competition in business, but to focus (let alone encourage) that sort of competition in the game industry would be wrong, meaningless, and allow for everyone (especially the game player) to lose. If Fresno has a legacy, I hope it isn't the sort of scorn, mistrust, and taint I have seen creep into conversation about games I've seen recently. This sort of "competition" has led to nothing but bad feelings between the elements of the industry which, heretofore, have enjoyed a positive, friendly relationship.

The positive aspects of competition-the sporting ones, if you will-have been forgotten and tarnished in the recent spate of figure pointing and ill will. Those are the features of competition I was tying to inspire. Things such as mutual one-upmanship (which inspires all of us to try to always do better), price control (keeping one's prices down to avoid losing a competitive edge), product diversity (each outfit having favorite subject areas and skill levels so that a diverse set of games and topics are available). In the long run, sporting competition can bring about a mix of outstanding games each year with a constant drive and demand for physical and design improvement.

Naturally, there will be losers if regular competition results. I cannot help that. But the goal of a high quality mix of products is worth the destruction (at their own hands, mind you) of firms which demonstrate repeatedly that they are unwilling or unable to grow with the rest of the industry.

The real winners in this effort will be the game players. Games would be better physically and at more competitive prices. There will be no winners among game companies-unless you say something like they are all winners because of a healthier, happier marketplace-as the goal of the sortof competition I am talking about will not lead to the blood- thirsty "us or them" stance so violently taken by FGA. The goal would be instead to make the companies accountable for the quality of their product and to create an atmosphere conducive to a drive for excellence. Not having this atmosphere for so long has only bread a sort of arrogance ("Buy this, we know it stinks, but the hobby will die if you don't...") and a willingness to sit on one's laurels and do positively nothing to improve. In such a climate, laziness generates an inertia against new ideas and an inability to change and grow. Ask the US auto industry what it was like.

So, what can be gained by such competition? How do the various small wargame manufacturers relate to each other with it? The gains will be in the areas of product quality (as each company tries to generate better products than the others), mutual policing (riff-raff will slowly be culled out as they find they cannot sell poor products at high prices), and product diversity (each firm will find its own topic niches and build on its strengths). The attitude of the small game companies to each other should be friendly. As it is, we small manufacturers get along in a friendly positive manner. I like and respect the guys at GMT, Rhino, and Clash of Arms and they respond in kind both to us and each other. Vying with each other to produce the best possible games is a normal and positive interaction between us and will only result in better games for the consumers.

Unfortunately, the guys at Command (whom I have heretofore held in the same esteem as the gentlemen listed above) have been edging into the FGA version of competition with their comments about how the wargame market is static and that for any company to grow it must take customer dollars directly away from the others (the "kill each other" school of competition) and ravings about how unhappy they are with the reviews they have been getting. While I can understand fully their discontentment, I don't understand why that dissatisfaction caused them to sling mud at GB which was nothing more than an innocent bystander to the whole affair. I had thought Ty Bomba had a bit more class than to put down the hard work of others because his games didn't get the reviews he felt they deserved. I guess not.

If a company's version of competition is to spit venom at their fellows and down-grade the entire hobby by flinging mud, raising suspicions, and putting down anything which isn't their own, then they have no right to ascribe their meaning to my words. That attitude can do nothing but hurt the hobby. We must work together to improve the games we make (in order to make them more fun) and building friendships is an important part of the strength of the hobby. And, the hobby is far too small to support a paranoid world-view.