Jim Dunnigan - Game Industry Ghosts from Christmas past [Archive]

Lempereur1

03 Mar 06, 20:50

Dunnigan told me that the main reason that SPI folded was that the reorders for the large format games, i.e War in Europe, War Between the States, Wact Am Rhine, etc could not be filled because of being out of stock on half the components. They had grown so large that they lost control of the inventory.

They had too many of the small format games in stock and not enough of the larger, higher margin big box games. By the time the reorders climbed high enough, the printing bills broke the bank. (Just like the first Avalon Hill).

"I cant tell you how many startup wargame companies failed because they printed 10,000 copies of thier first game to get the volume price break on printing and never sold more than 1000 pieces."

I sat and listened at length to the story about a long time industry board game developer/publisher showed up at the SPI Whse as it was being liquidated. TSR had not taken over yet (they were the largest creditor) and the guy was buying up cases of games for .03 on the dollar.

For years after that, this person had the largest inventory of SPI games for sale in the world. Dunnigan said that they were throwing away boxes and boxes of S&Ts, Fire and Moves, etc...:OHNO:

Kadeen

04 Mar 06, 21:10

I worked for Jim during the "Golden Era" of SPI, and Test Series Games before that. I play tested everything from Panzerblitz to France 40, and just about everything in between. I also did a lot of the artwork prior to Red Simonsen, and I use the term artwork very loosely. Jim was one of the most prolific and innovative people in the field, and essentially invented modern wargaming (the concept not the era). As many of you may know Red passed away last year after a long illness, and he is dearly missed by all who knew him. Many other people emerged from their internship at SPI into successful careers, including the outstanding historian David C. Isby, International Chess Grandmaster Nick Mafeo, and many others. Jim's Jutland game would be a great one to model the hoped for followup to Distant Guns, which just keeps looking better all the time. I think you guys made a great decision including the campaign game. My son and I are looking forward to battling it out long into the night once it comes out (although if it goes anything like the other games we have played, he will probably kick my ass sometime in the early evening!). Best of luck!

Rob

Lempereur1

05 Mar 06, 19:34

I am still amazed at the talent that went throught SPI and to a smaller degree, Avalon Hill.

Some that come to mind are:

Mark Herman - Went on to form Victory Games with AH and now develops scenarios of all types for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Greg Costikian - Perhaps the best Fantasy Board Wargame ever made, Swords & Sorcery, is now a major force in cell phone games.

Eric Goldberg - Anothger major force in cell phone game development.

Just to name a few!

Kadeen

05 Mar 06, 22:50

You know Jim, that picture of Napoleon looks a lot like Dunnigan circa 1970. He had a lot more hair back then.................CRAP, so did I!

Don Maddox

06 Mar 06, 00:15

Let's not talk about hair! I don't have much, but I find that I don't really need it either.

Ivan Rapkinov

06 Mar 06, 01:34

Greg Costikian - Perhaps the best Fantasy Board Wargame ever made, Swords & Sorcery, is now a major force in cell phone games.

Has gone on to form Man!festo Games which I'm watching closely to see what sort of products they'll turn out.

in any case, his blog is a very good read :)

cwmark

09 Mar 06, 10:01

My first SPI game was Starforce for all of $8.00 at the time. But my most bittersweet memory was playing Highway to the Reich monster game as the British 30th Corps.

Lined up ALL of my artillery hub-to-hub in a Napoleonic style grand battery and blasted my way up that "this is the wide part" road. Net result XXX Corps was merely late getting to the paratroopers in Arhnem - instead of being catastrophically so.

Then I heard a nasty rumor SPI didn't really playtest their monster game all that thoroughly.

Custer6

16 Apr 06, 18:03

Here is a link to a post made by Redmond Simonsen in the very early days of the net. I believe it to be very enlightening and very honest:

http://grognard.com/zines/so/so43.txt

Don Maddox

16 Apr 06, 19:47

Here is a link to a post made by Redmond Simonsen in the very early days of the net. I believe it to be very enlightening and very honest:

http://grognard.com/zines/so/so43.txt

I've heard parts of that story before, but this is the first time I've actually seen the article.

It's interesting to me that so many gamers sit idly on the sidelines while the companies they claim are "the good ones" go broke one after another. This is particularly true of wargamers as a group. They insist that everything should be readily available and either free or very very cheap, yet they also bitterly complain when the companies they occasionally buy games from go out of business.

