By now, you have probably heard the theory that all the new game companies are striving after the same consumer dollar. For any of them to get ahead requires cannibalizing their fellows and living at their expense. The loudest proponent of this theory is Ty "Take No Prisoners" Bomba. The theory merits a look, even if Ty keeps telling people I have some sort of "day-job." I just wish he'd let me know what my other line of work is, so I can phone in sick or something.

Is there a limit to the dollars available to the wargaming industry? Of course there is ... as there is an upper limit for all forms of commerce. It would be silly to suggest otherwise. However, I think the underlying theme is not that there is a limit, but that the market has already reached the limit and only readjustment remains. Therein lies the cannibalism.

To reach the level of saturation required by this theory, the market requires many extremely high-quality games-games that few could pass up and between which they must choose for simple economic reasons. (Few of us are independently wealthy.) I contend that there has not been available the number of superlative games which would generate that level of saturation. Right now we are getting a good mixsome gems, some good games, and some best left on the shelf. At any rate, the number of really strong games is too limited (once you cut away all the dross) to push the consumer beyond the limit.

One might argue that the saturation occurred at some point in the recent past, and the current batch of games are chasing after those dollars, only in ever increasing numbers. However, I would be hard-pressed to pick any recent year that was so stellar that it left the average gamer both breathless and penniless at the cash register. No recent year really shows that kind of monopoly on brilliance.

Also, as Avalon Hill seems to drop a little market share here and there each year, there is more of the pie for us little guys. They are still the biggest gorillas on the block; a tiny reduction in share to them is big deal to guys like us.

The point is that not all horses pull the same. A weak game will lose market share to a strong one and weak companies will do the same. This is for the better. Game buyers are not simpleton robots who buy all products equally, so the fixed money gets spread not between 10 games, say, but between 60. They choose as concerned consumers. Some companies watch their market share drop like a rock, some are pleasantly stable, and others continue to grow. That is business.

Does this mean that in time the weak links will fall away leaving the most efficient and best producers-those most able to continually attract the consumer dollar and keep the customer satisfied-as owners of the limited pie'? Yes, it does. That is simple competition and business theory. Don't expect to see me wail over the loss of the weaker competitorsthey are not worth the tears, and some bright-eyed idealist will eagerly leap up to take a stab at the ring.

Perhaps all this whining is coming from those losing the game? I'm sure things look pretty hopeless to those on the downhill. Too bad they never paid attention to their customers. Guess what-treat customers like dirt and they'll remember it every time. Same thing if you treat them right. I don't know why it took the game industry so long to figure that out (or for the buying public to give the industry a wake up call), but here we are--now let's move into the future!!!

Remember: Good Planets are Hard to Find... Please Recycle .