Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Barcode" data-source="post: 117372" data-attributes="member: 3165">Don't mean to be the lone devil's advocate here, but one thing is worrying me about this decision.Gencon, and cons in general, don't make a ton of money.&nbsp; Folks who know folks who organize smaller cons know that they have to struggle just to break even.&nbsp; Cons the size of Origins and Gencon have economies of scale, and do OK, but if they were cash cows, Hasbro wouldn't have sold them.No, where they are most useful is as marketing vehicles.&nbsp; It is a forum to show off your new stuff, as well as increase the size of the market by inspiring awe in saucer-eyed newbies.&nbsp; Remember your first Gencon, and the sudden realization that you are in a convention center with tens of thousands of people just like you and all you are expected to do for the next 96 hours is eat and play games? (And buy games, but that is subtext).&nbsp; So if it is a vehicle to sell games, what use would an individual or company with no games to sell get out of owning it?&nbsp; It falls back to direct profit from the con, and we know that is not huge.I don't know Peter, so I cannot speak to his motivations or capabilities.&nbsp; But assuming he is a guy who likes making money and is not doing this out of altruism, one can therefore assume his primary goal will not be making Gencon better, but making Gencon more profitable.&nbsp; We do that by increasing revenues and reducing costs, folks.&nbsp; Does this mean we Gencon attendees will be paying more for less in the future?&nbsp; It is one possible scenario.&nbsp; Will he raise the prices for exhibition so that small presses might not be able to afford to come?&nbsp; Another possibility.I for one was most comfortable when it was a marketing arm of a large corporation.&nbsp; Those guys get pretty big budgets, and their main job is to create buzz and flash, and leave people with good feelings about their product (in our case, games and gaming).&nbsp; All the makings of a great con.Just my $0.02...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Barcode, post: 117372, member: 3165"] Don't mean to be the lone devil's advocate here, but one thing is worrying me about this decision. Gencon, and cons in general, don't make a ton of money. Folks who know folks who organize smaller cons know that they have to struggle just to break even. Cons the size of Origins and Gencon have economies of scale, and do OK, but if they were cash cows, Hasbro wouldn't have sold them. No, where they are most useful is as marketing vehicles. It is a forum to show off your new stuff, as well as increase the size of the market by inspiring awe in saucer-eyed newbies. Remember your first Gencon, and the sudden realization that you are in a convention center with tens of thousands of people just like you and all you are expected to do for the next 96 hours is eat and play games? (And buy games, but that is subtext). So if it is a vehicle to sell games, what use would an individual or company with no games to sell get out of owning it? It falls back to direct profit from the con, and we know that is not huge. I don't know Peter, so I cannot speak to his motivations or capabilities. But assuming he is a guy who likes making money and is not doing this out of altruism, one can therefore assume his primary goal will not be making Gencon better, but making Gencon more profitable. We do that by increasing revenues and reducing costs, folks. Does this mean we Gencon attendees will be paying more for less in the future? It is one possible scenario. Will he raise the prices for exhibition so that small presses might not be able to afford to come? Another possibility. I for one was most comfortable when it was a marketing arm of a large corporation. Those guys get pretty big budgets, and their main job is to create buzz and flash, and leave people with good feelings about their product (in our case, games and gaming). All the makings of a great con. Just my $0.02... [/QUOTE]

Verification