Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5488098" data-attributes="member: 957">That sounds good on paper, but I don't see any evidence at all that it holds up.&nbsp; Quite simply, the games that supposedly have these entry barriers have been and continue to do much better than the games that claim to lower that barrier.&nbsp; Yes, people will TRY the games.&nbsp; But the &quot;rules geeks&quot; move on in a hurry, a few of the other people play for a bit and then move on to the next fad, and, quite frankly, the great bulk of people just are not interested at all any way you slice it.Yes, you can point to new gamers.&nbsp; That happens all the time and as a segment of society at large it really has not changed, regardless of system or other options.Yes, there are absolutely people who prefer the &quot;simpler rule sets&quot;.&nbsp; No doubt about it.&nbsp; But it isn't about presence or absence, it is about overall markets.&nbsp; And &quot;simple&quot; has a track record of losing more than it gains.IMO, there is a big difference between the real pool of potential cash paying gamers and society at large.&nbsp; I guess if your defintions are loose enough you can call anyone a &quot;possible gamer out there&quot;.&nbsp; But if you want a sound marketing strategy then you have to realize that the &quot;rules geeks&quot; are a solid majority of those who don't fall under &quot;wishful thinking&quot;.I don't think that the numbers are shrinking.&nbsp; I just think we see things like WOW and make comparisons that were not made in the 1980s.I personally don't blame video games for anything.&nbsp; They probably provide more exposure and that is a good thing, even though the totals stay at about the same level.&nbsp; I guess the only thing I *do* blame on video games is creating an unreasonable expectation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 5488098, member: 957"] That sounds good on paper, but I don't see any evidence at all that it holds up. Quite simply, the games that supposedly have these entry barriers have been and continue to do much better than the games that claim to lower that barrier. Yes, people will TRY the games. But the "rules geeks" move on in a hurry, a few of the other people play for a bit and then move on to the next fad, and, quite frankly, the great bulk of people just are not interested at all any way you slice it. Yes, you can point to new gamers. That happens all the time and as a segment of society at large it really has not changed, regardless of system or other options. Yes, there are absolutely people who prefer the "simpler rule sets". No doubt about it. But it isn't about presence or absence, it is about overall markets. And "simple" has a track record of losing more than it gains. IMO, there is a big difference between the real pool of potential cash paying gamers and society at large. I guess if your defintions are loose enough you can call anyone a "possible gamer out there". But if you want a sound marketing strategy then you have to realize that the "rules geeks" are a solid majority of those who don't fall under "wishful thinking". I don't think that the numbers are shrinking. I just think we see things like WOW and make comparisons that were not made in the 1980s. I personally don't blame video games for anything. They probably provide more exposure and that is a good thing, even though the totals stay at about the same level. I guess the only thing I *do* blame on video games is creating an unreasonable expectation. [/QUOTE]

Verification