Aries

16 Apr 06, 20:07

That was indeed a very interesting read. Brings back some years a long ways off now it seems.

He said some very interesting things.

It is possible, that computer wargames have too plateaued, and there might be no way to alter that.

Where we are today, might be as good as it gets for the time being.

Those wishing to invest today, would be wise to remember, that even our icons of the past, didn't have any easy breaks.

szilard

17 Apr 06, 07:01

I've heard parts of that story before, but this is the first time I've actually seen the article.

It's interesting to me that so many gamers sit idly on the sidelines while the companies they claim are "the good ones" go broke one after another. This is particularly true of wargamers as a group. They insist that everything should be readily available and either free or very very cheap, yet they also bitterly complain when the companies they occasionally buy games from go out of business.

I really don't understand this kind of comment. SPI went broke because of inadequate management, as Simonsen says in this message. Their strategy didn't match their capitalization, and they tried to do something about their capitalization too late, when the only people who would touch it were evidently loan sharks. It's a tediously familiar story; most small business failures look like that.

I find the notion that it was the fault of *bad customers* rather than *poor management* quite bizarre.

BTW, Greg Costikyan wrote an interesting death-of-SPI piece back in 1996: http://www.costik.com/spisins.html

Quote:

From 1977 onward, SPI's sales declined, mainly because of mismanagement. The dollar volume remained nearly constant; even in 1981, SPI (not publicly traded) was claiming an annual $2 million in sales, the same figure it had reported as early as 1975. But these were, of course, the years of double-digit inflation, so that SPI's income, in real terms, was declining year by year. In 1980, an internal struggle began at SPI, as many staff members strove to replace Jim Dunnigan as the company's manager. The name of Dunnigan had been virtually synonymous with SPI since its foundation; his personality, vigor, and intelligence had made it a success. Yet, like many entrepreneurs, he proved incapable of managing it as an ongoing business.

One problem was an inattention to marketing. SPI had, in the person of Howie Barasch, a capable marketing manager, but when he left SPI in the late 70s, he was never replaced, with Dunnigan ostensibly assuming his duties. But Dunnigan was overstretched himself, laboring sixty hour weeks keeping the place together and designing a big chunk of SPI's games. When Dunnigan was eventually replaced by Chris Wagner -- S&T's founder, by now a management consultant brought in to try to turn SPI around -- new management discovered that many of SPI's independent commissioned sales reps didn't realize they were still representing the company, and one thought SPI had gone out of business. Nobody had bothered to contact them for years.

Another failing was inadequate attention to financial details. New management discovered that SPI's highly successful line of Capsule games -- small, limited-component products sold for $6 -- actually lost money. Given distributor discounts, $6 would about cover the cost of shipping blank, white boxes without games inside them. The Capsule games had sold very well -- and SPI lost money on every one it sold.

Custer6

17 Apr 06, 10:56

It seems the demise of SPI is not completely told in one place. I only see snippets draped in shadows from the past. Looking from the outside, it seems Jim Dunigan, Brad Hessel, the big shots at TSR and Avalon Hill and the "Venture Capital" guys were the players involved in the end of SPI. I am unsure who or what put SPI in that position. It seems the biggest wargame company killer resulted in quick changes to the retail outlets. Avalon Hill went belly up in the early 60's as a result of change in the retail sector. SPI and others went belly up in the early 80's attempting to go heavy in retail. Many companies went down as a result of retail sales trouble in the early 90's and again in the late 90's. Now that paper wargaming seems to be using internet distribution, I think paper wargaming will see some stability. In fact, with DTP, net forums, company-customer net communication, ever increasing personal printer graphic printing ability and other factors, I think paper wargaming is better than ever. To be honest, I am more concerned about computer wargaming.

When I was a kid, I played Avalon Hill only and was not even aware of SPI or the others until right before SPI collapsed. I play almost all computer wargames today. Not sure why, but the saga of SPI interests me to this day.

Aries

17 Apr 06, 11:29

I likely couldn't program anything more complicated than a vcr, so computer wargames are right out of the picture, regardless of how much I "might" be able to design a decent board game.

I do have business experience, although Jim Dunnigan could likely run circles around me while suffering a migraine. He's got past experience.

If he was handed a million bucks and told "loan free Jim, try it again" what might he do different in today's world, knowing what he knows today, if the task was to launch a simple board game company.

