In the five years since Dean started The Gamers, Inc. the two of us have had many discussions about keeping a wargame company alive in today's gaming market. In the Spring of 1988--our debut-we entered what people often described as a dying market. All the major publishers seemed to regard board-wargaming as backburner at best, with even Avalon Hill doing little beyond Squad Leader. The hobby press greeted new products with lackadaisical enthusiasm.

Now, at the end of 1992, things seem quite different. The hobby has two bi-monthly Mag-with-a-game efforts: Command and S & T. Moves is back, F & M is still around, and most encouragingly, a number of other journals are available. In terms of house organs, The General is still here, of course, but we have started our own version. Operations is now in its second year. Also, GMT has brought out C3I. GRD has taken The Europa News from a newsletter to its new, fullfledged magazine incarnation as Europa. On the reviewing front, Berg's Review of Games has returned with a vengeance, and Field of Battle is an anticipated but now very overdue 64 page magazine out of Virginia. Together, these last two periodicals promise to deliver a much needed independent review perspective for the tide of new games released and anticipated.

A tide of new games? How about a tide of new companies? Just since our own debut, the following new companies have appeared: SDI, GMT, FGA, XTR, Rhino Games, Decision Games, and New England Simulations. Additionally, GRD has expanded to fullfledged Europa publication. Clash of Arms has greatly increased their game production efforts, moving from part-time to full time. Personally, I considered 3W doomed after selling off S & T, but they have shocked the hobby with a virtual Tsunami of titles. Admittedly, SDI has already departed, and FGA's candle seems to be flickering at best. The bulk of companies is hanging tough, however, and there are indications that more are on the horizon. Several new groups contacted us seeking information about the myriad aspects of game company-ism, most often about graphics and print production. At least two of these contacts represent quite serious attempts at game publishing, and we expect to see their efforts in print in the next couple of years.

In five short years, our size has almost doubled every year. This is hardly the sign of a dying hobby. While not privy to other publishers' figures, I'd wager they've seen similar encouragement from the gaming public. In retrospect, the perception differences between then and now are shocking in comparison, thanks mostly to this spate of new guys and new games.

Naturally, as each new development in board wargaming emerged, Dean and I indulged in endless speculation about it. What intrigued us most was the particular marketing approach and philosophical bent each new outfit espoused. Admittedly we had no access to inside information; but rumor, gossip, and each new arrival's public facade gave us plenty to ramble on about. Through it all, we noticed several distinct patterns emerging, among both the struggling new companies and our collective market.

Some Background

SPI--If there is a Brass Ring in wargaming, the three letters SPI exemplify it. SPI. Only these three will do; TSR-SPI is not the same, at least in Mr. Average Gamer's mind. The history of those initials has warped most of the revitalization of the past several years.

Since SPI's demise, there has remained a core of gamers out there looking for the next company to come along and fill that void. This is natural, I suppose. The heyday of the 1970s at SPI saw the recruitment of most of today's active gamers, a time of growth for the hobby as a whole. Both Dean and I fall into this category, and we each have dozens of SPI games on our shelves.

However, SPI's day in the sun had its share of mythbuilding as well. SPI was not stabbed in the back, or destroyed by the evil dragon-lords. From my outsider's perspective, it seems to have collapsed of a more mundane reason-poor management. By its own admission, SPI lost money for 7 out of its 10 years in existence. Many SPI games suffered from hasty publication and poor development and playtesting.

Still, the New York crowd managed to produce enough truly great games to create a lasting audience and a glowing image, at least in retrospect. When SPI went under (taken over by, of all organizations, TSR) the hobby self-image stagnated. Not that there wasn't historical gaining activity through the following decade, but some spark was missing. By the late 80's, Yaquinto was gone. West End moved on to where the real money was, and Victory seemed on the verge of collapse. In 1988 and 1989, Dean and I heard repeated rumors that Avalon Hill was going to shut down Victory Games altogether. TSR retained S & T and hundreds of old SPI titles, but demonstrated little interest in putting out wargames after the first couple of years. Not that I blame them. They had long ago discovered where the real money was, and it had little to do with historical battles on cardboard.

What do you do with a Brass Ring but try to grab it? Given the above legacy, more than one company has strived to inherit the title, usually in a shamelessly transparent manner. Once Keith Poulter had acquired S & T magazine, 3W trumpeted to one and all that they had become the 'SPI of the West'. Two years later he was unloading the same mag like a live grenade, and I suspect that this excessively ambitious effort nearly took 3W out of the game business completely. How about FGA? They were hardly less subtle: once divorced from

Gene Billingsley and GMT, the Fresno Gang embarked on an extravagant series of game title promises that were almost exclusively SPI remakes. They name-dropped furiously, repeating several times that they "were in negotiations with TSR to buy the old SPI game rights." FGA's main attention-grabber was the ploy of redoing old SPI monsters, since these games have a core audience all their own, and cast a spell over most gamers. However, the honeymoon ended quickly for FGA when the games arrived filled with problems. In short, they were mostly unplayable and incomplete. By redeveloping 10 year old SPI games, one would expect that FGA would transform often flawed games into solid efforts. When the remakes were worse than the originals, it was no wonder that disillusionment set in quickly among most of the buying public.

