Re: For PBM game moderators

From: "Ryan S. Johnson" <dowrie@guildofblades.com>

Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 05:13:38 +0000

> Which does not necessarily mean you are any good at it.  If this sounds mean, it's not *meant* to.<

No, its fair for your to wonder. Data gathered tends to only be about as
useful as the person analyzing it. With regards to how the Internet will
effect entertainment media and the various hobby gaming segments of the
broader entertainment industries, I arrive at my conclusion by taking my
experience and knowledge from the dot com industry and the hobby game
industy. Before the Guild of Blades had grown enough as a company to
employ myself and other full time I use to work on the company part time
while I pursued a career in marketing. I had two jobs with dot com
companies that proved very educational. The first was with a
telecommunications start up dot com that eventually got bought out buy a
larger dot com, which in turn was gobbled up by one of the leading dot
coms on the market today. I served a brand manager for one of thier
technology services. Later in my time there, once the company had been
bought out by the dot com giant, I was lucky enough to get access to a
variety of market reserch data from the mother company. I can't say from
which company or toss out figures due to NDAs. But the basic gist boiled
down to the "Next Generation" of consumer, that being the Internet
generation, are persons that are now teens. Many have had computers
since they were old enough to point and click with a mouse and as they
got a little older they have had Internet access their entire young
adult life.

That is the next generation. Most are too young to make many purchasing
decisions on their own, particularly online ones. How they view and
utilize the internet for a variety of things, from shopping, to
information searching, to phone conversations, etc, will alter their
perceptions on the sophistication and worthiness of products that use
the Internet. The study was not on games per se, but extrapolating what
the impact on internet related games will be wasn't tough to figure out.
Oh, and as for PBM games, understand that the very concept of physical
"mail" to this generation is almost archaic. Mail is something that
brings junk mail, bills, and christmas cards. Anyone they want to write
to they can e-mail or chat with online.

Anyway, my second dot com job was as the director of marketing for a
much smaller firm. That one specialized in online educational content
and services. Not nearly as informative, but it did allow me to collect
additional data on the younger generation as it pertains to their
expectations fo educational software and internet sites/services.

> be watching the market as best they are able.  My own research does not tally with yours, and I've been in the hobby business considerably longer than you.<

It still sounds to me that your own research is based upon data
collected from your current and past consumer base and of the PBM/PBEM
industy past and present. I am quite sure your data on the state of that
industry segment is stronger than mine presently. And if that is the
only data mapping your company, then you are not preparing it for the
impact of the upcoming generation of consumers. I read your average
player age is 25.6 years old? Well, if the Internet generation's oldest
members are now around 15 years old (assume 5-7 years old when the
Internet BBS first started seeing rapid growth in usage in, what 89-92?,
you arrive at kids between 14 and 18 years old.) Assume 15 years old for
this arguement. That means if your average player age is 25 years old,
then my guess is the younger portion of your player base age curve is
the consumer base just older than the oldest of the Internet generation.
That means in the next couple of years the impact of that difference
between the old and the new may start to be felt. Though I honestly
doubt you'll see it. The hobby, in large part to the Internet, is still
reaching out beyond its tiny little niche to reach into a broader
populace that was predisposed to trying this form of entertainment. That
means that well run companies should see continued growth, even if they
aren't well positioned to market and service the upcoming Internet
generation. But today's expansion made possible by the broader marketing
reach of the Internet will come to an end once the hobby has expanded
its presence to a broader consumer awareness. And in about five years or
so, then the boon of the Internet growth cycle ends, those companies
that are failing to target the Internet generation properly will start
to see a decline cycle starting then.

Or to translate into more lay terms. For 20 years or more now PBM was a
tiny niche that largely attracted intellectuals and the socially
challenged (not always neccessarily one and the same) and provided them
an entertainment form. It was very niche and required conventions and
niche oriented magazines to market itself in the main. This means the
vast majority of consumers were likely never made aware of the gaming
option. Never before had any company come to service the market
accompanied with a multi million dollar market budget to export it to
the masses. As time allowed the PBM market to evolve into a computerized
anamil it was placed at the forefront of the tech/gaming world. Its
still largely a tech animal. Only now the mainstream computer gaming
world has evolved into a multi billion dollar market and its
technological sophistication has long ago left the PBM market behind.
But due to the power of the Internet and the pure reach of the broader
computer game market the public masses are now becoming aware of PBM
where they were not before. In this fashion the PBM industry will
continue to recieve some benefit from the power of the computer game
market where boardgames and RPGs must confront it directly.

