BobGrognard | 16 Oct 2015 4:31 a.m. PST |
I was talking to the lads at a local club last night and one member suggested that the most commercially successful rule sets are, by definition, the best rule sets. Would you agree? Is this the embodiment of quality rising to the top? |
Doms Decals | 16 Oct 2015 4:41 a.m. PST |
God no. Commercial success is the real measure of commercial success. I've eaten at a Michelin starred restaurant (just the once, sadly) and at McDonalds (rather more than once, sadly.) I know which of those two operations was a commercial success…. ;-) Even when prices are equal, commercial success is built on all manner of factors – quality is certainly one of them, but advertising, company profile, access to distribution chains, how well-known the author is, and lots more besides all weigh in too. Usually the best marketed product will do better than the best quality product. Of course, a product as complex as a set of rules also has the issue that there's no real way of evaluating quality anyway. We can pretty much all agree on what makes a good vacuum cleaner, but a good set of rules is a subjective matter…. |
Dynaman8789 | 16 Oct 2015 4:49 a.m. PST |
I'll answer with a non-wargaming example. The Transformers movie series is insanely successful but I would laugh right in the face (and actually have done so) of anyone claiming it had ANY artistic merit. |
zoneofcontrol | 16 Oct 2015 5:00 a.m. PST |
Commercial success is a measure of quantity not necessarily quality. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive but unfortunately often are. A writer, publisher and/or distributor would be most pleased with a commercial success. Pet Rocks were a commercial success way back when. I'd still rather have diamonds, rubies and emeralds. |
saltflats1929 | 16 Oct 2015 5:02 a.m. PST |
|
Mark RedLinePS | 16 Oct 2015 5:09 a.m. PST |
No, Examples ( most of which I have been suckered into buying ) Flames of War Warhammer Ancients Black Powder All commercially successful but pants! |
MajorB | 16 Oct 2015 5:24 a.m. PST |
"Is Commercial Success the Real Measure of Quality?" No. Definitely not. |
JonFreitag | 16 Oct 2015 5:40 a.m. PST |
|
Gone Fishing | 16 Oct 2015 5:48 a.m. PST |
I don't think it is a measure of quality in anything, whether it be games, restaurants, computers, beer…I'm actually surprised your friend even said it! |
Martin Rapier | 16 Oct 2015 5:58 a.m. PST |
It all depends on what your definition of 'best' is doesn't it really? This will vary depending on your pov. If you are megabucks corporation inc., then clearly shifting a lot of units is going to be 'best'. Or maybe not, depending on your corporate strategy. As consumers, we will have our own views on what we wish to spend our hard earned cash and time on. And of course much of the wargames market is actually that very modern thing of prosumers – the hobby generating its own content without the intervention of megabucks inc. Aren't we trendy. |
Random Die Roll | 16 Oct 2015 6:05 a.m. PST |
Making money and having quality do not always travel in the same circles. I think this is even more true in any "entertainment" business. |
JSchutt | 16 Oct 2015 6:09 a.m. PST |
Commercial success is a a 3 legged balance of rules, background fluff/hisorical interest and engaging figures to play with. Personal preference may favor one leg or the other. A strong figure line might favor Fire and Sword, FOW or 40k, a favored rules designer (Johnson, Hill, Mustaffa) may be the most important consideration for others while some might play any new rules set for Star Wars, ACW, WW2 or Fantasy. It can be argued there have been many good/great games played and loved with great figures but crappy figures, crappy figures with great rules, great rules with uninspired backgrounds….or any of the three. I'm sure you could name more than a few examples. I've been the victim or beneficiary of all three approaches. |
Garth in the Park | 16 Oct 2015 6:15 a.m. PST |
Conversations like this always give me flashbacks to Art School, but without the good drugs. After we all reassured ourselves that our lack of commercial success was in no way indicative of a lack of quality, and we snorted contemptuously at those who were successful, then we all pretended that we were too proud and pure to crave commercial success, ourselves. Commercial success does have one advantage over quality. The former can be measured objectively, whilst the latter remains always purely subjective. In my dotage now, I find myself agreeing with Liz Phair: It's nice to be liked But it's better by far to get paid I know that most of the friends that I have Don't really see it that way. But if you could give them each one wish How much do you wanna bet… They'd wish success for themselves and their friends And that would include lots of money….
