Jeremy Ackerman-Yost
Explorer
How in the world would we get a representative sample?Umbran said:
A cross-section of the gaming community probably looks like an Escher...
[Slightly OT] Does sex really sell RPGs?
- Thread starter Fred Delles
- Start date
A cross-section of the gaming community probably looks like an Escher...
Celebrim
Legend
Well, it sold a HECK of alot of Vampire: The Masquerade, but in general, I don't think scantily clad chain mail babes on the cover do anything to increase the sales of an RPG.
You have to be alot more subtle than that. RPG players are naturally romantics. Sell them fantasies, not skin.
You have to be alot more subtle than that. RPG players are naturally romantics. Sell them fantasies, not skin.
madriel
First Post
I posted a semi-rant on this in the original Avalanche poll thread.
I don't want cheesecake covers on RPG books. I realize the guys like looking at semi-naked chicks, but they can go buy Playboy. I want covers that give me a feel for the contents. Cheesecake makes a product look unprofessional. All the women gamers I know won't buy products that advertise themselves with a fetishist's wet dream. I'll spend my hard-earned dollars elsewhere, thanks.
I don't want cheesecake covers on RPG books. I realize the guys like looking at semi-naked chicks, but they can go buy Playboy. I want covers that give me a feel for the contents. Cheesecake makes a product look unprofessional. All the women gamers I know won't buy products that advertise themselves with a fetishist's wet dream. I'll spend my hard-earned dollars elsewhere, thanks.
NoOneofConsequence
First Post
Selling by sex has been a feature of gaming for a long time - as long as I can remember at least.
I mean, who's the quintessential D&D artist? Surely Larry Elmore has a big shot at that title, and he's renowned for cheesecake (as well as beefcake). Most of the other contenders (such as Todd Lockwood, frex) have done their share of cheesecake. I know that in my secret, puerile, still-infantile parts of my mind, images like the AP covers sort of go "Ding!" and I do think to myself "Hey, if I was livin' this adventure for real, then her presence constitutes a plus!"
No, it's not politically correct. No, I don't by a product for the cheesecake. But who are we kidding? There is an undeniable and sexual beauty to the human form and most of us are drawn, at some level, to beauty.
To look at this another way, plenty of gaming art features armoured leviathans so heavily armed and armoured that they're in danger of dying of heat exhaustion at any minute. Why is unrealistic militarism or unrealistic brutality any more acceptable than unrealistic sexuality?
I mean, who's the quintessential D&D artist? Surely Larry Elmore has a big shot at that title, and he's renowned for cheesecake (as well as beefcake). Most of the other contenders (such as Todd Lockwood, frex) have done their share of cheesecake. I know that in my secret, puerile, still-infantile parts of my mind, images like the AP covers sort of go "Ding!" and I do think to myself "Hey, if I was livin' this adventure for real, then her presence constitutes a plus!"
No, it's not politically correct. No, I don't by a product for the cheesecake. But who are we kidding? There is an undeniable and sexual beauty to the human form and most of us are drawn, at some level, to beauty.
To look at this another way, plenty of gaming art features armoured leviathans so heavily armed and armoured that they're in danger of dying of heat exhaustion at any minute. Why is unrealistic militarism or unrealistic brutality any more acceptable than unrealistic sexuality?
I, personally, am not more inclined to purchase a magazine that has a scantilly clad person (man or woman) on the cover.
1) I find it unnecessary
2) (although to a much lesser extent) I find it difficult to need to explain to whomever sees it that it is a gaming magazine when it appears (at a quick glance) to be leery fantasy art.
As for the question, does sell really sell RPGs?
Well -- even if it does not directly sell the managzine (or book, or whatever) it does attract attention. If you see it on a shelf you may notice it more (out of disgust or interest) but you do notice it and, yes, you even talk about it (see -- we're talking about it now and have mentioned some publications specifically).
So even if it is the content that sells the publication, it is the "sex" on the cover that has attracted at least someone to it and generate some form of interest that they may read it or want it (for the cover or the content -- but the key being that you've caught their attention / interest).
It is basically the publishers view on making the front cover attractive. Rather than a plain cover (with stylized font / color) they have chosen the particular art that they have to interest potential readers. True, they could have chosen other art, but this is the art that they choose to use (be it because the publisher himself/herself likes it a lot or because they feel it will generate interest).
Mind you, all of the above are just my ramblings. I hardly ever make sense when I haven't slept though but hopefully my point is in there somewhere.
1) I find it unnecessary
2) (although to a much lesser extent) I find it difficult to need to explain to whomever sees it that it is a gaming magazine when it appears (at a quick glance) to be leery fantasy art.
As for the question, does sell really sell RPGs?
Well -- even if it does not directly sell the managzine (or book, or whatever) it does attract attention. If you see it on a shelf you may notice it more (out of disgust or interest) but you do notice it and, yes, you even talk about it (see -- we're talking about it now and have mentioned some publications specifically).
So even if it is the content that sells the publication, it is the "sex" on the cover that has attracted at least someone to it and generate some form of interest that they may read it or want it (for the cover or the content -- but the key being that you've caught their attention / interest).
It is basically the publishers view on making the front cover attractive. Rather than a plain cover (with stylized font / color) they have chosen the particular art that they have to interest potential readers. True, they could have chosen other art, but this is the art that they choose to use (be it because the publisher himself/herself likes it a lot or because they feel it will generate interest).
