Wargames as Product

[Easy E]

All the rage in wargaming right now is a marketing concept I call "Wargame as Product".  This is a model that I first observed with Games Workshop products, and has quickly spread across the game producing community as THE model for making money off of wargaming.  Now you can see this model being used from Battle Front, to Atomic Mass Games, Warlord Games and beyond.   

Defining the Model

To my eyes, there are two major paradigms for making money off of wargames in play at the moment.  The focus of this post will be the Wargame as Product model.  However, for completeness I will mention them both so we can compare and contrast them as we proceed. 

Wargame as Product
In this model, the wargame rules are simply one component used to drive a revenue stream for the producer.  That means, they also try to create revenue streams from additional rules content publications, models to play the game, terrain to play the game on, boards to play the game, and monetizing components of the game for sale.  Therefore, when consumer purchases the game, they are often given an incomplete product or a product that only allows for basic or entry level game play.  Additional levels of play and components for a "complete" game are additional purchases from the producer. 

Wargame is Product
In this scenario, the producer is selling the game itself.  The components and other elements may not come with the game, but they are also not purchased from the producer themselves.  In this case, the producer is simply selling you a method to play a game, and that is it.  Further components maybe licensed to other producers to "spread" the potential profits for the game across a larger group of producers; but they may also be created independently of the initial producer or not on the market at all.   

A Hybrid Model
In this scenario, the producer may try to monetize some, but not all the components of game play.  These additional components may come from another source, either licensed or independent. 


So, what are some examples you have seen of these models in the real world?  Which do you prefer to "buy into"?  How do you think these models change the design process?   

Read more at the blog here:

http://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2023/01/wargame-design-wargames-as-product.html

[Elbows]

Wheever possible I avoid any game in which models are tied to the rules/game/IP, etc.  Between Hasbro (D&D), Fantasy Flight, Games Workshop, etc. we can see how bad a product gets when models are tied to rules...tied to sales, etc.

I'm sure there are plenty of small companies who don't abuse this model of "subscription" wargaming (often tied heavily to FOMO practices), but it's definitely HUGE in a lot of areas, because it makes money.  You can see almost perfecly the way Battlefront followed GW like a playbook as they've evolved Flames of War over the years, etc.  While I don't have anything against these huge companies - as, the consumer has the final say, I choose not to support these kind of sales tactics/business models.  These companies are doing what most companies do - trying to make heaps and heaps of money.

These companies have also identified their perfect consumer, and it's slightly amusing to find that the same players tend to stick to the same "type" of business model.  I find Games Workshop players are likely to be D&D players, and Flames of War players - they tend to run in the same circles.  Now, did they simply grow up into the hobby thinking that is "the way" to do it?  Or are they simply addicted to the non-stop release/subscription/FOMO style business model?  I have no clue.

Thus I vastly prefer miniature agnostic games - even if the company produces stuff to support their own rules (for instance a Napoleonic wargame company which also produces Napoleonic figures, etc.).  Because you're not tied to the miniatures/IP in the way you are with the games above.

At the end of the day I think there is a fine middle ground where you design/sell a product, make a reasonable living doing it, and can sleep at night.  Tough to find that middle ground though.

[fred]

What seems odd is that that Wargamers shout against the idea of wargame as product. Yet wargame as product continues to thrive.

Is there a vocal minority, whilst the majority is quiet and just votes with their wallets?

[ithoriel]

Personally, I'm all about sourcing what I want where I want but I get the attraction of "everything you need in one box."

There's a story, almost certainly apocryphal, of the VP of an American car manufacturer talking to a new intake of junior managers.

He asks,"What does our company make?"

A bright young thing confidently says,"Cars!"

VP says,"Nope."

A slightly less confident voice says,"Cars and vans?"

VP says,"Nope."

Another voice asks,"Cars, vans and trucks?"

VP says,"Nope."

An exasperated voice from the back of the group says,"Pretty sure I walked past plenty of cars, vans and trucks on the assembly lines. If we aren't making them what are we doing?"

VP replies,"What we're MAKING is money, HOW we make it is by selling cars, vans and trucks."

A business that doesn't exist to make money isn't a business, it's a charity. 

There a number of wargames outfits that I've dealt with over the past half century or so that were side hustles or almost hobbies so didn't need to make much cash to be worthwhile but those into making money seem to me to need to cover as many of the potential bases as possible.

Tesco are currently running an ad that says "We want you to spend less with us." I'm taking them at their word and getting most of my shopping from Sainsbury, Morrisons and M&S. 
Capitalism, it's a funny old thing.

[Warren Abox]

What seems odd is that that Wargamers shout against the idea of wargame as product. Yet wargame as product continues to thrive.

Is there a vocal minority, whilst the majority is quiet and just votes with their wallets?

The "wargames as product" crowd tends to be rather insular, preferring to hang around with thier own kind. The congregate around forums dedicated exclusively to the products they use. 

This forum leans very heavily towards the agnostic side of the spectrum. That maybe coloring your view of things.

[Harry Faversham]

I must be getting old...
I don't understand a word of all this high fallutin' babbling!
    

[Paratrooper 42]

I must be getting old...
I don't understand a word of all this high fallutin' babbling!
    

Me neither Harry, looks like someone's promoting their blog with a discussion topic.

