Part One

In my blog of 02/24/2005, I talked about my definition of a niche game, a recap of the retail market in 2004 and why a niche developer will never get rich at retail. I will not go through that discussion again, since you can go to Why Traditional Retail and Niche Games Don’t Work and get all the details there. What I do want to discuss in this second, and final part, is why the Shrapnel Games model can and does work.

Six Years and Going Strong

Shrapnel Games was formed in June of 1999 and started operations on July 9, 1999. In that time we have published 27 games and varied expansion packs. We have signed three new developers this year, and expect to have six new developers on board before the end of 2005. We have developers who have been with us since 1999 and have developed a number of products that have been published under the Shrapnel Games name.

It Works, It Really Works

“So why are you telling me this,” you ask? Well, I am telling you this information to let you know that there are alternatives to trying to take a niche product into traditional retail, where you will be lucky to make $40,000. Our model works. We were one of the first and by far one of the most successful non-traditional publishers, bringing niche market games to the fans through online and catalog sales (and in recent years through nontraditional retail outlets such as game and hobby shops). We have had several companies copy our model with varying degrees of success. The ones that haven’t been successful are the ones that sign title after title with no regard to the product’s uniqueness and integrity of gameplay.

We are very exclusive in the products we release and work hard with our developers to make the game as playable and enjoyable as possible. In fact, we think this is the number one service we offer our developers. That and our knowledge of the marketplace. You won’t find us jumping from market to market like some of our competitors, because we understand how and where to get the audience niche games need.

Our results speak to our success. For instance, we know that a top selling niche game, marketed by us, can reach unit sales in the mid 5 figures (we believe we can take that number to the upper 5 figures in the coming years). We also know the average price point of our games is almost double what it would be at traditional retail and that we offer one thing that a developer will never see at retail: longevity. In traditional retail, a developer is lucky if his game remains at its original price point for three months while we have products that have been in the market for 5 years that are still at their original price points.

The Good News

The good news is the market is still growing! Almost 75% of our customers at the Gamers Front are making their first purchase of a Shrapnel Game! Let me say that again, after six years in business, ¾ of our monthly sales are to first time purchasers.

We see a bright future for nontraditional publishers and developers. If you are a developer in the niche game marketplace, look for this industry to continue growing as the large traditional publishers move more and more to the consoles, leaving the PC Gaming market an afterthought. With these publishers being forced to put out more and more ‘clones’ of hit titles as the production budgets edge toward the $10+ million mark, the new, truly unique products will all be published in the nontraditional market. And as this market grows, as the fans start looking for alternatives to the ‘clones’, the production values of these niche games will slowly edge towards a level that will bring even more gamers to the niche games marketplace.

Happy Niche Gaming!

Well, our annual Spring Sales Event has kicked off. Running now through March 29th, the sale covers selected products in the Shrapnel Games’ lineup. We hope there are one or two titles that interest you. Follow this link for more info:

‘Game Up’ for Spring

Also, as many of you know, we are closing out Space Empires IV Gold and Space Empires: Starfury. SEIV Gold has less than 100 units left in stock and Starfury less than 200. Order while you have time!

Well wishes for Easter also.

Tim Brooks

The atmosphere around the offices of Shrapnel Games has *ummm* changed now that Sarge is back full time. So much so that our office manager circulated a memo to the staff last week. Thought I’d share it with you.

“Dear Employees:
It has been brought to management’s attention that some individuals throughout the company have been using foul language during the course of normal conversation with their co-workers.

Due to complaints received from some employees who may be easily offended, this type of language will no longer be tolerated. We do however, realize the critical importance of being able to accurately express your feelings when communicating with co-workers.

Therefore, a list of 18 New and Innovative “Try Saying” phrases have been provided so that proper exchange of ideas and information can continue in an effective manner.

1) TRY SAYING: I think you could use more training.
INSTEAD OF: You don’t know what the f___ you’re doing.

2) TRY SAYING: She’s an aggressive go-getter.
INSTEAD OF: She’s a ball-busting b__ch.

3) TRY SAYING: Perhaps I can work late.
INSTEAD OF: And when the f___ do you expect me to do this?

4) TRY SAYING: I’m certain that isn’t feasible
INSTEAD OF: No f___way!!!

5) TRY SAYING: Really?
INSTEAD OF: You’ve got to be sh__ing me!

6) TRY SAYING: Perhaps you should check with…
INSTEAD OF: Tell someone who gives a sh__.

7) TRY SAYING: I wasn’t involved in the project.
INSTEAD OF: It’s not my f______ problem.

