SPI Infomercial from the late 70s

[Michael Emrys]

I definitely agree that the lighter fluid remark was directed toward strategic nukes. What I am less sure of was what provoked the remark. Maybe he was just rambling.

Michael

[Affentitten]

In retrospect, I think pushing so many games out the door—including quite a few that should never have made it all the way to the press—in the end cost them a whole lot of money. The cost of printing and storing so many non-sellers may have been the margin that drove the original company under. Cest la vie, cest la guerre.

Michael

Especially stuff like Campaign for North Africa, which would have cost them a fortune in development and manufacturing, but which were completely unplayable due to their size and complexity. It's like there was no review process or anything remotely like project management.

[Michael Emrys]

It's like there was no review process or anything remotely like project management.

Exactly. There were dozens of games that must have flashed LOSER! in bright red neon from a very early stage either because in the form they were emerging they simply weren't very interesting, or because the workload they placed on players was unsupportable. But it took someone with some sense wielding the ax decisively if tactfully, and apparently that person was not present. I think the emphasis rather was focussed on getting as many games on as many subject out to the public as possible and let the public vote on them. Well...the public voted...and SPI went down the drain.

Michael

[Affentitten]

The problem with letting the public vote (or at least making that the major criteria) is what your sampling error is going to be and whether opinion translates into purchase. So if 150 people register the fact that they "would like to see" a game about some obscure battle in the Hannoverian Succession, that means a **** load of poeple who haven't expressed interest. And then you better hope that all of those 150 plus many more are actually going to stump up the money and buy the game instead of any one of the hundreds of other titles you're pushing!

[Michael Emrys]

By letting the public vote, I meant vote by purchasing. When the games began to stack up in the warehouse unsold, SPI might have begun to notice some trends and made some corrections to their policies. In fact, I think they did do that to an extent, but it was too little too late. And I think they let their own predilections color their reading of the trends.

Not saying that I wouldn't have done the same, but having a slightly different set of predilections, the outcome might have looked a lot different. Who knows...?

Michael

[Affentitten]

By letting the public vote, I meant vote by purchasing.

I was referring to the polling that SPI did through S&T feedback questionnaires about what games readers would be interested in. But ultimately, your retail voting is the final argument.

It's interesting that many of the 70s/80s gaming houses (be they wargame or RPG) went through a similar meteoric rise and then spectacular and debt ridden crash. Over development of catalogues and fragmentation of market shares seem to be common themes. These firms always seemed to be run by guys who were game geniuses but business imbeciles, underscored by a healthy dose of megalomania, plus early nepotism that then finished in poisonous legal cases.

[Michael Emrys]

I was referring to the polling that SPI did through S&T feedback questionnaires about what games readers would be interested in.

Yeah, I got that. I guess I should have been more explicit in my original posting that that was not what I was referring to.

The poling was, I think, misleading or of only limited usefulness. SPI would present an idea and for sure there would be responders who would say "Go for it." Unless it were truly awful, merely disinterested players would not bother to respond. That meant that of course for almost any idea there would be mostly positive feedback. Now, SPI may have been a bit wiser in interpreting feedback than merely counting for/against, but I'm not seeing much proof of that.

BTW, I think the remainder of your comments about the industry in general during the '70s-'80s are right on. There were also some "companies" that were virtually one-man bands who put together and published a game on a pet topic and then vanished. Those sort of remind me of pop groups who have one hit song and then vanish beneath the waves of their own mediocrity.

Michael

[Pak_43]

GMT games do their P500 list to do exactly this don't they? They put a game up on their list and if it gets 500 pre-orders then they will do a run. Seems eminently sensible to me?

http://www.gmtgames.com/t-GMTP500Details.aspx

[Michael Emrys]

Seems eminently sensible to me?

I'd say so.

Michael

[Wilhammer]

GMT games do their P500 list to do exactly this don't they? They put a game up on their list and if it gets 500 pre-orders then they will do a run. Seems eminently sensible to me?

http://www.gmtgames.com/t-GMTP500Details.aspx

I have obtained at least 10 games using this system. works very well - only one turkey, and it was not a wargame per se - Blackbeard.

This pre-order system is used by others as well - MMP does it, and I got three games last year using theirs.

[dieseltaylor]

Nice to see another boardgamegeeker.!

I sometimes wonder if , rather like books, some people have one great novel/game in them. After that it might be something that is commercially compromised. Perhaps we ned wealthy patrons like the Medici or appreciates the art of great game making.

Sponsoring chess just seems a waste! : )

[Blackhorse]

boardgamegeek (BGG) is awesome.