Surveying the Realms

Traditionally, the gaming industry could be defined has having three distinct realms. First there was that of the parlor game. Chess, Checkers, Poker, and the various offshoots make up the first category. These are primarily mainstream games that can be found at the local Toys R Us outlet.

The second category of games, in decreasing order of popularity, is the role playing genre, and its various incarnations.

The third is the simulation gaming genre. This group includes wargames and other manual games that are attempting to represent some real (or potentially real) event through simulation. Now a fourth and fifth group have emerged, namely computer games and specialized card games.

It is interesting to note that of the five genres listed above, four of them have respectably large markets and are thriving. The fifth, simulation games, does not enjoy the same level of popularity, to say the least. The irony of this truism is that the simulation market is where all the others, except parlor games, got their start. (And everyone seems to know that chess and checkers began life as wargames!) So what's going on with the simulation market? Does it really have to be so small?

As I have said before, the small customer base isn't so much a function of people not being interested, but of people not even realizing simulation games exist on the shelves. So the natural conclusion in terms of marketing must of course be to bring games and potential buyers together. The natural place to begin is with the package the game comes in. So go pick up a boxed game produced by any wargame publisher today and take a look. What you don't find on it may surprise you.

Good News, of Sorts

I've been hearing for some time now that Decision Games, GMT, and many other simulation game producers are having cash flow problems. The sudden demise of 3W and its offshoot KP Games indicates the same problem. Despite this unsettling turn of events, a general collapse does not appear imminent. DG seems to have an endless reserve of cash, and GMT has a very loyal following. I'm not convinced we'll see the end of either one any time soon.

Chris Perello at XTR may well be right, however, when he says in the pages of Command magazine and elsewhere that many simulation game companies have over extended themselves. GMT's upcoming card game, Bellum, along with their new computerized Alexander battle game, will likely preserve that company in spite of any financial miscalculations. As for DG, many say they are surviving on momentum and the hard work of people no longer with the company. In any event, I don't believe we'll see the end of either company any time soon.

The Really Bad News

I do believe, however, that companies like Spearhead, Terran Games, et al., may well be short-lived. What these guys are discovering the hard way is that the cost-benefit ratio for boxed wargames leaves a lot to be desired. The new card game craze doesn't help matters, nor does the presence of industry antagonism, which we have plenty of right now.

But at the root of these problems is not to my mind competition from other products, nor is it a flood of mediocre product -- though that certainly doesn't help. The really bad news is that all simulation game companies are suffering from a lack of creative marketing. They are advertising to the same people over and over again. In business jargon it's called market atrophy.

Back to the Box

Getting back to that box you've been looking at, check to see if there is any reference that the product is a game. What you will likely find is that it must be inferred by such things as the "game design" credits. This phenomenon is one hard piece of evidence that simulation game producers are proving themselves to be marketing illiterates.

And that little blind spot doesn't begin to reveal the things this industry doesn't know about professional presentation of a product. What's more, all signs point to producers being proud of their ignorance. So long as simulation games look like a fringe product, are sold with no explanation of what they are, and are marketed to the same faces over and over again, the demise of companies like 3W is bound to become commonplace.

Facing the Future

XTR appears to have read the writing on the wall and is taking steps to ensure its continued survival. GPG and GameFix owe their existence to a better understanding of what the market will bear. But I'm the first to say that we (and XTR, too) have a long way to go. GameFix is still not the product I envision it can be, but anyone who has experienced the first six issues will agree it is getting there.

The Customer is (Not) Always Right

One of the other things that wargame companies must accept is that gamers (beyond the grognards) don't much care who designed a game, the intricacies of putting it together, or whether the thing is hyper-realistic enough to be dubbed a "paper time machine." They want just two things: 1) to get into the game quickly and play it repeatedly; and 2) have a good time doing it.

The other thing that companies need to grasp is that the customer doesn't always know what he's talking about. Graphic design is the classic case here. That's not to say that colorful graphics aren't important, but ultimately they only get the player to pull the box off the shelf and open the lid. The danger is that graphics can get in the way of actual game play. Many companies have not learned that lesson.

Try the following: Ask someone how many times they've played a game. If he answers "three times" (or fewer), the product is a failure no matter how pretty it is or how much the customer thinks he likes it. If he says "every chance I get," you've found a really good product.

One school of thought in gaming argues that how often a product is played is not relevant, as long as it convinces him to buy the next expansion kit, series entry, or company release. I could not disagree more. Even if this sort of treadmill approach was fun (and it really isn't), it can't work if profitability depends on spitting out a bunch of ever more bloated, expensive games that only 1500 or so people (gee, it used to be 3000, and before that 5000 ... ) will buy because it has such limited appeal. Even if the customers are inspired to buy the next game with little if any repeat play, no one else will see the product.

Exposure of games to new players creates new customers, but that only comes from repeated play, not from looking at it on someone else's shelf Talking the talk but not walking the walk is exactly why 3W failed. It can happen to any company in this industry. No one has infinitely deep pockets, so no one is immune.