8) TRY SAYING: That’s interesting.
INSTEAD OF: What the f___?

9) TRY SAYING: I’m not sure this can be implemented.
INSTEAD OF: This sh__ won’t work.

10) TRY SAYING: I’ll try to schedule that.
INSTEAD OF: Why the f____ didn’t you tell me sooner?

11) TRY SAYING: He’s not familiar with the issues.
INSTEAD OF: He’s got his head up his a__.

12) TRY SAYING: Excuse me, sir?
INSTEAD OF: Eat sh__ and die.

13) TRY SAYING: So you weren’t happy with it?
INSTEAD OF: Kiss my a__.

14) TRY SAYING: I’m a bit overloaded at the moment.
INSTEAD OF: F___ it, I’m on salary.

15) TRY SAYING: I don’t think you understand.
INSTEAD OF: Shove it up your a__.

16) TRY SAYING: I love a challenge.
INSTEAD OF: This job sucks.

17) TRY SAYING: You want me to take care of that?
INSTEAD OF: Who the h___ died and made you boss?

18 ) TRY SAYING: He’s somewhat insensitive.
INSTEAD OF: He’s a pr_ck.”

It will be quite interesting to see if these suggestions are taken seriously. I can’t imagine some (okay one in particular) of my co-workers calling “Delayed Again” Brooks “somewhat insensitive” in place of the usual phrase!

Happy Monday!

So let’s say your addicted to crack….

Not the sort of article you were expecting huh? Well it’s a valid comparison. When your addicted to drugs you normally have to stay away from them permanently so that the old cravings don’t kick in. This can be said for retail in many ways. If you don’t kick the habit your going to let it dictate your life as a developer/publisher.

When a developer/publisher puts their game in retail they are growing the reputation and the profits of the dealers we know as traditional retail. You can become so dependent on them for sales and audience reach that you will start to do anything they ask for just for a little fix. If they want you to buy shelf space, you do it. If they want you to only get paid post 6 months or greater, and accept all returns, you do it. If they remove your titles, because they aren’t the hot drug of the moment, to the bargain bins and eventually out of the stores, you do it. And in the process you grow their clientele and prestige so that all of your customers go looking for their gaming fix in retail and look at anything else as 2nd rate.

So when you take one game and put into retail, because your trying to steal customers from them, you are again allowing the drug dealer to dictate terms to you and in the long run teach your audience that the only game in town for important games is in retail. Also you are dimishing the value of your spot in the marketplace and killing the chance for your product to develop a long term community.

That’s not to say you shouldn’t steal from them, but if your looking to grow audience wouldn’t it make more sense to wait until the product life cycle is through and put it in a shovelware pack and get folks that way. You will probably find lots of folks you would never see in your audience buying the game because it’s cheap, and when they get addicted for the next hit you can ask them to order it from your website exclusively. This way you control the terms and steal back from those who stole the industry from true gamers to begin with.

But just like kicking a habit it takes commitment to do this, a long term commitment that will be painful and full of withdrawal. But in the end you will have your life and industry back.

And as gamers isn’t that what we all want?

I’ve always enjoyed gaming “war stories”, whether it’s a bunch of old grognards sitting around a hotel bar during a convention or the musings found sometimes in the columns of magazine writers (Dragon had at one point some good tales, I don’t know if they still do, haven’t picked up a Dragon in ages…). Tonight I was rearranging some games, which in turn got me reminiscing about past victories (and failures) on the tabletop battlefield, which in turn made me think, “Hey, how about a game moment blog?” Which brings us to our current entry…

One of my all time favorite games is Team Yankee by GDW. Based on the Harold Coyle novel of the same name, TY is a simplistic tactical game of modern combat released in the mid-80s (I think it was ‘86 or ‘87). Units are individual vehicles while infantry units are either squads or weapon teams. If you’re not familiar with the book or the game the theme is WWIII, US versus the USSR. TY would later spawn several other games of the same nature, notably Blood and Thunder and The Sands of War, both of which improved on the basic gameplay formula that began in Team Yankee (and also corrected several deficiencies in the system).

The system of play is basically IGOUGO, with the possibility of initiative passing to the opposing player based on leadership losses. Like most tactical games you have rules for overwatch, and artillery plotting. Burning wrecks could obscure the battlefield. Essentially if you’ve played Panzer Blitz or Panzer Leader you could pick up Team Yankee and start playing in minutes.