Even companies who do not overtly seek the title will find themselves affected by the 'curse of SPI'. Gamers are quick to draw the comparison. We frequently found ourselves being measured against the SPI yardstick. Simply put, a publisher cannot escape this evaluation, whether or not he supplies the bombast. Not that this is all bad: a publisher who avoids self-aggrandizement and instead lets the public bestow the "new SPI" title upon him has earned a valuable laurel. To date, no clear heir has emerged, but several good companies seem in contention.

Some words about the Market Numbers:

It took us a while to get a handle on just how many wargamers were really out there. Starting small, we built up our customer list the hard way--one at a time. Alternatively, we could have bought an existing mailing list, but the meagerness of our initial budget precluded that option. The bootstrap method has its benefits, however. Now our list has over 2,500 names. Virtually all of them are committed customers who sought us out and own our products. This is an excellent indicator of our growth.

In fact, there are about 500 gamers out there who will by almost anything. These guys are plugged into all the hobby communications networks, so they will come to you, even with minimal advertising on your part. These people are not gullible saps who also own bridges and Nevada beach fronts. They are collectors, who acquire titles for the sake of completeness. Good games tend to be a bonus to their way of thinking. They are some of the most experienced gamers in the hobby, however, and will end up giving you many impromptu rules writing lessons.

Another 1000 or so are hard-core. They too are 'plugged in', and can be reached by minimal advertising. However, they look for good games rather than collectibles, and have logged an enormous amount of time pushing cardboard. The best thing about this group is their willingness to volunteer time and effort in playtesting, research, and general quality improvement. These people are the unpaid support network of the hobby, and every company uses some of these gaining militia. Especially in playtesting, these guys render stellar service to the hobby as a whole.

For a while, over the winter of 91-92, we seemed to reach a plateau with these 1500 or so gamers. Our games to date involved 'quirky' command rules, and received little notice in the press. We existed almost exclusively by word of mouth. Occasional conversations with other companies indicated that there was larger group out there we had not yet reached, but we hadn't figured out how to crack the code.

Stalingrad Pocket and Guderian's Blitzkrieg achieved the needed breakthrough. Both games are selling very well, and have brought in a large response from completely new customers. Stalingrad Pocket sold out its initial run in five months, and was quickly reprinted. Guderian's Blitzkrieg is within 21 games of going out, too. The customer list zoomed to its current level and continues to grow.

Moving strictly into the realm. of rumor, some positive indicators seem to exist. I understand that Avalon Hill has 10,000 subscribers to The General, a number that has been purportedly static for over 10 years. Both Command and S & T sell between 8 and 10 thousand copies per issue, though the bulk of that is through retail stores. By default, the 10,000 figure seems a likely indicator of the number of full-time wargamers, though there is certainly another (hopefully larger) group that is part-time. While these are hardly demographics that make your average sports shoe manufacturer salivate, they form a solid basis for a niche market.

Can a game company survive with 10,000 customers? I don't see why not, given proper management. Except for Avalon Hill and the magazines, most games have print runs between 2500 and 5000 copies. At The Gamers, Inc., we have just increased our runs to 5000 to ensure each title remains in print for a while. If we sell half of each game in its first year of life, we will be solidly successful.

It does seem clear that more people were once involved. In the late 70's, SPI claimed S & T's circulation stood at around 30,000 subscribers. So where did they all go? First, I think the hobby was a lot less fragmented then. Many former wargamers have since diverged into areas of greater personal interest that include role-playing, science-fiction and especially computer gaming. Second, after SPI's demise, the hobby professionals and press alike spent much time harping on the malaise of the late 80's. Certainly a large number of people left the hobby then. This pattern was probably mutually reinforcing, and ended with all of those dire predictions of the hobby's eminent demise.

Trends

Numbers aside, the other big debate revolves around what gamers want in their games. Simple, one hour quickies? Topic fads? How about card games? Each time anew game does well, it seems to spawn a promoter claiming that it alone will 'save the hobby'.

The most common movement is that of the 'Intro Game'. Conventional wisdom holds that today's jet-setting, on-the-go gaming guy has no time for the monsters of yore. He demands games that take 5 minutes to learn, one hour to play and a lifetime to master. Hand in hand with that goes the recruiting imperative; produce simple games that will drag in hordes of eager neophytes and swell the market pool into respectable, D & D -like numbers. I recall a point in about the middle of 1990, where it seemed like the only outfit not producing an Intro game was The Gamers, Inc.

How about card games? The success of Modern Naval Battles so impressed 3W that they quickly announced the formation of an entire card game division. I have since noticed that most of the titles then proposed never appeared, except for MNB add-ons. Whether this had more to do with later 3W troubles or lack of continued success with the card games, I confess I just do not know.

Historical eras do not get neglected either. Sparked by the release of GMT's Alexander, 1991 became the year of the 'Ancients Craze'. Two more boxed games, a module or two, and several magazine games later, the idea seems to have peaked, but who knows what will follow it.