|
skinkmasterreturns | 16 Oct 2015 6:48 a.m. PST |
Thank you,Garth. Thats why hobos sitting on a train track dont debate which is the finest vintage of Merlot while quaffing Mad Dog (or maybe they do,but it has no relevance). |
vtsaogames | 16 Oct 2015 7:22 a.m. PST |
No. Betamax was a better product that VHS, but wasn't marketed as well. |
Saber6 | 16 Oct 2015 7:32 a.m. PST |
The Commercially Successful want you to believe it |
Col Durnford | 16 Oct 2015 7:33 a.m. PST |
Commercial success doesn't necessarily live in the same neighborhood as quality, but I would prefer commercial success's address. |
David Manley | 16 Oct 2015 8:02 a.m. PST |
Not at all. I've seen shipyards that delivered quality product go to the wall because their rivals delivered the same ships in worse condition at lower prices. |
Who asked this joker | 16 Oct 2015 8:14 a.m. PST |
The commercial examples above: FoW – I could not get through the rules. 280 pages does not make an easy game. Black Powder – Played once. Did not like them. Warhammer (Ancient Battles) – Never played but read the rules. Liked them OK but ultimately I would probably come away with the same feeling as Black Powder. Too fiddly. One not mentioned. Chain of Command – Played once. Would probably play again because it is what the group has played. Was not overly fond of them. All probably commercially successful and all games I was not overjoyed with. |
79thPA | 16 Oct 2015 8:29 a.m. PST |
Commercial success is generally the measure of good marketing; it doesn't have to have anything to do with quality. |
Extra Crispy | 16 Oct 2015 8:37 a.m. PST |
Consider the following thought experiment: I publish a beautiful set of rules filled with eye candy, apparently amazing game mechanics, and cool props (dice or templates or such). It sells like proverbial hotcakes, quickly becoming the best selling set of rules of all time. Upon reading, you realize they are hopelessly contradictory, vague and incomprehensible. There is no source to get questions answered. You shelve them. Turns out no one ever plays them. Ever. Not even once. Are they successful? |
thehawk | 16 Oct 2015 8:49 a.m. PST |
I believe the first draft of a successful WW2 rules set was of a high standard. They were dropped in preference of a dumbed down alternative set that would appeal more to the target market. We didn't get the high quality version as it would have been less successful commercially. The market has changed – once upon a time Warhammer was not regarded as wargaming by wargamers. But now, many would see it and similar toy products as wargaming. These products would not sell if they were not of acceptable quality. Lower quality, from a wargaming purist perspective, has risen to the top. I look at laser cut models from the wargaming and model railroad hobbies. There is a large difference in the standard of the models. The model railroad market would not buy models made to a wargaming quality level. Different markets have different quality requirements. At time of purchase, perceptions of quality are influenced more by factors like novelty, peer group acceptance, advertising, volume of mentions in social media, ability to impulse buy, the lack of meaningful analysis in wargames press etc. On the tabletop, quality is about the rules and the game. So which set of qualities determines commercial success? As most buyers haven't read or played the rules when making the purchase, tabletop play quality cannot be that important to commercial success. Therefore the best rules and commercial success have to be independent. Hypothesis busted. The best rules I have seen are no longer in print or homegrown and free. Commercial success is not a factor. |
Who asked this joker | 16 Oct 2015 9:18 a.m. PST |
Are they successful? Depends on how you measure success. If they made money, it is successful…assuming that they wanted to make a burst of money and then have the cash flow stop. But what if you wanted to stay in the business making rules, models and so forth? I suspect then those rules would not be successful. |
Yellow Admiral | 16 Oct 2015 9:58 a.m. PST |
Commercial success doesn't necessarily live in the same neighborhood as quality, but I would prefer commercial success's address. I would rather discuss esoteric topics and sip fine whiskies with quality than swill cheap beer and swear at the TV set with commercial success. - Ix |
Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut | 16 Oct 2015 10:38 a.m. PST |
Has anyone watched the commercially successful US daytime TV shows? "Who is the baby daddy?" is not high quality programming, but some shows have been around since I was a kid. In terms of game rules, Warhammer 40,000 has been a commercial success. The actual rules themselves have declined in quality since the 1st edition. |
Lee Brilleaux | 16 Oct 2015 11:23 a.m. PST |
Dear BobGrognard; Your acquaintance from the club is wrong. I'd say he was probably an idiot, but I'd need more evidence. |
The Virtual Armchair General | 16 Oct 2015 11:33 a.m. PST |
