Gencon/Origins(?)

Last August there was a convention called Gencon/Origins. It was the combination of the two major consumer shows for the gaming industry, Gencon and Origins.

GR/D attended and I had the additional duty as the Executive Director of GAMA to oversee the show to insure that things went well.

Attendance at the show was 14 to 18 thousand. The thrust of the show was roleplaying. There were a total of three board game tournaments, three. There were a few new releases of board games at the convention, but not many. There was little support, little attention, and little activity. The major companies that make up the core of our hobby, military history, did nothing but show up. We had Task Force Johnson putting on their usual demo and promoting our game. That was the sum of it, folks.

Now we face an Origins '93 in Fort Worth and year 20 of Europa with the series still showing a strong market-share and dedicated following. The rest seems to be melting away, which is very unfortunate for a couple of reasons. It is 50 years since the Second World War, and so time is passing and interest is waning. A fact that must be considered. But also consider that we, by our age and economic position, are a major economic force.

Our mainstream age profile is 35 to 50, middle-class and professional, $30,000 base, up to $100,000 per year. On a percentage basis within the whole group of gamers we are 20%, but we are the TOP 20%. About half of the print media within this industry is dedicated to our portion of the hobby-military history games.

At this time there are three basic systems on the market: World In Flames, Europa, and Advanced Squad Leader. Add the magazine games and some other independents and that is that. Well, this is not representative of the economics of our group. This problem will be addressed at the next Origins, of this you can be sure. But the basic trend is what it is, or, do you remember the great celebrations surrounding the 50th year after the end of WWI, 1968?

Our system will be around for many years to come due to the fact that we still have much to do. Our hobby will be in a constant state of change, but it will be diminishing as each year passes. The desire to bring more individuals into our system remains. We printed "Boot Camp" rules to this end. They have been ignored. Thank god I did not go for the "introductory" game. Money down the drain. What we need is a bigger view of what we do and a way to reach lots and lots of people, all at once with what we do. Film at eleven!

Those Who Can't, Review...

Here is the second half of my diatribe, the press and what it does not do.

We have a media connected to our industry that is mostly used for information, not to help form opinion. The game magazines, to my knowledge, do not provide a solid and continuous review of new products in a meaningful way. Well, you say, you are a manufacturer and have a vested interest in having people say nice things about your games.

NOT!

The Europa series of games pre-dates almost everything. As such, it has earned its place in gaming and much more when it comes to research, etc., etc. So when a reviewer asked me if he could get a copy of our games to review I declined his request. Europa, I told him, is beyond the process offered by our game media for reviewing.

I did not say that out of some arrogant belief that we are too good to review. I truly believe that most reviewers don't understand the system, hence they can not deliver a review that makes sense. QED.

Add to that the fact that when my first child was born, The Urals, we got hammered by two magazines that reported the module to have only ten charts and that $24.95 was too much to charge gamers for that meager offering. When I pointed out that the review was total BS I was informed that it would be fixed. It was not, it was repeated. At that time I gave up on reviews and to this day care not one bit if any of our games get reviews. QED.

This touches on a broader point. I believe that most of the process of review is worthless due to the fact that most review process is done with an eye toward self-importance and self aggrandizement on the part of the reviewer. At Gencon/Origins(?) I read a review of a new role-playing product where the reviewer stated that he had not read or played the game, but wanted to comment on the poor quality of that game system. Really? What could be worse? He was the managing editor of the magazine. Unfortunately those statements are a reflection of the core problem that I am talking about.

It seems to me that the responsibility of the press, our press, is to promote the hobby. I do not mean that problems should be ignored, but guys, lets put the fun back into wargames. Let's talk up the industry, not trash or try to teach what is wrong all the time.

This industry needs all the help it can get and needs a support system within the media to encourage the industry, provide insight to design and quality, and give us the ups and downs in a more even-handed fashion. Gee, am I beginning to rant?