It would be interesting to hear what variations he might take up.

Either way, as has been commented, the demise of AH, and SPI and TSR might all stem from companies that either got blind sided by chance, or they may simply have made bad choices, in a time when hind sight was not an option.

Today's board game makers CAN look at the past and state "we sure ain't doing what they did". AH and SPI didn't have that advantage.

In a strictly business sense, dollars and cents and nothing else, I regularly, yes regularly, see stores open, and all one can ponder is "did the owner think at all for even a second about what they were doing?"
Did the owner even have any training?
Does the owner have even the most basic business plan?

That's something I had pointed out to me during my own business training. That often a business IS opened WITHOUT even so much as a guideline, or a formal plan.
Seems preposterous, to risk all that debt, without even so much as a tangible plan on paper properly sorted out, but it DOES happen.

I have a friend, that is sitting on a likely inheritence that will be quite profitable if his parents continue along their current path. They own some healthy real estate for instance.
He's often mentioned one scheme or another to convert the money into some means by which he can defacto sit on his butt and not have to work as a result. It usually revolves around rental property.
Not entirely impossible, if he plans it correctly of course.
Then again, he could also be penniless in under a year and back where he started.
I have often tried to get him to sort out a proper business plan for running a computer repair operation. He's more natural talent than is the norm.

There are many ways, like the above, where a person can find themselves stuck in a position to initiate a small business. It CAN work, but, if the person hasn't really thought everything out, it is ALSO possible, it's just a strange way to throw away money over a short span of time.

Were AH and SPI originally doomed to fail? Was it just a matter of time, and they were merely lucky to have lasted as long as they did?
Those ARE fair questions.

It ISN'T the consumers responsibility to make a business stay in business.
Telling me, I either buy wargames gratefully from our few businesses that make wargames, or risk no wargames is patently idiotic Don. You know it too.
If I refuse to buy a car, I am NOT risking being able to buy one later. If Ford and GM go out of business, all that has happened, is my chances of getting a Ford or a GM have disappeared. At which point, my choice becomes Honda Toyota or Volvo perhaps.

The current businesses in business making wargames, are responsible for their vitality, not mine. And if they go under from bad choices, they are only making way for the next guy who might have passed on the choice from there being too much competition.
As it goes, there is enough competition, that I wouldn't try making a conventional wargame in either board or computer formats, simply because we currently have enough out there doing it.

Wargaming dying, always a good chuckle.
Wargamers aging, also a good notional chuckle.
I still see new wargames (enough so that I wish I had more money).
And I still see young people interested in the wargaming scene, but wargaming evolves like everything else.
Miniatures was eclipsed by board gaming, and board games were forced to share the turf with computer games.
Tomorrow's threat could easily be something Star Trekish in the way of holographic experiences for all we know.
I don't expect any of today's wargame companies to still be in business in 20 years when I finally exit the scene though. If you are staking your future on board game wargames being eternal, you likely have made an error.

Don Maddox

17 Apr 06, 14:56

I really don't understand this kind of comment. SPI went broke because of inadequate management, as Simonsen says in this message. Their strategy didn't match their capitalization, and they tried to do something about their capitalization too late, when the only people who would touch it were evidently loan sharks.

No, I'm not saying it was the fault of the gamers that SPI went down. Nor am I saying that Avalon Hill's demise, or any other wargame company for that matter, was the fault of the gamers.

What I am saying is that many wargamers have grossly unrealistic expectations of both publishers and developers. Wargamers generally do not want to jump from game to game every six months, which places them in a very different position than hardcore gamers of other genres. Hardcore gamers of other types often spend massive amounts of money snapping up each new title that peaks their interest. In contrast, wargamers want the "ubergame" -- a game system they can play with for years to come, with tons of replay value and extra features. That's fine and dandy, but many game developers have learned NOT to create these types of games as they simply are not a viable revenue stream.

Even worse, grognards unfailingly insist that developers/publishers "support" a product by churning out what in essence amounts to free material. And if this extra material does not come at a steady pace and meet the highest standards of quality, the grogs will start in and won't let up.

Like it or not, wargamers are going to need to accept that fact that times have changed. Many of the best designers didn't die in their sleep or anything, they have simply abandoned this hobby and moved on to fields that actually pay.

Check out this reply from a developer on GameSpy:

GameSpy: First off, what is your definition of a hardcore gamer?