The simplistic nature of the game was definitely one of its strengths though. Being a “beer and pretzels” kind of tactical game I was able to get all types of people to play it. I even had chicks playing it! And best of all, everyone enjoyed it! It’s a fast moving game, very easy to pick up, and because it wasn’t wrapped up with tons of detailed rules the system was quite open to house rules, and let’s face it–you can’t call yourself a wargamer if you don’t make up house rules.

The other strength of Team Yankee was the scenario creator. In the back of the manual was an easy step by step guide to creating your own scenarios. Even cooler was the fact that while the basic game showcased US armor and Soviet main battle tanks the back of the manual referenced, in game statistics, an entire range of NATO and Soviet vehicles. No counters were provided, but creating new ones or just using the stats with the normal counters (as long as you could remember that the M1s were now Leopards, and the M2s were AMXs for example) worked out fine. Combined with the scenario creator you could spend days making up new scenarios, which as you can imagine my friends and I did.

It was a good thing that it came with such a helpful scenario generator too because the game scenarios were a mixed lot. They were all based on episodes in the Team Yankee novel, and so more geared toward recreating the story than a good game.

One particular scenario pitted a group of M113s, with a couple of M2s, defending a town from a battalion of Soviet T-72s and T-80s. Additionally, there was a chance of a pair of Warthogs showing up. Sure, the dismounted infantry had TOWs, but it was still not exactly the most ideal fight in the world. Guess who lucked out on playing the US side?

The way the map is set up there is a large forest covering most of the area in front of the town, with a trail through it. This is the most direct route for the Soviets to take because there is also a turn limit. Unfortunately the American set up area is pretty much the town, so I can’t set up any ambushes within the forest. Instead I have to wait for the Russkies to drop in.

It’s the first turn and the Soviets have the initiative and go first. Before they go I roll for air support. The way it works in TY is that if there are air units in the scenario you roll a d6, on a 6 they show up (or it may be a 1, can’t remember, but it’s all the same) that turn. If the air unit is a helicopter it works as a flying tank with unlimited movement per turn. If the air unit is an aircraft it makes three straight row passes, being able to attack with either cannon or bombs anything in its LOS. After three passes (one per turn) it leaves the battlefield for good.

Since it’s the first turn and all the Soviet tanks will be in the forest (and thus out of LOS) I definitely don’t want my air units to show up now. I roll and crapola! They’re showing up this turn. Great, the one thing that I thought could probably save my bacon later on will now be made useless.

Chortling my Commie opponent did what everyone does; stack up his tanks as high as they could go and form a parade route like he was in front of the Politburo at a May Day parade. The tanks rolled out and by the end of his turn most of them were under the forest canopy. I say most of them…

You see there is one particular spot in the forest, just a couple of hexes across, that is devoid of trees. And in this particular spot is now parked all three Russian company commanders and the battalion commander.

Allow me to explain how leaders work. Each scenario assigned a hesitation and break point to the sides. Leaders are worth X number of points, depending on the nationality and type. Once commanders worth the hesitation point are killed that side loses the initiative (if it had it). If both sides are hesitating initiative is diced for each turn. Once enough leaders are KIA to reach the break point the side routs, automatically losing the scenario. US units are far more flexible in leadership, making US commander losses a lot easier to bear. Soviet command hierarchy though is very rigid, and all it takes is a one or two losses to really mess the Russians up. So it’s not exactly a wise move to stack all your commanders in one hex.

He moves and then it’s my turn. I do nothing. Well, my ground forces do nothing. My A-10s come swooping in, hugging the tree tops.

“Black Eagle Two, do you see what I see?”

“Roger that, looks like a laager of tanks…and look at all those antennas!”

My confident opponent, laughing minutes ago, now looked on in horror as he realized that his entire command force was open to aerial attack. Several iron bombs and dice rolls later there were three smoking wrecks and a panicked Soviet battalion.

End of game. On turn one.

Hey, at least counter density was low enough that we hadn’t wasted too much time setting the game up.

Anyone care to share some of their memorable gaming moments?

-Scott

Now reading: The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness by Erich Fromm

Now playing: Airships At War 1914-1941 (Sierra Madre Games)

Now listening: Slaughter the Weak - Jungle Rot

I was a bit concerned to hear Scott Udell refer to our next-generation project, Air Assault Task Force, as “vaporware” in his recent article at Wargamer.com (see http://www.wargamer.com/articles/roadtowar_1/ for the 16 March 05 article). Not upset, mind you, just concerned. I guess I can see where he is coming from. I do a lot of communicating on a daily basis with players of our current games, BCT Commander, Armored Task Force, and Raging Tiger. But, as I do a little reflection on the aforementioned article, I realize that I am not doing a good enough job of keeping our fans apprised of the upcoming releases from ProSIM Company.