I thought these kind of 'discussion' posts were discouraged by Forum Rule 3.1

• Objectless discussions opened purely for the sake of starting a discussion or argument (like ‘What’s your favourite whatever?’, or ‘What XYZ really annoys you at the moment?’) 
• Discussions of philosophical, hypothetical, abstract, ethical and moral questions and dilemmas (like ‘What would you do if you found yourself in this situation?’, or ‘When is a wargame not a wargame?’) 

[2010sunburst]

Me neither Harry, looks like someone's promoting their blog with a discussion topic.

I thought these kind of 'discussion' posts were discouraged by Forum Rule 3.1

• Objectless discussions opened purely for the sake of starting a discussion or argument (like ‘What’s your favourite whatever?’, or ‘What XYZ really annoys you at the moment?’) 
• Discussions of philosophical, hypothetical, abstract, ethical and moral questions and dilemmas (like ‘What would you do if you found yourself in this situation?’, or ‘When is a wargame not a wargame?’) 

Ah, but is that a blog “as” product, blog “is” product, or a “hybrid” model?  Concerned citizens need to know 

[Paratrooper 42]

Ah, but is that a blog “as” product, blog “is” product, or a “hybrid” model?  Concerned citizens need to know 

We do indeed 

[Belligerentparrot]

Not to be a rules lawyer or anything, but I thought 3.1 applied to non-wargaming stuff.

There are plenty of folk on here involved in the business side of things: part-time contributors, fledgling dreamers, successful entrepreneurs. A discussion about what you want to get out of the business side of things doesn't seem out of place, does it?

Anyway, I suspect the distinction looks slightly different depending on what you game. With sci-fi and fantasy there is a lot to be said for a lot of world-building going on if you want the game to catch people's attention. That often means putting your own spin on standard tropes/coming up with completely new ideas, and there is something to be said for producing a line of minis to match. That is going to take time to do unless you're already a millionaire, which will mean rolling it out in stages... Same applies if you take over a franchise where there isn't a great deal of already existing minis (e.g. Mongoose and 2000AD?)
It isn't so much that the rules are just a vehicle to get people to buy everything else, it is more that the rules are closely connected to whatever else you're selling in order to make the whole thing stand out as something that might grab people's attention.

If on the other hand you're writing rules for WWII engagements, you don't need to do that stuff at all I'd imagine.

[Spinal Tap]

I think this topic falls squarely under 'General Wargames and Hobby Discussion', plus lots of folk on here link to blogs; I think there was even a thread on it not long back.

You should report it to the mods if you're that concerned,  I find Easy E's contributions interesting and informative.

Edited as I came over way more sarcastic than I meant.

[nicknorthstar]

Me neither Harry, looks like someone's promoting their blog with a discussion topic.

I thought these kind of 'discussion' posts were discouraged by Forum Rule 3.1

• Objectless discussions opened purely for the sake of starting a discussion or argument (like ‘What’s your favourite whatever?’, or ‘What XYZ really annoys you at the moment?’) 
• Discussions of philosophical, hypothetical, abstract, ethical and moral questions and dilemmas (like ‘What would you do if you found yourself in this situation?’, or ‘When is a wargame not a wargame?’) 

I thought it fell foul of the rule as well, but if folks are happy to discuss...

[Dentatus]

I fall squarely in the 'Wargame is product' camp.

Businesses exist to turn a profit. Completely agree. Also, it's totally reasonable for companies to offer accessories, expansions, and components for their games.

I shut down tho when I feel the company expects/demands exclusivity, requires proprietary pieces, and doesn't simply bundle their extras for convenience, but deliberately fractures the product line to take advantage of the customer.

IMO, it's disrespectful to view people as cash cows or ATMs to draw on at whim. (Or with regularly scheduled new editions that mandate a new round of component and accessory purchases) 

It's like ordering a burger at a diner and getting a plate with just the bun. "Oh, you expected it to be complete ... well, meat is another $5. Cheese is another $3. Any lettuce, onions, bacon are $1.50 each. Condiments are $.75 apiece. Napkins are .10. But aren't you excited we put it on this cool-looking plate?"

No.  No, I'm not. 

[Mammoth miniatures]

I fall squarely in the 'Wargame is product' camp.

Businesses exist to turn a profit. Completely agree. Also, it's totally reasonable for companies to offer accessories, expansions, and components for their games.

I shut down tho when I feel the company expects/demands exclusivity, requires proprietary pieces, and doesn't simply bundle their extras for convenience, but deliberately fractures the product line to take advantage of the customer.

IMO, it's disrespectful to view people as cash cows or ATMs to draw on at whim. (Or with regularly scheduled new editions that mandate a new round of component and accessory purchases) 

It's like ordering a burger at a diner and getting a plate with just the bun. "Oh, you expected it to be complete ... well, meat is another $5. Cheese is another $3. Any lettuce, onions, bacon are $1.50 each. Condiments are $.75 apiece. Napkins are .10. But aren't you excited we put it on this cool-looking plate?"

No.  No, I'm not.

From what I understand that's the business model that computer games have been using for a few years and lots of other businesses are desperate to mimic. The fact that it sucks for everyone except the CEO and shareholders seems to fly under the radar.

[Silent Invader]

Edited as I came over way more sarcastic than I meant.

Are you still meaning to be sarcastic then?