The thing is, if we are ultimately successful in growing interest in
this market segment, because of its place in both the computer game
market and its utility of online gaming aspects, as soon as the market
segment grows large enough, one or more of the multi million dollar
computer game publishers will move in. PBM, or I should say, turn based
internet games/distance games, may grow up and leave the current
industry behind. Of those servicing the industry currently, if they wish
to be part of the future's broader market, they need to begin
positioning their games now to either 1) be ready to compete head on
with large budget productions or 2) be the ideal infrastructure for
acquisition by those larger firms for expansion into this market
segment. All companies not ready for 1 or 2 will be left behind.

> I don't believe there *is* a "big picture".  There are too many different avenues of gaming and people are too diverse. <

There is always a big picture. Always. The big picture here is NOT PBM
specific, nor even gaming specific. Its about a radical shift in the day
to day expectations of the next generation of consumers. The big picture
here is a cultural one.

> Something that seems impossible one year goes on to rock the world the next.  If you'd told people before MtG that card games were going to be huge, they'd have laughed.<

Most markets are cyclical. Toys, comics, clothing, movies, etc, etc.
Almost all markets. The true power that be in any market that run
operations decade after decade are the companies that come to understand
the impact and schedule of the industry cycles. The hobby game industry
is NO DIFFERENT. It too is cyclical. Every so many years some sort of
major new form of gaming rolls around and brings about a radical shift
in the market. My best guess places these cycles at about 8 years apart.
Maybe 7, maybe 9. But I am going with 8 for the moment. In this
capacity, those companies that truly want to be the "next big thing"
ought to learn to pay attention to those cycles and introduce new
radical ideas in time keeping with those cycles. I believe the market
takes time to embrace and fall in love with new well recieved concepts;
time to capitalize on them; time for the rest of the market to attempt
to adapt and adjust; time for the average consumer base to turn over one
full revolution (approximately once per 7 years), and time for the new
consumer base to adapt into the existing hobby and then embrance the
next new "big thing".

So, if I had been in the industry in the late 80's and had had time to
compile my conclusions as I have today, then I may not have concluded
that trading card games would be the next big thing at that time, but
around 1992 I would have been looking for *something*. Maybe I would
trying to deliver that something. Assuming that you see Battletech as
the previous "new big thing".

> Many companies which are not primarily Internet Businesses nevertheless use the Internet in a growing way for marketing.<

Many, but not all. Though most evolved industries long ago developed
major marketing channels to sustain their businesses. The Internet
presently is the furtile playing ground for small businesses and
businesses selling products directly to the consumers. Most viable
companies do use the Internet in some capacity, as it is a good
marketing channel. For many companies its likely a matter of scale.
Stores like Walmart likely still spend 1,000 times more on thier
newspaper insert magazine programs than what they spend on their entire
Internet operations.

>  The fact that you advertise heavily on the internet does not *necessarily* mean thats the only future route to success,<

Well, of course not. But it IS the most logical means of promoting a
service that will be linked through the Internet.

> Im sorry, but thats simply not true in my experience.  Our customer base has *always* stayed between the 20-35 age rage as its majority.  Given that we've been in business for over a decade, then my average ages should have shifted up 10 years.<

Your business, and in fact no business (except those already primarily
marketing to the 15 years olds and under) have had to deal with quite
the same level of generation shift as is coming the market place. Well,
*maybe* the generations splitting the arrival of TV. But then I don't
have marketing data on that time, so that's just idle speculation.

> Our growth has remained steady throughout our history and the advent of the internet did nothing to improve or reduce it.<

If the Internet did nothing to increase your growth to date, I might
suggest you have been vastly under utilizing it. I expect *everyone* in
the PBM/PBEM field should be encountering growth currently. Well,
everyone offering a solid gaming experience anyway.