Laddie Ervin: Hardcore gamers play probably at least 3 to 5 times more than a casual gamer. They will buy or pirate 8-10 times more games and they tend to be game collectors rather than people who buy something and trade it in. It's more of a lifestyle, an emotional thing. They identify themselves as gamers; it's how they spend most of their recreational time. They prefer to be playing games.

GameSpy: How important is this hardcore gamer group to developers?

Ervin: It's very important to reach as many gamers as you can. If you're successful with the hardcore, very often they will pass on word to the people who aren't hardcore. You can have a megahit like that. For example, when GTA 3 first came out, the hardcore snapped it up, and they gave their endorsement to casual gamers. Normally, games break in with the hardcore push, unless you're dealing with a big marketing push where you don't go for the hardcore guys. There's anywhere between 500,000 to 750,000 hardcore gamers. If you're making a television push, let's say a game licensed from a movie, reaching hardcore guys isn't as important because you want to sell 1-2 million units. There aren't enough hardcore guys.

GameSpy: How much attention do you think developers give or should give to hardcore gamers?

Ervin: Right now, very little, because the types of games these guys get excited about are often the types of games that don't sell well. Very often you'll avoid marketing to them because no matter what you do they'll be unhappy. If a game isn't 40 hours long, very often the hardcore gamers will complain that the game was too short. Meanwhile, casual gamers complain that they only made it 20 percent of the way into the game before they lost interest or it got too hard.

GameSpy: How much influence do hardcore gamers have over the direction of the game industry?

Ervin: I think there are games made to attract casual gamers and games made to attract hardcore gamers. But... as games become even more expensive to create, there's going to be bigger bets placed on titles that appeal to a much wider audience because you can't target only the hardcore at that point or you'll go bankrupt.

http://www.gamespy.com/articles/701/701787p1.html

Custer6

17 Apr 06, 15:23

All this talk about SPI and what happened leads to one BIG question. Has anybody ever talked to or seen comments by Jim Dunnigan about the end of SPI? It seems he saw it all at SPI. Maybe he has made some comments on SPI now that time has given perspective. I understand Dunnigan is in his late 60's now. For such a prolific author, it sure would seem appropriate to see some sort of autobiography or "Story of SPI" article.

Roberts

17 Apr 06, 20:17

Here is a link to a post made by Redmond Simonsen in the very early days of the net. I believe it to be very enlightening and very honest:

http://grognard.com/zines/so/so43.txt

As I recall the game were great right up to the end.

Aries

17 Apr 06, 23:20

Don (didn't want to copy paste yer whole post by the way).

Can you expand on this part.

"Even worse, grognards unfailingly insist that developers/publishers "support" a product by churning out what in essence amounts to free material. And if this extra material does not come at a steady pace and meet the highest standards of quality, the grogs will start in and won't let up."

What is this "free material" you reference.

I know for instance, that it is unlikely anyone would much know the name Matrix Games, before when I discovered them. It was more like Matrix Game (singular) in the beginning, and they were what seemed to be mostly a free download of Steel Panthers World at War (a great expense in bandwidth I'm sure).
But advertising is a *****, and they seem to have really made good use out of all that publicity (being known for Steel Panthers World at War).
Not really sure, just how MUCH coin went out of David's pocket over that game though.

Your comment...

"What I am saying is that many wargamers have grossly unrealistic expectations of both publishers and developers."

I can support that in some cases. I have seen plenty of guys remark on the cost of wargames. I have to admit, I have done it in my own time. Sometimes, I think it is how a company might explain the costs that might be the issue. Or to put it another way, sometimes a company might not adequately explain WHY their game is X dollars, and not something in line with maybe a more mainstream company.
Example, WHY specifically is a Matrix Games game of the Normandy setting 60 bucks, while a Normandy setting game from HPS 40 bucks. Not that their prices are unjustified, just sometimes the consumer has no information to work with. Or the explanation is vague.

Wargamers seem fairly agressive where patches are concerned. I can't speak for the non wargaming world, I don't follow games and their patches as ruthlessly. For instance, I don't think I care as much if a more whimsical title like Age of Wonders has a patch out that fixes some "glitch". But, I am unlikely to jump at any wargame, that has attracted comments that some element spoils the game, and has yet to be addressed.

Being required to continue to patch a title, say 3 years into it's shelf life, I have no real idea what manner of expense on the time of the company, that endeavour entails.

