<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fire Industries closes</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349</link>
	<description>Daily news, reviews and information for tabletop gamers of all interests.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 18:22:09 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: shwtd</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21846</link>
		<dc:creator>shwtd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 07:21:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21846</guid>
		<description>Fire Industries was a brand created from the AT43 universe and sold to the fine English people of Model Design Construction. It was never a part of Rackham, as the financial infos can tell you.
They were supposed to make Resin licensed products with approval from rackham first hand.
Sadly, Rackham never let them do anything.

Now that Rackham Legends (which is only Resin, not metal) exists, FI has no interest at all, because R' did created this new brand in order to create artificially more cash flow, as needed by their situation.
The guys from MDC didn't need to keep on trying to get the FI trade mark growing as they already have an existing job with MDC and they realized that they were just victims of a bad joke that made them buy an unusable trade mark, "Fire Industries".</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fire Industries was a brand created from the AT43 universe and sold to the fine English people of Model Design Construction. It was never a part of Rackham, as the financial infos can tell you.<br />
They were supposed to make Resin licensed products with approval from rackham first hand.<br />
Sadly, Rackham never let them do anything.</p>
<p>Now that Rackham Legends (which is only Resin, not metal) exists, FI has no interest at all, because R&#8217; did created this new brand in order to create artificially more cash flow, as needed by their situation.<br />
The guys from MDC didn&#8217;t need to keep on trying to get the FI trade mark growing as they already have an existing job with MDC and they realized that they were just victims of a bad joke that made them buy an unusable trade mark, &#8220;Fire Industries&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gitteau</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21834</link>
		<dc:creator>Gitteau</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 21:52:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21834</guid>
		<description>It is odd that they have no information for those that made preorders. I see the "Fire Wasp" is for sale under a different name. So maybe madzerker will still get a vehicle, just one that is useless for AT-43? 

It has to be said that Fire Industries always came off as a rather poorly planned venture. To my knowledge they never attached a release date to their AT-43 products, and no one believed that jeep was ever produced specifically for use in that game.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is odd that they have no information for those that made preorders. I see the &#8220;Fire Wasp&#8221; is for sale under a different name. So maybe madzerker will still get a vehicle, just one that is useless for AT-43? </p>
<p>It has to be said that Fire Industries always came off as a rather poorly planned venture. To my knowledge they never attached a release date to their AT-43 products, and no one believed that jeep was ever produced specifically for use in that game.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zac</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21833</link>
		<dc:creator>Zac</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 20:56:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21833</guid>
		<description>Can we please try to keep the discussion focused on the news item and not let it slide off into a discussion about corporate politics please.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can we please try to keep the discussion focused on the news item and not let it slide off into a discussion about corporate politics please.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: evernevermore (John)</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21832</link>
		<dc:creator>evernevermore (John)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 20:27:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21832</guid>
		<description>Yes it wont go as detailed - but when changing a flagship product and your options are something simple and evolutionary or a much more radical change I dont see the radical change making it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes it wont go as detailed - but when changing a flagship product and your options are something simple and evolutionary or a much more radical change I dont see the radical change making it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Trent McCaffrey</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21830</link>
		<dc:creator>Trent McCaffrey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 20:22:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21830</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;The problem is the risk adverseness of the shareholders.&lt;/i&gt;

There's no way that investement analysts would perceive the risk in such granular details as a change from IGOUGO to alternate-activation.  That's too small, too technical.  There certainly wasn't any investor commentary when (eg) Eldar Jetbikes went from Fast Attack to a Troop choice.