Mind you, all of the above are just my ramblings. I hardly ever make sense when I haven't slept though but hopefully my point is in there somewhere.
SHARK
First Post
Greetings!
Well, the stupid covers that Avalanche Press has on their products probably isn't the problem for them--or at least their biggest problem. Their biggest problem is the small supplements that they have put out that are merely mediocre-ok at best in quality and usefulness. I purchased the Constantinople module, and I haven't bought another Avalanche product again. Not that Constantinople was necessarily bad, because I don't think it was. I'm glad I got it, actually. However, I have expected modules that followed would be bigger and better, and they just haven't been. They've improved some, but they haven't improved enough and made a big enough statement to capture my spending money away from other publishers.
The fact that they can't avoid putting dumb sexist drawings on their modules that show half-naked women in the most inapproapriate poses, and often ethnically and clothing-wise entirely ill-suited for the module in question just serves to torpedo their products even more. Why not step out, do something different, like show some beautiful, muscular woman decked out in gleaming mithril plate-mail, and wielding a spear that burns like starfire as she gazes at the dragon approaching her? Or some other heroic and interesting looking drawing of beautiful women who are dressed and equipped approapriately to the situation? Alas, this seems to be beyond them, as in module after module, they make the same kind of covers.
At first, in the first bikini-clad module I saw, I thought, hmmm...heh, maybe they are just trying to be a little different. No big deal to me really, because I look for content over appearance in large measure. However, in module after module, the trend continued. It's quite done now, thankyou, and it isn't really appropriate.
So, I think it is an unfortunate marketing strategy that they seem bent on embracing, even though that I think it is inappropriate, and their real problems, their deeper problems, lie along the lines of content. It remains to be seen though if they will ever change such a dumb policy.
Trying to make sex sell with D&D is just dumb. How many 12 and 14 year olds play D&D? How much money do they have?
I don't hold it against anyone to want to expand their market audience, but I would think that Avalanche's strategy seems to *restrict* rather than *expand* their market audience. I would think that they would want as many people as possible to buy their products, rather than fewer. I would think that continuing to produce modules that seem to do nothing but needlessly offend a growing segment of the gaming audience and customer market-base isn't a very wise strategy.
Only the strong survive though!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Well, the stupid covers that Avalanche Press has on their products probably isn't the problem for them--or at least their biggest problem. Their biggest problem is the small supplements that they have put out that are merely mediocre-ok at best in quality and usefulness. I purchased the Constantinople module, and I haven't bought another Avalanche product again. Not that Constantinople was necessarily bad, because I don't think it was. I'm glad I got it, actually. However, I have expected modules that followed would be bigger and better, and they just haven't been. They've improved some, but they haven't improved enough and made a big enough statement to capture my spending money away from other publishers.
The fact that they can't avoid putting dumb sexist drawings on their modules that show half-naked women in the most inapproapriate poses, and often ethnically and clothing-wise entirely ill-suited for the module in question just serves to torpedo their products even more. Why not step out, do something different, like show some beautiful, muscular woman decked out in gleaming mithril plate-mail, and wielding a spear that burns like starfire as she gazes at the dragon approaching her? Or some other heroic and interesting looking drawing of beautiful women who are dressed and equipped approapriately to the situation? Alas, this seems to be beyond them, as in module after module, they make the same kind of covers.
At first, in the first bikini-clad module I saw, I thought, hmmm...heh, maybe they are just trying to be a little different. No big deal to me really, because I look for content over appearance in large measure. However, in module after module, the trend continued. It's quite done now, thankyou, and it isn't really appropriate.
So, I think it is an unfortunate marketing strategy that they seem bent on embracing, even though that I think it is inappropriate, and their real problems, their deeper problems, lie along the lines of content. It remains to be seen though if they will ever change such a dumb policy.
Trying to make sex sell with D&D is just dumb. How many 12 and 14 year olds play D&D? How much money do they have?
I don't hold it against anyone to want to expand their market audience, but I would think that Avalanche's strategy seems to *restrict* rather than *expand* their market audience. I would think that they would want as many people as possible to buy their products, rather than fewer. I would think that continuing to produce modules that seem to do nothing but needlessly offend a growing segment of the gaming audience and customer market-base isn't a very wise strategy.
Only the strong survive though!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Well, all the controversy about Avalanche persuaded me to buy 3 of their books, after a thread by 'Mialee' criticising the covers - 2 were good (Black Flag & Greenland Saga), 1 wasn't (Ragnarok). So sex certainly sold indirectly there.
Also I liked the vibrant lusty style of much of Mongoose's Quintessential Fighter (I liked the other sorts of art too), and that was a contributory factor towards me buying it. I don't like WotC's bland and PC art or writing style and it tends to inhibit me buying their products - and when I have bought them I've mostly been disappointed (except with Call of Cthulu), so I should learn to follow my instinct.
Also I liked the vibrant lusty style of much of Mongoose's Quintessential Fighter (I liked the other sorts of art too), and that was a contributory factor towards me buying it. I don't like WotC's bland and PC art or writing style and it tends to inhibit me buying their products - and when I have bought them I've mostly been disappointed (except with Call of Cthulu), so I should learn to follow my instinct.
Cougar
Felis Concolor
Sex may sell games, but not to me. I view company that uses scantily clad women (or men, I guess, but that never happens) on their covers as juvenile. And it isn't just Avalanche and their covers, although I steer clear of them because of that. Mongoose is pretty bad (actually worse) with their interior art.