I hope to remedy this here, and resolve to do better job of keeping everyone informed about our progress.

“The Vision Thing”

After the release of Armored Task Force, I began to feel that we were selling our fans a bit short. We were absolutely putting our all into each game, but that took time. As a result, we were averaging three years between releases. And no matter how much content or how many scenario building tools you put in a game, that is just too long to make a fan wait for a new game.

The result was the ATF Engine Project. The idea was simple. We would find teams that were as passionate about wargames as we were, arm them with the tools they needed to make their ideas a reality, and provide top-quality games to our fans. Here were the principles that we decided on when we began the project.

As for the ProSIM Company’s core developers, the idea was that we would deliver a set of code changes to each game in the ATF Engine Project, extending the usefulness of the Engine to multiple genres and situations, and then go, full bore, into development of Air Assault Task Force, while the ATF Engine Project games took shape.

What’s Gone Right

The first game in the ATF Engine Project, Raging Tiger: The Second Korean War, was released late Summer, 2004. It brought a slew of innovations to the ATF Engine: reinforcements arriving during game play, locked and partially controlled units, amphibious operations, and civilians on the battlefield, to name a few. Lead developer, Curt Pangracs, really raised the bar on modern wargaming, and he isn’t resting on his laurels.

As he announced on the Blog last month, he is getting very near to completion on a almost completely historical game, The Star and the Crescent: The Arab-Israeli Wars, 1956-2009. I say “almost completely historical game” because the title will also include some very real hypothetical military operations set in the near future.

Another project that we are very excited about is also nearing completion. Gary Bezant’s historical simulation, The Falklands War: 1982, is the most realistic and thorough treatment of this conflict ever attempted. Described by early testers as “an interactive history book” it really does teach as it entertains (its still fun, I promise ). It starts with 100% authentic British and Argentine maps and orders, takes off running, and never stops.

There is also a team hard at work on our first treatment of the War on Terror. War in Afghanistan begins with a “prologue” mini-campaign covering the Soviet-Afghan war, and then takes you through all of the major battles of Operation Enduring Freedom. It wraps up by giving you a chance to catch Ossama Bin Laden yourself! All of the elements of the ultra-realistic simulations you have come to expect from ProSIM Company are there.

What Hasn’t Gone Right (sorta…)

What can I say? The developers here at ProSIM Company love war games. So, when the teams working on the ATF Engine Project came to us with ideas for adding additional capabilities to the ATF Engine… well… they were really good ideas.

We had to make a decision: add the great capabilities, and temporarily delay work on Air Assault Task Force, or deny the new ideas and drive on with coding Air Assault Task Force.

Well, the good news is that we have some really great new capabilities in the upcoming ATF Engine Games. We have added variable skill levels, both at the beginning of the game to increase re-playability, and in specific units in scenarios, to simulate the disparate training levels of coalition forces. We have also increased the resolution of maps at higher zoom levels, so that you can really get “down in the weeds” if you want, and see your subordinates slugging it out on the ground (all still controlled by the same ATF Engine AI, if you desire). We have added all kinds of radars, from aerial platforms like J-STARS to counterfire radars like the Q-36 and 37. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are tons of other new innovations in these upcoming games.

And the rest of the good news is that we have wrapped up all of the engine changes and are now back at work on Air Assault Task Force.

So What is AATF?!?

Air Assault Task Force is, quite simply, the next step in the evolution of wargames. It starts where the ATF Engine leaves off, and then launches into orbit! He are a few of the design principles that we can share with you now.

There are a lot of other great features taking shape in Air Assault Task Force, but, like I said at the outset, I have resolved to do a better job of communicating what the future holds to our fans. So it is my intent that this will be the first of many updates on our progress.

So for now, I will leave you with our latest crack at release dates (which, as always, carries a cautionary note on the unpredictability of software development). Thanks to all of our great fans for their support, suggestions, commitment, and energy over the years. You guys really are what keeps us going!

Rich Carlson, one of the creative geniuses behind Digital Eel ( www.digital-eel.com) passed along to me today a reprint of Greg Costikyan’s (well known and longtime game designer, but hopefully you already knew that) recent blog entries. The entry under “But It’s Over Now” is a must read, and you’ll see why if you’ve already read my “Twilight of the Gods?” entry down below.

Additionally, his writings on Redmond A. Simonsen passing away is also a mandatory read for long time gamers.

Check them both out at Greg Costikyan’s blog (www.costik.com/weblog)

-Scott

“I would drape myself in velvet if it were socially acceptable…”