Large scale risks such as picking up a license (LOTR?) or switching manufacturing techniques (metal to plastic) are definitely noticed.  Both of those huge risks must have gotten the green light from their respective boards directors.  In the investment world, risk = potential, not strictly a threat.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>The problem is the risk adverseness of the shareholders.</i></p>
<p>There&#8217;s no way that investement analysts would perceive the risk in such granular details as a change from IGOUGO to alternate-activation.  That&#8217;s too small, too technical.  There certainly wasn&#8217;t any investor commentary when (eg) Eldar Jetbikes went from Fast Attack to a Troop choice.</p>
<p>Large scale risks such as picking up a license (LOTR?) or switching manufacturing techniques (metal to plastic) are definitely noticed.  Both of those huge risks must have gotten the green light from their respective boards directors.  In the investment world, risk = potential, not strictly a threat.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: madzerker</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21827</link>
		<dc:creator>madzerker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 19:50:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21827</guid>
		<description>so does that mean I am screwed out of the $60 I spent on the vehicle for UNA from them that I have not received yet?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>so does that mean I am screwed out of the $60 I spent on the vehicle for UNA from them that I have not received yet?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: evernevermore (John)</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21825</link>
		<dc:creator>evernevermore (John)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 19:33:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21825</guid>
		<description>Its not a matter of buy and sell - that would make things simpler I think. The problem is the risk adverseness of the shareholders. They are not interested in the product they want the profit. So a radical change with high risks will be shot down long before a much more gradual change with limited risks. Ive heard much the same rant for movies, where a sequal (or something close enough to that) is usually picked over a new and different project most of the time because a safe investment for the shareholders money is prefered. However this showcases the flaw in the voting with your money arguement as there is no way to provide any sort of constructive criticsm why a consumer didnt buy a product (at least that I know of).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Its not a matter of buy and sell - that would make things simpler I think. The problem is the risk adverseness of the shareholders. They are not interested in the product they want the profit. So a radical change with high risks will be shot down long before a much more gradual change with limited risks. Ive heard much the same rant for movies, where a sequal (or something close enough to that) is usually picked over a new and different project most of the time because a safe investment for the shareholders money is prefered. However this showcases the flaw in the voting with your money arguement as there is no way to provide any sort of constructive criticsm why a consumer didnt buy a product (at least that I know of).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: panzerbody</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21823</link>
		<dc:creator>panzerbody</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 19:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21823</guid>
		<description>yeah !    SAD NEWS

Rackham enthousiasts stll not missing big deal , a friend working at Rackham showed me that AT43 4x4 vehicle done by them , it was completely out of scale , not talking about the "funny" figurines going together

nevertheless I want to wish good luck to ALL of them , they need a lot
and I like AT43 too much to imagine more companies around it dying

let`s hope they can get rid of their manager and keep doing great products !</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>yeah !    SAD NEWS</p>
<p>Rackham enthousiasts stll not missing big deal , a friend working at Rackham showed me that AT43 4&#215;4 vehicle done by them , it was completely out of scale , not talking about the &#8220;funny&#8221; figurines going together</p>
<p>nevertheless I want to wish good luck to ALL of them , they need a lot<br />
and I like AT43 too much to imagine more companies around it dying</p>
<p>let`s hope they can get rid of their manager and keep doing great products !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Trent McCaffrey</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21822</link>
		<dc:creator>Trent McCaffrey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 19:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21822</guid>
		<description>That's a pop-culture analysis of the markets.

Warren Buffet, &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_billionaires_%282008%29" rel="nofollow"&gt;the richest man in the world&lt;/a&gt;, advocates a buy and hold strategy.  Many wealth management companies adhere to the same strategy.  Sure, day-trading gets lots of press, but it's a tiny minority of the markets and really dies off completely every time a bubble bursts.

I used to think that GW was very short term profit focused as well.  But in recent years I've learned that several of the Design Studio old guard just plain PREFER D6s over DX, IGOUGO, and ad-hoc playtesting of special rules.  It's got nothing to do with the bean counters.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s a pop-culture analysis of the markets.</p>
<p>Warren Buffet, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_billionaires_%282008%29" rel="nofollow" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview ('/outbound/en.wikipedia.org');">the richest man in the world</a>, advocates a buy and hold strategy.  Many wealth management companies adhere to the same strategy.  Sure, day-trading gets lots of press, but it&#8217;s a tiny minority of the markets and really dies off completely every time a bubble bursts.</p>
<p>I used to think that GW was very short term profit focused as well.  But in recent years I&#8217;ve learned that several of the Design Studio old guard just plain PREFER D6s over DX, IGOUGO, and ad-hoc playtesting of special rules.  It&#8217;s got nothing to do with the bean counters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gavroche</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21821</link>
		<dc:creator>gavroche</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 18:53:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21821</guid>
		<description>Anonymous shareholders of the type that buy &#38; sell shares on the stock exchange nowadays tend to think short term only, they have a "take the money &#38; run attitude". In the mid to long term, this leads to a decline in quality. I've seen it happen again &#38; again, in all sorts of branches.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anonymous shareholders of the type that buy &amp; sell shares on the stock exchange nowadays tend to think short term only, they have a &#8220;take the money &amp; run attitude&#8221;. In the mid to long term, this leads to a decline in quality. I&#8217;ve seen it happen again &amp; again, in all sorts of branches.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: yslaire</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21820</link>
		<dc:creator>yslaire</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 18:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21820</guid>
		<description>"Since Fire Industries is not Rackham, only a *liscensed partner* (well, was, since now they are no more), I don’t know what this quote from Jean Bey has to do with anything."