Your comment...

"Hardcore gamers of other types often spend massive amounts of money snapping up each new title that peaks their interest. In contrast, wargamers want the "ubergame" -- a game system they can play with for years to come, with tons of replay value and extra features."

I think wargamers can be said to snatch up near every title that comes out, we just don't have as many titles to snatch up though.
I have seen lists of titles made for consoles since the beginning of the original Nintendo console. The list is a massively long list when you add all the consoles, and group the lists as one long non wargame listing.
The list of wargames since say 1990, isn't nearly as long. Not even a fraction.

But it is not relevant for me at least, whether the game is Worms, HOMM, or Steel Panthers. I never buy anything that has a finite usage duration. If a game is more or less a play it once story, I generally am not interested. For 50 bucks, I'll buy a book instead. It's a one way journey, but I'll likely enjoy it more. Maybe that means I am not a "hard core gamer".

I like to think it means I am "selective" and "discerning".
I like to get a game at a good price, but I am not afraid to pay a good price either. I just don't want to pay for something I know in advance WON'T be much good to have, after a power played it for a week.
Not when I can carefully buy a game for the same price, that likely will never stop delivering.

Thus, Civ IV good purchase.
Average shooter title, not really interested.

It IS possible to deliberately and with specific intent, release a steady stream of income makers without toooo much work. HPS seems to be doing ok with it's titles. Granted, they might try to in time, give some thought to making things like sounds a bit better as they go along. Their last PzC title's, sounds sound no better than their first.

Bullethead

18 Apr 06, 21:33

I find the notion that it was the fault of *bad customers* rather than *poor management* quite bizarre...........

Another failing was inadequate attention to financial details. New management discovered that SPI's highly successful line of Capsule games -- small, limited-component products sold for $6 -- actually lost money. Given distributor discounts, $6 would about cover the cost of shipping blank, white boxes without games inside them. The Capsule games had sold very well -- and SPI lost money on every one it sold.

Ah, those Capsule games. I LOVED 'em! :love: I bought nearly all of them, as well as many similarly sized and priced games by Steve Jackson, Metagaming, etc. I still have quite a few lying around, including the predreadnought "Fire When Ready" by Metagaming (anybody remember that?).

But that all being the case, I guess I really WAS a "*bad customer*", because I snapped up every SPI Capsule game I could get, and thereby drove SPI into bankruptcy :surprise:. Oh, the shame, the horror! :eek: If I'd only known, I would have stopped, and maybe SPI would still be here today. Oh damn you, szilard, HOW CAN I EVER LIVE WITH MYSELF NOW?!?!?!?! :mad:

Guess I'd better go hang myself once I finish this post. I mean, killing SPI was bad enough, even if it was an accident. It would now be the height of rudeness to bother the rest of you all with having to come lynch me :laugh:

Aries

19 Apr 06, 00:07

Ah, those Capsule games. I LOVED 'em! :love: I bought nearly all of them, as well as many similarly sized and priced games by Steve Jackson, Metagaming, etc. I still have quite a few lying around, including the predreadnought "Fire When Ready" by Metagaming (anybody remember that?).

But that all being the case, I guess I really WAS a "*bad customer*", because I snapped up every SPI Capsule game I could get, and thereby drove SPI into bankruptcy :surprise:. Oh, the shame, the horror! :eek: If I'd only known, I would have stopped, and maybe SPI would still be here today. Oh damn you, szilard, HOW CAN I EVER LIVE WITH MYSELF NOW?!?!?!?! :mad:

Guess I'd better go hang myself once I finish this post. I mean, killing SPI was bad enough, even if it was an accident. It would now be the height of rudeness to bother the rest of you all with having to come lynch me :laugh:

This I guess, is where being good at designing wargames, but poor at marketing wargames, leads to a loss in income.

Or in other words, if all you can do is design a wargame, and have no REAL skill at selling them, then all the phds and other sundry nice pieces of paper saying how great one is in historical knowledge and in software design
really ain't going to accomplish much when the bills come in.

On the surface, those capsule games were good. I guess they were not well thought out in the dollars and cents level though.

szilard

19 Apr 06, 00:25

No, I'm not saying it was the fault of the gamers that SPI went down. Nor am I saying that Avalon Hill's demise, or any other wargame company for that matter, was the fault of the gamers.

