Giving gamers what they want

[eddysterckx@hotmail.com]

Hi,

On Consimworld GMT's Gene Billingsley talks pretty openly about the
success of their P500 system. For those who are not familiar with it :
gamers commit to buying a game but it only actually gets produced when
it hits the 500 sold mark.

http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?14@@.1dd12acb/9844

Now I've proposed the P500 idea in here before and it was universally
considered a Bad Idea (tm), but pig-headed as I am I'm now looking for
a different angle to make the sales pitch

GMT reckons their success is due to 4 principles of which 3 are key
principles in the pc wargame world as well, but the 4th is not :

"Ability to listen to our customers and discern which new games most
appeal to them"

The P500 system was simply made for that : it's not only asking gamers
which games most appeal to them, but at the same time gauging the
seriousness of their interest by making them put their money where
their mouth is.

What you see on every pc wargame publisher's forum as to what
interests their customers have is worth zero from a statistical and
analytical pov. Since a lot of developers are currently feeling the
commercial crunch it's not a smart option anymore to adopt an "if you
build it they will come" attitude to picking the subject of your next
game.

Also, given the limited resources of publishers : how do they answer
the perennial question of which games in development are going to get
priority treatment ?

Giving priority to creating games that are in demand and making sure
the gamers put their money where their mouth is - whether by P500 or
by some other pre-order system - should give everyone on the
developing end of the business a better feel for the market.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <1173871019.660441.129820@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups. com>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...

> Giving priority to creating games that are in demand and making sure
> the gamers put their money where their mouth is - whether by P500 or
> by some other pre-order system - should give everyone on the
> developing end of the business a better feel for the market.

If we accept the data Arjuna proposed, won't we have to call it the
P5000 system? Or P10000?

--
Giftzwerg
***
"A front-page story in The Post last week suggested that the Bush
administration has no backup plan in case the surge in Iraq doesn't
work. I wonder if The Post and other newspapers have a backup plan in
case it does."
- Robert Kagan

[eddysterckx@hotmail.com]

On 14 mrt, 12:49, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <1173871019.660441.129...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups. com>,
> eddyster...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > Giving priority to creating games that are in demand and making sure
> > the gamers put their money where their mouth is - whether by P500 or
> > by some other pre-order system - should give everyone on the
> > developing end of the business a better feel for the market.
>
> If we accept the data Arjuna proposed, won't we have to call it the
> P5000 system? Or P10000?

That's correct when we're talking full-time developers - but there are
a lot of part-time developers too. Ok, I realize that part of their
drive is to make "the wargame they always wanted to make" but most
developers are usually not 1-idea guys.

So what drives a guy like Gary Grigsby to decide he's going to put
that monster Eastern Front game on the backburner and concentrate on
Carrier Strike first ? Whatever it is, it can't have been consumer
input.

Or, giving an example more closer to home : how can Mike Kreuzer gauge
interest for his Afrika game so he can be reasonably sure he can
handle it all without a publisher ? Or maybe he should concentrate on
Springform ... if only he *knew* which one was more in demand ...

I'm not someone who puts much faith in asking the gamers what they
want style "dear gamer, would you like a game about ..." - "oh - yeah,
I'd love that" is all the reaction you're going to get - and it's what
caused the downfall of SPI - but if you make them put their money on
the line it becomes a different story. The incentive for the gamer to
do so must also be clear : get the game cheaper by what is in essence
a pre-order system. And if it's organized at the publisher level and
the game gets cancelled/postponed for too long allow the gamer to
switch his preference/money to another game or cancel the pre-order.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Charles Foster Kane]

eddysterckx@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Consimworld GMT's Gene Billingsley talks pretty openly about the
> success of their P500 system. For those who are not familiar with it :
> gamers commit to buying a game but it only actually gets produced when
> it hits the 500 sold mark.
My experience with free market forces indicate that paying for something
before it is made often results in mediocre products, because there is
no incentive for the producer to excel. This of course is less of a
concern when the producer has a proven track record of delivering good
stuff. E.g. it's probably pretty safe to pre-order the next generation
Audi, BMW or Mercedes long before you can test-drive one. ;-)

> GMT reckons their success is due to 4 principles of which 3 are key
> principles in the pc wargame world as well, but the 4th is not :
>
> "Ability to listen to our customers and discern which new games most
> appeal to them"
But down to which level will the game description be? Is it on the level
of "We have concepts for 'Caesar in Gallia', for 'Key battles of the 30
year war', and for 'The Rise of Prussia'. However we only have resources
to do one of them, so whichever game gets 500 pre-orders first will be
made first."? But that's not enough detail, because customer 1 may want
to micromanage each 3D cohort in a Caesar game, whereas customer 2
prefers the campaign aspects, resource management and wants counters on
a hex map. Actually, customer 1 may rather purchase a Prussia
micromanagement game than a Caesar campaign game despite preferring
antique battles in general.

