I agree it is important to show a bright face, especially to show one to your customers. It is in light of this that I forgive you for the obvious fauxpas you've been committing for the past 8 years [Dean's Note: Thanks, I think ... ], but it is time someone showed it to you in numbers (you appear to be susceptible [sic?] to them).

Its great that you print 5,000 copies of a game, however ... even if you release one game every two months (and GMT and Clash of Arms do the same), this adds up to 15,000 games every 60 days. Avalon Hill, at just about the time The Gamers came on the scene, printed 20,000 copies of a wargame and released about 6 games a year. I'll do the math for you. 20,000 times 6 equals 120,000 games. 15,000 (GMT, The Gamers, CoA) times 6 equals 90,000. Now that is a net loss of 30,000 games. This doesn't seem like much until you realize that Avalon Hill was not competing with Rhino, Spearhead, and Avalanche, but SPI, GDW, and Yaquinto. Shenendoah was not unique in that it sold 17,000 units. So add the numbers these guys were releasing to the pot. Today's market only supports what one game company was producing 10 years ago!!! [Dean's Note: Actually 15 years, if one wants to include companies like SPI and Yaquinto.]

I am not a nay-sayer if I point out that the historical boardgame industry is a bit like the sound of fireworks on the 5th of July. I am just realistic. I'd go as far as to estimate that the combined sales of our companies only account for 35% of the market as it existed in 1980.

Ed,

In the words of a great American, "So what?" No one will deny the hobby was bigger in 1980 than it is now, but pessimistically writing off the current rebirth because it isn't as "big" as the good old days is counterproductive.

You are right, today we don't have to compete with SPI, GDW, and Yaquinto. Instead, we have to compete with a multi-billion dollar leisure industry that didn't even exist back then-the VCR, Sega, Nintendo, and the bulk of the RC industry didn't even exist back in the good old days. The 1970's model just doesn't cut it in the 1990's.

On a related issue, what does raw size have to do with anything? SPI lost money for 8 of its 10 years of business, sure they did millions a year in gross volume, but my little company has a greater net profit over its 8 year life than they did. Profit makes for success, not simple size.

I find it interesting that you equate print run size directly with sales. Avalon Hill (who has the advantage of letting its own parent company do its printing for them) always has overprinted its games so that it would have them on hand for up to 15 years-note the number of games in their line which have been around seemingly forever and only some of these are due to reprints. Our 5,000 figure is meant to last two years-and as our titles keep dropping out of print, it inspires me to think about bumping them upward again. Aren't you the same guy who cut his print runs to 2,000 last year because there wasn't any point in making more games than would sell in six months (based on your "old games don't sell" argument)?

I'll certainly agree that the 1995 hobby might be only 35% of the 1980 one, but I'll dispute any claim that the shrinkage to this level occurred in linear 4 1/3 % per year increments. A massive drop off occurred in 1982-1984 followed by slow shrinkage until about 1992. From 1992 on, the hobby stabilized and now is actually beginning to show signs of growth. Perhaps CoA's figures don't show this, but ours do.

In summary Ed, don't worry about the relative size of the hobby compared with the good old days and try to help those of us who are moving ahead to build for the future. More than one retailer came by our both at the GAMA Trade show and said "I wish GMT and Clash of Arms would come to these shows, it would show the retailers who don't already carry games that the wargames still exist."