I don't know if this provides an "answer" to the original post, but let us consider Larry Brom's "The Sword and The Flame." Thirty-six years in constant publication, known (even if not played) by virtually everyone in the hobby, and still selling strong. Did the author make any money? Not from the original Publisher, nor from the second. In the author's hands (finally!) since sometime in the 80's (if I recall) and a continuing source of modest income since. Now I'm all verklemt. Discuss among yourselves. TVAG |
BobGrognard | 16 Oct 2015 12:37 p.m. PST |
Mexican Jack, we did suggest to him that might be the case. |
Mako11 | 16 Oct 2015 12:42 p.m. PST |
Don't be bashing poor little Taco Bell. It's one of the best Mexican restaurants in the region, despite its reasonably close proximity to the country, itself. |
Brownbear | 16 Oct 2015 2:44 p.m. PST |
for everyone who believe in the free-market economy it must be a Yes |
McWong73 | 16 Oct 2015 3:28 p.m. PST |
Market theory isn't principally about quality of products, but their clearance price. Quality is subjective, but really its about your satisfaction with what you've purchased. |
McLaddie | 16 Oct 2015 5:23 p.m. PST |
Obviously, successful games have particular qualities to be all in the same category. So the questions are: 1. What constitutes success? The number of games sold is an objective criteria, what makes a well-crafted game, far more subjective. 2. Does numbers sold indicate quality. It can, or it can indicate a whole raft of other criteria. I'm all for free enterprise, but if someone suggests that only quality products are successful doesn't know the Free Enterprise system at all. For example: Tesla's cars just rated 103 out of 100 by Consumer's report and got the highest scores possible from Road and Track. They are easily rated the safest vehicles on the road. Base price for a Blazer SUV is comperable and has neither the safety or quality ratings to place it in even the top 30%. Number of Blazers sold last year in just the US: 1 million. Number of Teslas sold worldwide? 50,000. Having driven both, I can tell you there is no comparison in quality. OR how about "Excedrin For Migraines"? It is a very successful product and costs more than "Excedrin Extra-Strength." If anyone bothers to check, the ingredients are exactly the same for both. The 'quality' is obviously in the name. 3. Pick your criteria for a successful game, then ask the question. All sorts of answers then, with possible annoying caveats. For instance, VAG noted: [Larry Brom's "The Sword and The Flame."]Thirty-six years in constant publication, known (even if not played) by virtually everyone in the hobby, and still selling strong. If longevity and continued publication is the criteria for success, then how long is long enough? few games fit TSTF's definition of success [if only because they haven't been in production long enough.] Is Checkers a better game? Or Column, Line and Square? Both have been in constant publication…depending on what constitutes 'constant.' There have been some large gaps between printings of TSTF. 4. IF Commerical success is the real measure of success, then that is 'really' true for one group and one group only: The Designers and publishers. For the consumer, there is no such certainty--really. Game popularity and fads come and go. I think there are some objective criteria for game quality, in several categories: [That is, I don't think quality is more than 50% subjective, in games just as in cars or any other product.] 1. Game System coherency 2. Game System elegance…subtlety and re-play value 2. Ease of play 3. Coherency of rules/materials presentation 4. Well-written rules 5. Quality Graphics that enhance rather than detract 6. Transparent Historical Content instead of 'Mystery Meat.' Now, even if you agree with all of those criteria [no expectation that everyone will], the meaning and concrete demonstration of those in a game will be controversial depending what you want from a game, how much you know about game design and/or history among other things.
So pick your criteria and have fun. |
Winston Smith | 16 Oct 2015 6:35 p.m. PST |
|
raylev3 | 16 Oct 2015 9:05 p.m. PST |
You'd have to define "best." We all have different, and sometimes unidentified, criteria for "best." But I'd argue that commercially successful rules, especially over time, have been vetted by the community and are worth serious consideration. |
McLaddie | 16 Oct 2015 9:16 p.m. PST |
But I'd argue that commercially successful rules, especially over time, have been vetted by the community and are worth serious consideration. The problem is what that 'vetting' involves or doesn't involve, particularly when done by a large group of unrelated individuals. "Excedrin for Migraines" has been vetted for years by a much larger community…. Certainly, such wargames are worthy of serious consideration… but that is not the same as then being judged as a real success, is it? |
Yellow Admiral | 17 Oct 2015 6:08 p.m. PST |
for everyone who believe in the free-market economy it must be a Yes Not even remotely true. - Ix |
Rudysnelson | 19 Oct 2015 11:35 a.m. PST |
No, maybe good marketing but not always good casting quality. |