Will a game company have to list a dozen alternative approaches to the
Caesar games, plus another dozen for the Prussia games etc.?

The one situation where I can imagine this might work is if the decision
is about which "add-on" to develop for a known engine. If "Caesar in
Gallia" is already out, then it could make sense to ask whether "Caesar
in Spain" or "Caesar in Egypt" or "Hannibal ante portas" should be next.

[eddysterckx@hotmail.com]

On 14 mrt, 14:00, Charles Foster Kane <cf_k...@online.de> wrote:
>
> My experience with free market forces indicate that paying for something
> before it is made often results in mediocre products, because there is
> no incentive for the producer to excel.

Hmmm, good point

>This of course is less of a
> concern when the producer has a proven track record of delivering good
> stuff.

That's exactly what drives sales in the first week - there's no way
buyers have all the information needed to make an accurate buy/no buy
decision - it's a leap of faith based on subject and developer


> E.g. it's probably pretty safe to pre-order the next generation
> Audi, BMW or Mercedes long before you can test-drive one. ;-)

Ooooh, I know a couple of first generation, Portugal produced,
Mercedes A owners who'd disagree with that :)

> But down to which level will the game description be? Is it on the level
> of "We have concepts for 'Caesar in Gallia', for 'Key battles of the 30
> year war', and for 'The Rise of Prussia'. However we only have resources
> to do one of them, so whichever game gets 500 pre-orders first will be
> made first."? But that's not enough detail, because customer 1 may want
> to micromanage each 3D cohort in a Caesar game, whereas customer 2
> prefers the campaign aspects, resource management and wants counters on
> a hex map. Actually, customer 1 may rather purchase a Prussia
> micromanagement game than a Caesar campaign game despite preferring
> antique battles in general.

So developers who do their homework and produce a coherent design
document with concept graphics will get more people to commit ? Well,
that seems to work for ok for GMT.

> The one situation where I can imagine this might work is if the decision
> is about which "add-on" to develop for a known engine. If "Caesar in
> Gallia" is already out, then it could make sense to ask whether "Caesar
> in Spain" or "Caesar in Egypt" or "Hannibal ante portas" should be next.

I'm afraid it all comes down to a change in attitude as well. I'm not
saying they're in the majority, but a lot of pc wargame developers act
like prima donnas whereas the economic pinch has forced boardgame
developers to become more responsive to market demands. It doesn't
take a fortune-teller to predict what's going to happen in the pc
wargame world in the near future.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Mark Sterner]

<eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173874388.466703.284230@e65g2000hsc.googlegr oups.com...

> I'm not someone who puts much faith in asking the gamers what they
> want style "dear gamer, would you like a game about ..." - "oh - yeah,
> I'd love that" is all the reaction you're going to get - and it's what
> caused the downfall of SPI - but if you make them put their money on
> the line it becomes a different story. The incentive for the gamer to
> do so must also be clear : get the game cheaper by what is in essence
> a pre-order system. And if it's organized at the publisher level and
> the game gets cancelled/postponed for too long allow the gamer to
> switch his preference/money to another game or cancel the pre-order.

I agree with you Eddy, although it should be noted that GMT doesn't charge
for the preorder until the game is published. Up until it's charged, the
gamer *can* cancel his preorder. Few gamers would actually shell out money
(as opposed to a "pledge") years prior to publication.

But other than that, a P-500 type plan would definitely be a better vehicle
to help designers and publishers gauge interest.

[mipec1@gmail.com]

P-500 sounds like a great idea, Eddy. But I doubt it will work for
computer wargames.

The biggest problem is that many people - including a lot on this
newsgroup - won't buy until they've seen a demo, or a preview/review,
or just first impressions on a forum. Or, they'll wait until the first
three patches come out.

P-500 works for paper games because the customers know what they're
getting. The game mechanics haven't changed that much over the years
(hexes, zones of control, etc.). And even when they have, like card-
based games, you can take a good guess what you'll get. It helps that
a lot of paper designers now post the rules on their Web sites. On the
other hand, we've all had computer that didn't resemble what was
promised, or lacked key features ("Trust us. We will add PBEM
functionality in the next patch.).