What I am saying is that many wargamers have grossly unrealistic expectations of both publishers and developers. Wargamers generally do not want to jump from game to game every six months, which places them in a very different position than hardcore gamers of other genres. Hardcore gamers of other types often spend massive amounts of money snapping up each new title that peaks their interest. In contrast, wargamers want the "ubergame" -- a game system they can play with for years to come, with tons of replay value and extra features. That's fine and dandy, but many game developers have learned NOT to create these types of games as they simply are not a viable revenue stream.

Even worse, grognards unfailingly insist that developers/publishers "support" a product by churning out what in essence amounts to free material. And if this extra material does not come at a steady pace and meet the highest standards of quality, the grogs will start in and won't let up.

Like it or not, wargamers are going to need to accept that fact that times have changed. Many of the best designers didn't die in their sleep or anything, they have simply abandoned this hobby and moved on to fields that actually pay.

I think this is wildly over-generalizing "grog" behavior. I mean, I probably count as one, and it doesn't describe me. But even if it were true, I still don't really understand the point.

Grogs, according to you, have certain requirements which must be met before they'll part with their $50 or whatever. It's simply a category confusion to call these requirements "grossly unrealistic" - the market might not be able to meet them, but they can't be unrealistic; they just are. If the market can't deliver, the grogs' $50 goes elsewhere to something which is worth $50 to them, and the developers/publishers try their hands at something else to make a buck. What's the problem?

I mean, if some particular grog were to jump up & down and demand as a right that the market deliver something to him for $50, you could call him unrealistic. But it's probably more efficient just to call him an idiot & ignore him.

Don Maddox

19 Apr 06, 10:55

I mean, if some particular grog were to jump up & down and demand as a right that the market deliver something to him for $50, you could call him unrealistic. But it's probably more efficient just to call him an idiot & ignore him.

No, he'll usually do it and demand that it be free.

I think this is wildly over-generalizing "grog" behavior. I mean, I probably count as one, and it doesn't describe me. But even if it were true, I still don't really understand the point.

Grogs, according to you, have certain requirements which must be met before they'll part with their $50 or whatever. It's simply a category confusion to call these requirements "grossly unrealistic" - the market might not be able to meet them, but they can't be unrealistic; they just are. If the market can't deliver, the grogs' $50 goes elsewhere to something which is worth $50 to them, and the developers/publishers try their hands at something else to make a buck. What's the problem?

In that post I was certainly over-generalizing. Nevertheless, there is a degree of truth to what I said.

The general consensus I am hearing here is that we -- the gamers and grognards -- are not part of this equation and don't deserve any of the blame. SPI, Avalon Hill, and too many others to mention were simply "mismanaged" companies that went under because the process of natural selection saw to it that they were "selected" for extinction. If that is so, then it's a good thing the market has rid itself of such poorly managed entities, and we're all better off for it.

If fact, you guys have convinced me and I stand corrected.

The forces of natural selection are hard at work within the wargaming hobby, and the pretenders and poorly managed wannabies are being weeded out one by one. That's the way business is supposed to work, and that's exactly what has happened. Companies with inferior products and/or business models go down in flames, while the innovative and progressive survive.

Aries

19 Apr 06, 11:48

"If fact, you guys have convinced me and I stand corrected.

The forces of natural selection are hard at work within the wargaming hobby, and the pretenders and poorly managed wannabies are being weeded out one by one. That's the way business is supposed to work, and that's exactly what has happened. Companies with inferior products and/or business models go down in flames, while the innovative and progressive survive."

Now who's being sarcastic :)

Life isn't about being fair Don. No one is spared from their bad ideas, screw ups and poor decisions. No one.

Make a great game, become famous, all fine and good. But, make a dumb choice, and watch it all go down the drain.

No game, no matter how great, will make a company impervious to failure.

I will (short of dropping dead) still be here tomorrow.
A company though, can't make bad decisions, and then blame the market.

Steel Panthers, easily a great game. SSI no longer exists.
TOAW, easily a great game, Talonsoft no longer exists.
Squad Leader, easily a great game, Avalon Hill no longer exists.

Get the picture? No matter how great your game, no matter how many sales you make, your time CAN come.

THAT is something MMP better get through their thick head too.
ASLRB 2nd Edition. No matter how great a job they did, it won't prevent them from going tits up if they screw up.

And NO, it won't be any grognards fault if they don't see company X in business next year.