> It's certainly given people another way to play, but the games themselves haven't changed very much.<

And why do you think that is?

> I don't know enough about your business, nor would I be rude enough to suggest what that might be.  But I can tell you that I haven't experienced any problems finding new players, nor continuing steady growth, nor do I find recruits and newbies *rare* in any way at all.<

No, not yet. But in another 5 to 10 years its going to be another
animal. Non of the operations that I know of (incuding ours) are
situated well enough to truly compete in tomarrow's landscape. Not yet
anyway. We hope to be moving in the right direction with our forthcoming
business plans for 1483 Online and other games. Other companies today
may have good solid plans to adequately adjust for the next generation
as well. I don't know. I hardly know everyone's business plans. I just
know those not planning on some major changes I don't expect to be here
10 years from now. Possibly not 5 years from now.

> This is an interesting statement.  You seem to think that the "next generation" (a somewhat nebulous idea at the best of times) will like different things to the current generation.<

Several major studies, conducted with gross amounts of dot com venture
capital, very much suggests so. On a scale of 1 to 10, if my generation
(I'm 29, so the 25-35 year olds, say) was say two point different from
the one before us and the one after us, on a compatative note, the
upcoming one would be more like four or five points. In technology
expectations, complexity of interactive activities, consumer purchasing
patterns, telecommunication usages, etc, etc. In short, computer
technolgies made amazing leaps and bounds these last 10 years or so. To
service the upcoming generation these studies suggest that the level of
intergration and change in the "average" consumer goods to blend with
these advances will be dramatic when compared to the intergration of
technology into consumer goods these last 10 years.

>  Certainly, the "flavour" of what they like will change.  How much the actual "body" will change though, I wouldn't stake bets on.  The basics of game design, what makes a game good, what makes people keep
> playing, I don't believe these things change.  The gloss on the surface is dead easy to alter.<

Perhaps. Or the glossy surface might require massive budgets in the
future in order to compete. I do agree, at heart, the premise of games
and the core of what makes them good won't change a great deal.
Presentation when cutting edge technolgies are brought to bare, however,
will change much. And maybe not 100% in good ways for quality of game
play. But then, as a consumer I still enjoy the game play mechanics of
those old SSI D&D computer games for the Commadore more than the game
mechanics of Bulders Gate and the like. But which is flashier and sells
more?

> This is a different topic and we could talk forever about it.  Personally, I've found many young gamers to be very disatisfied with the games they've experienced online. Once they get past the pretty colours and 3-D they don't find much actual *game* underneath.<

I would agree with that. Its likely the largest reason from growth among
younger players now. But then, understand, all these are comparative.
There are NO big budget productions category to these types of turn
based games...yet. A company like your may have 10 years in the market,
but how quickly can a company like EA move in should it determine the
market segment large enough? They need not even designs game mechanics
have as good, once they can put a impressive graphical face on their
versions, and then leverage their mass market distribution and millions
of marketing dollars to position theirs.

> Of course they are, unless they all suddenly die.  There will be new fans, as there always have been, and old fans will come back who are not here right now.<

How much business is done in 8 track tapes today? When old fans come
back they usually come back to explore the newfangel technology. Todays
PBM companies need to position themselves to be competitors to tomarrow
more technological business or slowly die off as their older players
based fade away. I'm not saying its not possible. Of course it is. But
everyone in the market presently is a small company with limited
resources. Technological change from such small companies can be
inventive, but is rarely fast or industry sweeping...not until they get
gobbled up by a larger company with serious marketing clout.

> necessary.  You cannot predict what the future will bring, nor what the future fans will enjoy, if you could you'd be a very, very rich man. <

I plan to be a very, very rich man. :) But then, its difficult to
achieve something you don't even attempt.

> This is true in every business.  Similar comments have been made to me in the past, by people who are no longer in the hobby while we're still going strong. Everything you say is true, but what I question is whether you actually have a handle on what is "necessary to recruit the younger generation".<

Well, I *think* I do. Only time will tell. I've got a few more years to
prepare before its crunch time. I know I've seen the marketing studies
that suggest what trends in consumer goods they'll like (on average, f
course).

