Re: For PBM game moderators

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

Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 06:11:20 +0000

> And you would know all about this because... ?<

Because we do extensive market studies, latching onto market data at
every opporunity. We've been doing that for the six years we've been in
business. Truth is, I doubt many game manufacturers have a clearer look
at the bic picture. I am sure a few do; those with the truly large
marketing budgets. But they are few.

> assumptions on other, similar, but not the *same* game industries.  I don't doubt your extensive knowledge of RPG and Board Game design, but thats really not the same thing.<

Oh, I agree. But I am not basing those assumptions on the way Board
Games, RPGS, or other forms of gaming sell. I am basing my assumptions
on the facts that:
  1) The PBM/PBEM hobby continues to draw more and more upon the
Internet as the primary means to market itself. And.
  2) The larger majority of hobbyist in the PBM/PBEM hobby that support
the industry with their money are older and most started their interest
in the hobby prior to the recent evolution of the Internet as a
communications and gaming medium. I have no doubt the commercial
companies have achieved greater fiscal success in the last few years as
the Internet has allowed those companies to reach out further to bring
in those older players and a few younger ones pre disposed to trying
this sort of game. But that growth will reach and end once those rare
consumers are found. Rest assured they are a rare bread.
  3) Like all markets, the future of this market will depend on the
markets ability to adapt and appeal to the next generation. That next
generation is growing up having had online interactive gaming options
most of their lives. Their expectations have been set pretty high in
what they think an online game should deliver in game play opportunity
and graphical appearance. You and I realize that PBM/PBEM offers a
totally different gaming experience than what they are used to, but we
have to MAKE THEM REALIZE that before we can sell to them. And thats a
hard road without the hobby evolving to a higher standard of
packaging/visual appeal. Before you can hope to convince them of
anything you have to first grab their attention somehow.

>  PBM game design, by which I really mean "turn-based" game design, is very different to tabletop or computer gaming.  Its fans do not want the same things out of a game, although there is certainly some crossover there's a lot of differences too. <

Oh no doubt. What I think you are missing is today's fans are NOT
tomarrow's fans. There is a generation gap here and the hobby will have
to drastically change within the next 10 years or so or the next
generation will leave it behind.

> You seem to think everybody wants the same thing out of the hobby.  I don't believe you are right.  Certainly, my own commercial experience suggests you are not.<

Of course everyone doesn't want the same thing. But you might run a
successful commercial enterprise with 1,000 or 5,000 players today.
Though next year as you lose 3 players to age or disinterest and find
yourself not well suited to recruit from the younger generation and
hence only recruit 1 new player, your paying player base will eventually
evaporate. Also, I don't know if you have age data on your consumer
base, but my bet is that your "average age" is well into the mid 30's
isn't it?

> Then again, couldn't it just be that the games which win need to be good enough to win?  Don't get me wrong, I don't know enough about the history here, but I do know that every game designer loves the game they made and rather assumes its worth awards.  When they don't get those awards its easy to blame "corruption in the committee" and difficult to accept that your game might not make the grade.  I've seen a lot of VERY bad games out there, and I've noticed some of them in Origins nominations.  When they don't win, I'm never surprised.<

You are right, you don't know the history here. I have absolutely no
problem with not winning. Of course every designer is proud of their own
creations. If they weren't the game would likely never have been
concieved in the first place. The thing to remember is the Origins
Awards are publicly voted on. That means in the end the game with the
highest number of votes wins. Normally only those games that are on the
ballot will draw any significant votes and the most popular of those
will win. The GAMA figure heads may control what ends up on the ballot
as a nominee. Fair enough. But also realize there is a write in line on
the ballot where fans may suggest and vote on games not on the
nomination list. Normally a write in game has like zero chance of
getting more votes than those games listed on the ballot. In 2000 there
were no games nominated for the best new PBM category. So in theory the
game with the highest number of write in votes should have won. We KNOW
approximately how many write in votes our game fans submitted that year.
If we had lost because another game had recieved more write it votes.
Fine. That's the way it works. But no. Instead NO GAME in the best new
PBM category was given the award that year. You want to bet which game
had the highest write in votes? If the awards had a policy in place
prior to the voting took place that said an award needed X amount of
votes or more to win and the write in votes did not surpass X, then
fine, now award should be issued. But what happened instead was some guy
who shall remain nameless saw the results AFTER the votes had been
tallied, saw who had won the award and THEN simply decided that it
should not get an award because it didn't have nearly as many votes as
winners of other categories. Well, Duh, it was a write in. They told us
this is what happened. I personally think that is very foul,
implementing a policy to strip a game of an award AFTER the votes are
tallied and a winner should be known. What has always frustrated me is,
if it was decided then that the game needed X amount of votes to win, as
they decided after the fact, then at least they should be able to tell
us what X is. Don't you think that is reasonable? Sure. But X is a
nebelous number that has never been devulged to us. Or if you care to
translate, "we gave you a bullshit reason as to why your game didn't win
because we don't want to say that it just didn't win because we just
didn't feel like giving it to you".