You're right Fire was a licensed *partner* though frequently announced as a "new division" on several websites.

So that's why Jean Bey's quote : "More rigor, more professionalism, constant renewal of ideas and success of course. That is what Rackham owes to its *partners*..." sounds strange today.

Fire industries had its place in the Ava Daily and its logo became part of At-43 UNA universe.
So they seemed very close to Rackham. I wonder why R and Fire Industries did not manage to coordinate a best marketing plan... Why their association didn't succeed... 
For example : did they had the liberty to produce their own concepts or did Rackham strictly controled their creativity? We'll have to wait the next "Ask Jean Bey" to get the answer... If it's not a case sensitive question of course... :oP</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Since Fire Industries is not Rackham, only a *liscensed partner* (well, was, since now they are no more), I don’t know what this quote from Jean Bey has to do with anything.&#8221;</p>
<p>You&#8217;re right Fire was a licensed *partner* though frequently announced as a &#8220;new division&#8221; on several websites.</p>
<p>So that&#8217;s why Jean Bey&#8217;s quote : &#8220;More rigor, more professionalism, constant renewal of ideas and success of course. That is what Rackham owes to its *partners*&#8230;&#8221; sounds strange today.</p>
<p>Fire industries had its place in the Ava Daily and its logo became part of At-43 UNA universe.<br />
So they seemed very close to Rackham. I wonder why R and Fire Industries did not manage to coordinate a best marketing plan&#8230; Why their association didn&#8217;t succeed&#8230;<br />
For example : did they had the liberty to produce their own concepts or did Rackham strictly controled their creativity? We&#8217;ll have to wait the next &#8220;Ask Jean Bey&#8221; to get the answer&#8230; If it&#8217;s not a case sensitive question of course&#8230; :oP</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: evernevermore (John)</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21818</link>
		<dc:creator>evernevermore (John)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 18:42:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21818</guid>
		<description>The problem with shareholders (especially in the gaming industry) is that when a company has to appease/cater to them alot of creative freedom is sacrificed for profitability. One of the biggest reasons we will never see some of the changes to 40k that you've seen in PP games is the simple fact that GW cant justify that amount of risk to thier shareholders. This is one of the reasons you will only see evolutionary changes to GW products over revolutionary - converting 40k to alternating activation would probably be considered too much of a risk to the profits of the company.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem with shareholders (especially in the gaming industry) is that when a company has to appease/cater to them alot of creative freedom is sacrificed for profitability. One of the biggest reasons we will never see some of the changes to 40k that you&#8217;ve seen in PP games is the simple fact that GW cant justify that amount of risk to thier shareholders. This is one of the reasons you will only see evolutionary changes to GW products over revolutionary - converting 40k to alternating activation would probably be considered too much of a risk to the profits of the company.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: redstripe (Nick)</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21817</link>
		<dc:creator>redstripe (Nick)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 18:26:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21817</guid>
		<description>Not to completely derail the topic, but what's wrong with shareholders?  If you live in America and ever want to retire, you better be a shareholder.

On topic, I think bits and bobs for your AT-43 figs would have been nice, similar to the chapter specific shoulder pads that Forgeworld does.  It doesn't seem like much of Fire Industries's stuff was very practical (as has been mentioned.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not to completely derail the topic, but what&#8217;s wrong with shareholders?  If you live in America and ever want to retire, you better be a shareholder.</p>
<p>On topic, I think bits and bobs for your AT-43 figs would have been nice, similar to the chapter specific shoulder pads that Forgeworld does.  It doesn&#8217;t seem like much of Fire Industries&#8217;s stuff was very practical (as has been mentioned.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Caern</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21816</link>
		<dc:creator>Caern</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 18:16:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21816</guid>
		<description>Since Fire Industries is not Rackham, only a liscensed partner (well, was, since now they are no more), I don't know what this quote from Jean Bey has to do with anything.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since Fire Industries is not Rackham, only a liscensed partner (well, was, since now they are no more), I don&#8217;t know what this quote from Jean Bey has to do with anything.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PMMJ</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21815</link>
		<dc:creator>PMMJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 17:55:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/07/14349#comment-21815</guid>
		<description>It certainly applies to 'constant renewal of ideas.'</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It certainly applies to &#8216;constant renewal of ideas.&#8217;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