>>Or that you necessarily have not as you are clearly doing just fine too,<<

This is just my point. Sure, we are doing fine now. But we offer today
will be almost next to useless in 10 years.

>If you see growth and steady improvement, then you must be on the right track.  If you see decay, you know you need to take action.<

Sometimes once you actually see the decay you've waited a couple years
too long to start making changes. Today's work prepares for tomarrow's
market. Not saying there isn't profit in todays market and its needs. Of
course there is. But then WOTC was on top of the world during the
heydays of Magic, and then briefly again with Pokemon. But they didn't
build a infrastrucure properly to cator to the future market. Now they
are downsizing like there is no tomarrow. They hitched their wagon to a
market cycle and didn't think to prepare adequately for the next cycle.
I hear they have a CMG coming out this spring, so its possible their
considerable fiscal resources will allow them to recover somewhat from
bad management.

> No, it isn't.  Our age range, much as it has always been, sits between 20 and 30 for 70% of our customer base, with an actual average of 25.6 years old.  The other 30% vary very wildly from our youngest player (7 years old) to our oldest (70+, prefers not to reveal her exact age.)<

Interesting. Its been a few months since we calculated our average
player age, but last I saw it was running in the mid 30's. But then that
might make sense consider we're running just a human moderated game at
present (read as, low tech), while you have automated games (read that
as, medium tech). We both need worry as soon as someone jumps into the
market with a high tech offering.

> In the end, I suppose, the decisions about write-in votes and what categories to include remains up to the Origins organisers.<

Sure, never said it didn't. I guess they can change any rule they want
at any time. They can decide the game that gets the least amount of
votes in each category should win the award each year. Or they can chose
to disallow any game starting with the letter A. But each does little to
bring the awards any closer to universal acceptibility. Such decisions
just turn them into a joke not worth supporting. Problem is, so long as
they awards linger as next to useless, it makes it more challenging for
the industry to rally together to bring about better ones.

>  If they'd given the award to somebody who didn't have as many votes as you, *that* would be cheating.  To decide not to include the category isn't  cheating, just a bit mean.<

Any time you change the rules for a voting process in mid stream the
reasons behind those changes become suspect. To change the rules for
such a process *after a victor is known* is amazingly so.

>  Without hearing their side of this, its hard to see why they would make such a decision, but they were probably within their rights to do it.<

Well, around that time a political issue within GAMA was at the
forefront of inside industry politics that summer. It was the issue of
allowing the retail members of GAMA to have full voting rights within
the organization. It was the source of MANY heated debates and
arguements and a few flame wars. I got myself kicked off one industry
insider manufacturer list for my support of the retailer side of that
conflict. I was, in fact, very in favor of seeing retailers get full
voting rights. Allowing such would have radically changed the
*leadership* of GAMA over time. Its that *leadership* or persons very
close to those person that made the decision it did that year regarding
the awards. If Pettiness is a motivation, that would be the one I
suspect was at work then.

> Yes, I do think its reasonable, but I also see that a new circumstance might result in the need to make a decision which wont always be popular.  Perhaps they'd never had a write-in win before with so few votes?  They thought about it and thought "this is silly, lets drop the award for this year."  I dunno.<

Perhaps that is what they arrive at. But then, to avoid the appearance
of a bias, and to maintain the integrity of the awards, they should
simply have given the award and went back to the membership to draft a
rules ammendment for the following year.

They knew they had done something they shouldn't have, when after the
fact, this issue was raised in some flames in those politcal discussions
mentioned above. I saw several out and out lies posted as a means to
cover up what had happened. If what they had done was reasonable and not
politically motivated then why try and cover it up later? If a policy
was put into place saying an award needs X number of votes to win, whay
can't X be disclosed to anyone? Why hide the magical number? The only
valid reason for doing so is of X never existed but as one of several
excuses for the stripping of the award.

> It seems pointless to get upset about it, though.  Why not just join the organisation and push for changes and clearer rules?  That would be a more positive response.<

GAMA is a trade organization. At present it costs about $350 or so to
join per year. Yet it does not deliver adequate membership benefits for
that fee. Besides, for the most part, I have better things to do than to
head butt with the powers that be over such things. I carry as much
power to implement change and end corruption by just airing their
activities in public. Maybe even more. We'll *reward* the organization
with out company membership once it makes a valid business case for us
to join it. We care to reward good bahavoir in companies and
organizations we deal with, not bad behavoir.