Also remember that P-500 works because it's a ridiculously low number.
You would need at least 5,000 pre-orders for a computer sim. Given how
people who pre-order will bitch when a game is three months late, let
alone three years, it may be more hassle for the designer than it's
worth.

P-500 would work best for a stable series like the HPS Panzer
Campaigns, where you know exactly what you'll get (because it will be
the same thing you got last time)

Michael

[dannylamb@gmail.com]

On Mar 14, 2:18 pm, mip...@gmail.com wrote:

> a lot of paper designers now post the rules on their Web sites. On the
> other hand, we've all had computer that didn't resemble what was
> promised, or lacked key features ("Trust us. We will add PBEM
> functionality in the next patch.).

Good point -

Or that it was really buggy / unplayable.

I also would tend to think that few would be motivated under this
system to design the next cross-over smash hit that generates a slew
of new wargamers. It would just encourage a lot of safe, derivative
game designs, but do nothing to expand the niche. Not that that isn't
already happening.

[Ralph Trickey]

<eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173879303.810879.185070@l75g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> On 14 mrt, 14:00, Charles Foster Kane <cf_k...@online.de> wrote:
>>
>> My experience with free market forces indicate that paying for something
>> before it is made often results in mediocre products, because there is
>> no incentive for the producer to excel.
>
> Hmmm, good point
>
>> But down to which level will the game description be? Is it on the level
>> of "We have concepts for 'Caesar in Gallia', for 'Key battles of the 30
>> year war', and for 'The Rise of Prussia'. However we only have resources
>> to do one of them, so whichever game gets 500 pre-orders first will be
>> made first."? But that's not enough detail, because customer 1 may want
>> to micromanage each 3D cohort in a Caesar game, whereas customer 2
>> prefers the campaign aspects, resource management and wants counters on
>> a hex map. Actually, customer 1 may rather purchase a Prussia
>> micromanagement game than a Caesar campaign game despite preferring
>> antique battles in general.
>
> So developers who do their homework and produce a coherent design
> document with concept graphics will get more people to commit ? Well,
> that seems to work for ok for GMT.
>
I've got $500 that says that the professional that produces a coherent
design document is going to be more likely to be on time and on budget.

The bigger issue is the lead time. I'm willing to bet that the lead times
for the boardgames are a lot less than the 2 years or whatever that are
required to produce a computer game.

Adapting that system to professional scenarios for TOAW or COTA or for other
similar games is a neat idea, though.

[eddysterckx@hotmail.com]

On 15 mrt, 05:06, "Ralph Trickey" <ralphtric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173879303.810879.185070@l75g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 14 mrt, 14:00, Charles Foster Kane <cf_k...@online.de> wrote:
>
> >> My experience with free market forces indicate that paying for something
> >> before it is made often results in mediocre products, because there is
> >> no incentive for the producer to excel.
>
> > Hmmm, good point
>
> >> But down to which level will the game description be? Is it on the level
> >> of "We have concepts for 'Caesar in Gallia', for 'Key battles of the 30
> >> year war', and for 'The Rise of Prussia'. However we only have resources
> >> to do one of them, so whichever game gets 500 pre-orders first will be
> >> made first."? But that's not enough detail, because customer 1 may want
> >> to micromanage each 3D cohort in a Caesar game, whereas customer 2
> >> prefers the campaign aspects, resource management and wants counters on
> >> a hex map. Actually, customer 1 may rather purchase a Prussia
> >> micromanagement game than a Caesar campaign game despite preferring
> >> antique battles in general.
>
> > So developers who do their homework and produce a coherent design
> > document with concept graphics will get more people to commit ? Well,
> > that seems to work for ok for GMT.
>
> I've got $500 that says that the professional that produces a coherent
> design document is going to be more likely to be on time and on budget.

You won't find many takers here :)

> The bigger issue is the lead time. I'm willing to bet that the lead times
> for the boardgames are a lot less than the 2 years or whatever that are
> required to produce a computer game.

Good point, but the wargaming world is and was always a bit engine
based. If an initial game does well, you can almost always expect a
sequel set in a different theatre or era.

Now, there may be good reasons why a developer picks his next setting
himself, and in the case of Panther Games, there is one - but on what
basis is the next HPS Ancient Battles game picked ?

Do they know what's going to be more popular ? Alexander the Great's
campaign, Caesar & Pompeius or even the Assyrians or Hittites - I
dunno, do they ?