The above three trends have one thing in common, a desire to find the instant formula that translates into a best-selling game. It seems that one good release is enough to spark a whole mini-genre. I think the real lesson here is somewhat simpler. Good, fun games will sell. Gamers want a mix of topics and products, and for each Intro game fanatic there is another gamer out there looking for a Europa title or Guderian's Blitzkrieg. Variety best serves the hobby as long as, at the outcome, the games are good.

Patterns: Big Splash versus Little Splash

New game company debuts resolve themselves into two types, usually dictated by available startup funds, but also modified by the SPI factor. So far, more companies lean towards the big rather than little splash.

The Big Splash

Simply put, the big splash demands a significant debut; in terms of game releases, advertising support, and future promises. Releasing multiple titles at start certainly attracts attention. GMT burst onto the scene with three games, and definitely got people talking. Simultaneously, extensive advertising is needed. Full color, full page stuff in as many of the magazines as possible is the theme here. Again, reference GMT: Gene's ads were often on the back of Command, S & T, Moves and F & M, sometimes all at once. Inside front covers are also popular among big splashers, and color is imperative. Talking up the future is just as important. Many proposed topics need to be bandied about, to sustain long-term interest. This is not just a matter of laying out one's production schedule for the next six years and then continually talking about the same titles. More important than along-term framework is the excitement that new stuff creates. Periodically dropping in word of new, previously unannounced projects will rekindle little bursts of enthusiasm all over, rather like booster rockets on a launch vehicle. In wargaming, new = good. The really ambitious will also attempt to publish a house organ, usually bimonthly, to support the game line.

There is one more card to play in the Big Splash gambit: the overt SPI parallel. Announcing SPI remakes, etc., will definitely whip up interest. The most successful application of this technique is to start with some of the most popular old SPI games and update them. Many of the monster games, especially, could use extensive development to finish them off. This is not a difficult task since most have had extensive home-brew surgery performed already. Those gamers are out there, eager to volunteer their ideas, expertise, and playtesting services to create truly classic games from such promising material. Ideally, this would also involve buying the SPI rights from TSR to use directly, though TSR appears reluctant to let them go. Still, all of these games could be legitimately redone without plagiarism, since the redevelopment work would radically modify them and there is no copyright on historical events.

There is one obvious downside to the Big Splash: money. Multiple game releases take cash up front to pay for the printing bills, before the cash-flow cycle begins. Bigger games will make more of an initial splash than little ones, but that simply adds to the cash front cost. What's worse, your first games are liable to be your most expensive per item because you have not yet learned all the tricks of the trade. Even more money goes into advertising, and color back covers don't come cheap. I'd guess that GMT spent between 10,000 and 20,000 dollars on ads in its first year based on what we know of the magazine advertising rates.

Beyond the cash, there are other pitfalls. You will not really know how good your games are until put before the public, no matter how much you test them. Failing to deliver promised quality can create a perception problem that can haunt you, no matter how much improvement you might make later. Ambitious production schedules will demand heavy work loads, and falling behind will result in game delivery delays that irritate customers. By choosing the Big Splash, you are deliberately bypassing any initial water-testing period and jumping into full scale production. This means that you need finished designs quickly to follow up initial releases, and an established playtesting network to keep the pipeline working. The Big Splash works on the theory that you have many of the answers already, and can assimilate the rest quickly.

Most dangerous of all is the overt SPI tactic. Besides all the above baggage, now you must meet the expectations of memories made rosy by ten years of selective recall. SPI has a martyr image in the hobby, and any new-company warts you might display magnify tremendously in comparison.

The Little Splash

I suspect only one thing really influences the decision to adopt the Little Splash instead of the big one: cash. For those ambitious types who do not have the dine To to dive in whole hog, the only recourse is a low profile effort. Its main points are a much less intensive release schedule and a lot less advertising. The very real benefits for the newcomer using this approach appear after the fact rather than before.

Initially, even the Little Splash requires some advertising. We spent about 4,000 dollars in our first 12 months. This is probably the minimum for creating some sort of name recognition. After that, we tapered off and conserved needed dollars. Our sales reached a plateau as well, since we were doing little to recruit new customers. We used this quiet period to improve rules editing and graphics. Advertising has always been a trade off, as we sought to find the right balance between dollars spent and extra sales generated by that expense. Of late, we have returned to a maintenance level of ads, usually one every two months.

Apart from money, there are other real benefits to the small approach. All the drawbacks given above, under the Big Splash heading, are positive points here. Just releasing your first game will give you a crash course in rules writing, a fact of life we discovered immediately. In 1988 and 1989, The Gamers, Inc., put out only three games, covering two series. All the while, we sweated out cash crunches, print production nightmares, and general blue periods. However, by the end of 1992, we have published our 14th game (not counting one reprint), 7 issues of Operations, and entertain solid hopes for the future. What we learned in those first two years was the difference between making good amateur games and solid, professional productions. That initial period was our boot camp.

The Game Company Part 2