I am just a consumer, I buy things IF and WHEN I feel like it.
The second I am mistaken for a secure future, your future is in doubt.

I might never buy a single game from GMT. Does that mean I don't support GMT? No, it just means I have not had a need for anything they have put on sale. And that's ALL it means.

I have often wanted a gaming store, a place to attract local gamers to play whatever games on the premises.
I can assure you, regardless of whatever stock I tried to sell though, the front of the store is selling pop chips smokes and lottery tickets, whatever makes REGULAR income come into the business. I won't be risking the store's future on whether I can sell games on a consistent basis.

Best piece of advice I can offer wargame makers, have a real job too.

Don Maddox

19 Apr 06, 14:15

Aries

19 Apr 06, 15:38

As I said, Les, I stand corrected. Thanks for reminding me that I'm a capitalist.

I guess what I should have said in my original post was that attempting to please grognards as a way to run a business is a recipe for a stroke. And you are quite correct to point out that the market is a heartless place and always has been. Therefore, one can hardly blame the game companies for operating in the most ruthless fashion in order to survive.

Got a cigar here fer ya Don :)

"attempting to please grognards as a way to run a business is a recipe for a stroke."

Now that I will agree with.

Too many wargames of late (last 5 years) I think "might" have been a bit better "wargame" if they had been made with a bit narrower focus, but then chances are they might have also made fewer sales too.

Sudden Strike and Blitzkrieg are games I think are total crap hidden behind pretty graphics. All talk about realism, is in my opinion an outright attempt to just call some of us bloody stupid (assuming we are supposed to just believe the statement).
But, the games sell, because those that give a damn, are massively outnumbered by those that don't give a damn.
It's the same dynamics that Hollycrap uses to sell it's movies.
They quite frankly don't give a hoot if 1% of the audience can tear their film's accuracy to shreds, just so long as the other 99% doesn't care and shows up with their money.

Chances are, if I wanted to make lots of money making wargames, most of my effort would go into making games more suited to mainstream gamers too.
If I was able to right off the expense, settle for breaking even, and just doing it as a hobby sort of endeavour, then chances are, I would go with a grognard friendly design, and tell the "playability crowd" to go get their fix on another title.

Bullethead

19 Apr 06, 20:56

Sorry to disappoint everybody, but I've been too busy to hang myself since my last post. But don't buy those bus tickets to Lousy-Anna yet. Odds are, kharma will catch up with me before it catches up with you :).

Too many wargames of late (last 5 years) I think "might" have been a bit better "wargame" if they had been made with a bit narrower focus, but then chances are they might have also made fewer sales too.

Well, let's look at the "Combat Mission" series. These are widely respected as great wargames, and were very narrowly focused on the guns vs. armor, flesh, and morale things that so fascinate folks. And they did a very good job in these areas. However, they really fudged on supporting arms--arty and air--by their own admisssion. These arms have the potential to totally dominate the battlefield, but that would overshadow all the cool work they did on the "face to face" stuff that folks want to see played out. OK, that's a good decision for platoon- and company-scale actions, which wouldn't have much supporting arms and thus would allow all the tactical detail goodness to shine. However, the games also allow battallion- and regiment-sized battles, in which there would definitely be a very significant presence of supporting arms. But that's hamstrung by having to rely on the fudged system intended not to be overwhelming in skirmishes, and thus comes out very whimpy and over-priced in bigger battles. So is CMx a good "wargame" or not?

Aries

19 Apr 06, 22:16

"So is CMx a good "wargame" or not?"

That's a tough call Bullethead.

Sometimes great wargames go too far trying to offer too much, and the get crushed under their own weight.

Steel Panthers is awesome when kept small, a real chore though when the battles get to big.

Same with ASL, great as minor fights, but the major indulgence designs like Red Barricades can push the envelope of what is reasonable for the design.

Hentzau

24 Apr 06, 00:41

I just wish someone would put AI in the Blue & Gray Quads. ;)

vyshka

02 May 06, 14:16

Another SPI personality who has continued on since those days is Richard H Berg. He is still churning out games, and is quite active on the consimworld message boards.

saddletank

03 Jul 06, 15:21

Jim Dunnigan is the father of modern wargaming.