> I can see it upsets you.  Im sure it would upset me too.  But it may be that the decision wasn't meant to spite you, only made in haste and without enough forethought.<

If that was so, then its something that should have been admitted and an
oppology should have been made. Instead they lied to cover it up and one
member of the organization went so far as to publically call me a liar
for making the accusations. Frankly, that was a worse offense than the
original.

Oh, it should be noted that for shits ad giggles one of my business
partners has submitted 1483 for norminal consideration the last couple
of years. The game has never made the list that gets delivered to the
academy members for consideration for the awards ballot. That means it
continues to get screened out by *someone*. As I understand it, the
person who originally made the decision to not offer the award has not
been with the organization for some time. Strangly enough, the game is
missing yet again from this year's list to be passed along to  the
commitee. That suggests to me that the original decision was made not by
the person who became the scapegote for it, but someone higher on the
food chain. And to the nest of my knowledge that would include all of 2
people. Those 2 people still hold the same top ranking positions of
authority they did in 2000. You do the math. And someone wants us to
join such an organization?

>  You seem to be the victim of some bad luck, possibly a little malicious, I don't know.  Bounce back from it and try to affect positive
> change.  You'll be making a contribution to the hobby and you'll feel better too!<

That is exactly what we are doing by continuing to tell the tale.
Positive change will see a policy reversal on that sort of behavoir, an
acknowledgement of past screw ups and a move to a more respectably run
awards. Either that or positive change would see the complete
discontinuation of those awards to be replaced by others operated by
other individuals.

> My only point is that you, in turn, should be leery in assuming you know exactly what form this "transformation" is going to take.<

To the Internet generation nearly *everything* is going to become more
interactive and more automated. Video phones and voice over IP. More
sophisticated palm pilots and mobile computers with satelite internet
link ups. Increased intergration for product ordering and physical store
shelves. Increased usage of computer technology and information to be
available at consumers' fingertips, weather purchasing online or in a
store front. And continued rising expectation on graphical
presentations, from movies, to video games, to the appearance of web
sites. The rate of such transformation will be directly linked and
limited by the rate of bandwidth expansion. Snd if you think today's
generation is one of "instant gratification" you haven't seen anything
yet.

> And yet we don't bother with high-level graphics at all, except in advertising (which has always been the case) and still get plenty of new players both free and commercial.  I don't dispute that a high-gloss route is one that'll work, but its like an arms race against giant firms.<

Bingo. Thing is, you only avoid that arms race so long as the PBM niche
remains obscure. But as it grows and the Internet helps to spread it
further, the big firms will eventually realize the market exists.

>  In the graphics war we declared neutral years ago, and people who come to us look for something different.<

And for the current consumers thats probably a perfectly valid approach.
Though I doubt how viable it'll remain for the Internet babies. One
major dot coms marketing data suggests otherwise. I'll grant that
infomation is about 2.5 years old now, but I have seen nothing to
contradict its conclusions.

> There was a free turn-based soccer game run last year that had nearly a million players on its own, run by tesco.net as part of its portal. <

Ah, sports games. Sure, I accept your millions then. I have always
largely considered sports games to be a separate market. Though we do
have a venture for a football oriented game sitting hear in rough form
that just needs a LOT more capital to do properly. Not high on our list
of design priorities though.

Ryan S. Johnson
CEO, Guild of Blades Publishing Group
http://www.guildofblades.com

References

Re: For PBM game moderators
"Ryan S. Johnson" <dowrie@guildofblades.com>
Wed, 05 Feb 2003 06:11:20 +0000
Re: For PBM game moderators
madcentral@aol.com (MadCentral)
Wed, 05 Feb 2003 12:41:24 +0000

Referenced By

Re: For PBM game moderators
"Ryan S. Johnson" <dowrie@guildofblades.com>
Wed, 05 Feb 2003 06:11:20 +0000
Re: For PBM game moderators
madcentral@aol.com (MadCentral)
Wed, 05 Feb 2003 12:41:24 +0000