Well, my first stab at figuring out where the cattle herd was headed was wrong. In the last issue, I predicted that the next game craze was going to be an Eastern Front one, silly me. In my usual unorthodox state of bliss, I managed to ignore that monster befuddling the conventional wisdom: the Great Game Glut. One must understand that such "wisdom" directs the thinking (for lack of a better term) of the mob.

Over 60 games were produced in the United States last year. That's alot of games. When coupled to the fact that fully 34% of them carne from firms not exactly noted for their stellar track records, you can easily end up with something on the order of 20 to 30 games which are sheer caca to any one game player--probably more given the selective tastes of game players--and numerous borderline models. As any game player knows (game companies are a bit slower on the uptake), there is always a glut of caca-one such game generates a glut.

"Glut Theory" would have us believe that with but a finite number of gaming dollars to be spent each year, with a greater number of games, the portion for each game is driven downward into dangerous levels. Bull. That logic assumes an equal spread of the potential purchase dollars. That game consumers are unthinking robots who don't care about quality and service and will unthinkingly spread their purchases across the board. You and I know better.

With a large number of games available, each game purchaser's hard earned cash will be spent on the products he thinks are best. The good products will attract the dollars, the poor ones won't. For those manufacturers who didn't pay attention at school, that will come as something of a shock and their earnings will drop rapidly unless they make substantial improvements. This most will not do. They will instead blame their misfortune on the great game glut and raise the gloom level even more.

I fully believe that companies with consistent track records of producing popular games with a high level of quality will gamer more than their 'fair' share of those limited dollars. This draw will be away from other companies who are not so disposed. They will have trouble making ends meet and (surprise, surprise) the basic laws of business will force the closure of firms unwilling or unable to compete effectively.

Several companies are already so worried about this glut thing that they are down-sizing to meet it. They are (as far as I can tell) doing this by the illogical method of producing as many games as before, but printing fewer copies of each! In. other words, to counter a glut of tides, they are going to keep producing as many as they can make, but will instead raise the unit cost to produce them by cutting the print run. Confused? So am I. If there is indeed a 'Great Game Glut' and you assume it is a bad thing (I don't---anything that gives the game buyer more selection to choose from is a good thing), wouldn't cutting back on the number of titles produced be a better plan? That's what I thought.

Part of what is driving that thought is the constant demand for new products. A full scale game today probably doesn't have a shelf life of more than a couple of months (possibly even mere weeks!). Given the intense amount of effort required of every game (good or bad), this period of useful sales is much too short. I'm not really sure of how to correct this fact-and I'm all ears for ideas. The "new product bent" is driven in part by the numerous game outlets who are much more used to the selling of things like comic books which have little or no shelf life at all. These outlets are in an industry where every month many new products are released for them to sell. To them, the game industry is (in a word) weird.

I think the company who is chopping their print-runs, yet producing the same number (or more) titles per year has given up on producing finely crafted games which will go forth and sell beyond some minimal maintenance level. They expect each title to sell the ,standard' amount and little, if any, more. Therefore, to cut losses due to inventory, they produce fewer of each title. Each title (on the other hand) generates another 'batch x of sales that can be counted on. So why make more or produce games which will attempt to do more than the minimums? I hope the concerned consumer, voting with his checkbook and credit card, will give them some reason to think about.

I am amazed that in a few short years we went from a barren plain of new games, through 'golden age #2', all the way to the great, evil, game glut. I don't think the number of games being produced these days is a problem, instead, I feel that the intelligent game buyer out there will make his choices carefully with his hard-earned money and the overall best firms will benefit. nose who can't compete (or who don't think they should have to) will, of course, whine. A few will fail, some will learn, all will wise up. The customer Is king, and I think some folks are about to be reminded of that fact.

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