Sorry to drag up an old thread but I'd disagree with the above. Some of you won't believe me but I'm now 46 and have been a wargamer since I was 14 and I have never heard of Jim Dunnigan. The games he designed are what I'd call board wargames. To me wargaming was all about miniatures, and in my youth the fathers of wargaming here in the UK were men like Charles Grant, Donald Featherstone and Brigadier Peter Young. Before that it was H G Wells and on the naval side Fred T Jane.

I don't think I have ever played a board wargame I enjoyed as much as a miniatures game.

Just a different POV guys :)

Cheers, Martin

Bullethead

03 Jul 06, 22:03

Before that it was H G Wells and on the naval side Fred T Jane.

Have you ever played with Jane's rules? My miniatures group in college did it once in a while just for a different experience. The thing that sticks out in my mind is determining hits and armor penetration by putting a copy of the target's page from Jane's book on the floor and dropping pencils vertically on it from above, then seeing what part the pencil point landed on.

It was great fun for drunken college students without dates, but the funny part was mentally picturing professional RN officers doing the same thing, in full uniform and in all seriousness, trying to get an accurate gauge of potential future battles :D.

saddletank

05 Jul 06, 08:39

There was probably an element of usefullness in it. The cadets would get to know ship silhouettes and their sense of aim would improve :)

OTOH H G Wells' rules used Britains metal 54mm soldiers and their cast metal matchstick firing cannons. Grown men crawling around the floor pinging matchsticks about is no basis of training for war!

Lempereur1

06 Jul 06, 22:29

Custer6

07 Jul 06, 13:24

Howdy all! We are testing Release Candidate 1 and making last minute updates to our server! Almost there!:laugh:

I sat and talked at length with Jim Dunnigan over dinner at Maxwell Air Force Base. His comments about the end of SPI were:

"In the last three months of SPI, the orders were pouring in, but most of them were for out of stock items. The larger format games were very popular and because of the size, the run rates were low. Because we kept falling behind on back orders, our cash flow continued to drop. We had plenty of Tito!"

He continued "The printer was slow in filling the back orders, due to slower and slower payments from us. THe Battle of Britan printing finally did us in...."

A sad day for wargamers.:cry:

Now that he has some perspective, do you think he will ever write about the whole SPI experience? Not sure the audience size would be great, but I am certain the interest of some would be intense.

For someone that founded a company based on history, there is remarkably little history written about the company and industry itself.

Lempereur1

07 Jul 06, 23:39

vyshka

08 Jul 06, 00:17

Chris Crawford talks about a lot of his designs in his book "Chris Crawford on Game Design".

Custer6

08 Jul 06, 18:55

I ask him that once, and he did not think that the audience was big enough. The sad thing about it was that SPI went down right when computer wargaming was just taking off!

The reason that I got into game programing was to do wargames!

A close friend, Ed Frisky, told me about this new game he had seen at a new thing called the computer store. IT was 1981 and the game was called Eastern Front:1941. The programmer was a guy named Chris Crawford and the computer was called the Atari 800.

We went over to a new thing called a "Users Group" meeting to see whats was going on. THe game was there, in all its blinding Panzer Gleam!

IT was just like SPI's War in the East, or close enough!

BUT! THe amazing thing I saw there was this guy that was lecturing to the "users" about game programming! He had just started his own company and just shipped his first game called "Hell Cat Ace".

I talked at length with him, only to find out he too was a board wargamer that did not have the time any more to play. His ideas about game design and programming were remarkable, to saythe least.

This chance meeting changed my life.

This game developer was none other than Sid Mier!

As you can tell, I hae been eating this kind of candy for a long, long time!

PS: (Game is just about there!)
:nuts:

That post brings back such memories. Sometimes it is good to be old. I owned an Atari800 and played my first computer wargames on it. My first was a game from Avalon Hill that came with a Squad Leader mapboard and Squad Leader counters. You kept track of casualties on paper and the computer provided AI and rules monitoring.

For a time, in the early 80's, computer wargames were dominant in the market space. Mass market computer magazines not only featured computer wargames but had huge amounts of wargame content.

I remember reading a Gary Grigsby interview in which he said he would program one of his Atari 800 wargames in a long weekend. The SSI catalog was 16 pages of nothing but wargames.

What surprises me is that I first heard of the impending death of wargames in the early 80's. Twenty five years later, I still hear such talk. I think both computer and paper wargames are better than ever. I doubt they will ever be mass market, but to be selfish about it, with the advent of computer AI, and the net, I no longer care if wargames become a large industry.