Well, my opinion is, if the awards committee will allow such an
arbitrary decision to happen to one award from one company for one award
category, then why should ANYONE believe that sort of things doesn't
happen all the time? How can anyone think to support such a corrupt
awards process?

> But you are an RPG company arent you?  So its no big deal if you dont sub to Flagship (although Id still recommend you do so.  Its a great read, has its ear very much to the ground for market trends, and is a neat place to advertise hobby products at reasonable prices.)<

Well, our company does support 2 RPG lines. But an RPG company? Not
really. In print currently we have 2 RPG lines, 4 Board Games Lines, 2
Miniature Lines, 2 PBEM games (albeit free ones), have a computer game
in the works and some authors beginning one a series of novels for our
brands. So its probably safer just to call us a game publisher. Simply
put, we'll publish and support any line that can prove that it can turn
a profit, fits well with out other offerings, and can help position our
brands closer towards our future goals for them. If we thought we could
do a CCG or CMG properly (including fund it), we would publish those
too.

> Im sorry, Im not familiar with 1483 Online.  I think I browsed the site a few months back but I dont know much about it.  No disrespect intended.  I'll check it out!  I've encounted some of your RPG products in the past, as you probably know I bought some stuff from you before Christmas.<

Ah yes. How is the development of that project coming along. It sounded
like a neat one.

> To assume that your route is the *only* route to success is blinkered.  Our own growth plans are somewhat different, but no less valid, I
> hope.  Certainly, our path has been successful for a decade now and has provided full-time employment for an ongoing team of staff.<

Oh, I don't presume to think this is the only way to adapt to be more
suited to the future markets. Surely there are others. But the princple
remains a valid one. Those companies that continue to operate their
operation based upon the old model will slowly diminish. I don't know
enough about your growth plans to presume to know weather its a good one
or not. It certainly seems to be something that is working for you
*now*. As I suggest above, simply be leery about the slow transformation
in the consumer base as we migrate from servicing one generation to the
next.

> Is there such a thing?  Surely most of us target gamers who are interested in the genre the game is set in?<

Well, genre interest is a good marketing focuss. Not the only one. I
guess my point is, targeting "gamers" exclusively is not neccessarily a
future thinking prospect. Target *anyone* that is interested in the
theme of the game being promoted. There are far more people who don't
game anything at present than those who do. But that brings me back to
my original point. Its *those* masses that will become harder and harder
to recruit and turn into gamers/pbm/pbem gamers if the games marketing
to them don't evolve to become a tad more like other things they've come
to expect from online offerings. Its getting tougher and tougher to rise
to that next level as surely just about everyone now sees the graphics
and such as presented by the leader computer games now being marketing
thru TV commercials.

> I really don't agree with this last comment at all.  Not the "fail" part, but your estimate of playing audience.  Id say the active PBEM audience, in some form or other, is certainly in the millions.  The potential PBEM audience definitely is.  If all the active players with Madhouse, KJC and Harlequin came to join 1483 tomorrow you'd probably be rather surprised by the workload you suddenly acquired <

I'm sure I would, but I still doubt the millions figure. If I had to
pull a figure out of the air and we included 1) traditional PBM, 2)
PBEM, 3) Turn Based Web Games, 4) Muds, 5) MUSHES, and 6) Web Supported
PBEM, then I might guess as many as 400,000 to 750,000 active players.
Though that includes the casual players who only play the occassional
free game as well. Now, if we include turn based interactive games such
as RISK, Axis & Allies, and toss in the online RPG like activity in many
of the romance chat rooms and game rooms, then I would certainly agree
there are millions.

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>
Mon, 03 Feb 2003 23:42:34 +0000
Re: For PBM game moderators
madcentral@aol.com (MadCentral)
Tue, 04 Feb 2003 16:19:44 +0000

Referenced By

Re: For PBM game moderators
"Ryan S. Johnson" <dowrie@guildofblades.com>
Mon, 03 Feb 2003 23:42:34 +0000
Re: For PBM game moderators
madcentral@aol.com (MadCentral)
Tue, 04 Feb 2003 16:19:44 +0000