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Frank E]

On 14 Mar 2007 04:16:59 -0700, "eddysterckx@hotmail.com"
<eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>On Consimworld GMT's Gene Billingsley talks pretty openly about the
>success of their P500 system. For those who are not familiar with it :
>gamers commit to buying a game but it only actually gets produced when
>it hits the 500 sold mark.
>
>http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?14@@.1dd12acb/9844
>
>Now I've proposed the P500 idea in here before and it was universally
>considered a Bad Idea (tm), but pig-headed as I am I'm now looking for
>a different angle to make the sales pitch
>
>GMT reckons their success is due to 4 principles of which 3 are key
>principles in the pc wargame world as well, but the 4th is not :
>
>"Ability to listen to our customers and discern which new games most
>appeal to them"
>
>The P500 system was simply made for that : it's not only asking gamers
>which games most appeal to them, but at the same time gauging the
>seriousness of their interest by making them put their money where
>their mouth is.
>
>What you see on every pc wargame publisher's forum as to what
>interests their customers have is worth zero from a statistical and
>analytical pov.

I think that you're making this too complicated. I don't think that
the preferences of board and PC wargamers vary all that much when it
comes to time period of games, etc.

.... I'm also a firm believer in the axiom that it's usually easier
to steal a good idea from the competition than to come up with it on
your own, So, if you're a small PC developer and you know that PC
gamers aren't going to pony up cash for a game that isn't even in
development yet (others have pointed out why that ain't gonna happen)
why not just keep an eye on the boardgame developers and see what
games they're developing under this system. It should give you a
pretty good idea of what wargamers are interested in.

Rgds, Frank

[Mike Cox]

<eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173871019.660441.129820@y66g2000hsf.googlegr oups.com...
> Hi,
>
One of the ideas kicking about on CSW for GMT is autographed copies to the
first 100 early pledges. Speaking of autographed copies, shouldn't you be
playtesting away on Battles from the Bulge? Gone gold yet? ;^) (Been
waiting to work that in on topic a while.)

ps can Scooter Libby be blamed for any production delays on the project?

[Arjuna]

On Mar 16, 4:01 am, "Mike Cox" <n0_spamTHX_sch-mich...@vom.com> wrote:
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173871019.660441.129820@y66g2000hsf.googlegr oups.com...> Hi,
>
> One of the ideas kicking about on CSW for GMT is autographed copies to the
> first 100 early pledges. Speaking of autographed copies, shouldn't you be
> playtesting away on Battles from the Bulge? Gone gold yet? ;^) (Been
> waiting to work that in on topic a while.)
>
> ps can Scooter Libby be blamed for any production delays on the project?

LOL...no Scooter Libby can't be blamed for that as we're Australian's
and why our Prime Minister might be prepared do anything you guys ask,
we here are a little more discerning. ;)

And go easy on Eddy, he's been doing valuable playtesting for us but
not on BFTB. We hope to put out our first BFTB build in the next week.
I'm just waiting on some new map patterns and the finalisation of the
first cut of all the data content - maps, estabs, scenarios. We've
finished the overhaul of the forceGroup class, cut and paste feature
for the MapMaker and mods to the weather - to cater for that atrocious
Belgium weather that Eddy so loves ;). I've finished two of the new
task options including the Ignore Basing one, which took a lot longer
to get right than originally estimated. But overall it's coming along
nicely now.

[eddysterckx@hotmail.com]

On 16 mrt, 00:11, "Arjuna" <d...@panthergames.com> wrote:

> And go easy on Eddy, he's been doing valuable playtesting for us but
> not on BFTB.

<nosey Eddy mode>
Oh, yeah, and what game might that be ?

<add speculation>
Well, it *obviously* can't be COTA so there's a new game in the works
- right ? - from a typo in an unconfirmed rumour posted by someone who
knows the cleaning lady of Panther Games HQ who alledgedly saw some
sand on your desk it's gotta be North African Highway (NAH) :)

</add speculations
</nosey Eddy mode>

> We hope to put out our first BFTB build in the next week.
> I'm just waiting on some new map patterns

Richard has already posted some screenshots of the Bastogne map and
such but I'm waiting for the specific Bulge patterns to annoy people
here with links to production level ones.

> to cater for that atrocious
> Belgium weather that Eddy so loves ;).

Global Warming - can't wait for it to really kick in :)

> But overall it's coming along nicely now.

Well, says you ! :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx