Why wargamers are slowly killing computer wargames?

[Clovis]

1) by exiging low prices and free upgrades to wargames. Applying a simple computing about the ratio time passed on the game/price would show how much a 50$ game is far superior to any movie or other entertainment activity. In a small niche genre, lowering prices doesn't signify wider audience. Wargames will never been mainstream.

2) By refusing to buy obviously good games about obscure periods. In reality, when you know the game is good, buying it will maybe be the real occasion to discover a new field of interest; if not, you will have earned the company revenues for other games more at your taste.

3) By denying the right for a developper to do wrong sometimes. A poor game isn't in itself the sign of a certitude of failure for future games. But looking at any forum will reveal endless messages stating the contrary...

[PhilThib]

I could not have said better

[Crimguy]

I guess. . . I have never had a problem spending a small mint for a good game because I know it will give me hundreds of hours of enjoyment. Thousands of hours in the case of War in the Pacific, so I guess I got my $70 worth there :-D

[oldspec4]

IMO, these observations are right on target.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Anguille]

@ Clovis: may i ask what brought you to express this?

[Clovis]

@ Clovis: may i ask what brought you to express this?

Any wargaming forum . Day after day, until ad nauseam...

[Anguille]

I see 2 major problems for wargames more important than what you say:

Gaming press:

Serious games are completely ignored by the gaming press. 10 years ago, a good wargame could have a decent article...nowadays, if you don't have the latest graphic engine, they won't even mention it. There are many people who would buy good wargames...pitty is that they usually don't even know these games exist.

Greed:

15 years ago, most of the gaming industry was made of people enjoying games...now, it's all been taken over by big business...the only thing that matters is money, money, money...

I understand your comments are especially based on the feedback for Rise of Prusia.

[Clovis]

I see 2 major problems for wargames more important than what you say:

Gaming press:

Serious games are completely ignored by the gaming press. 10 years ago, a good wargame could have a decent article...nowadays, if you don't have the latest graphic engine, they won't even mention it. There are many people who would buy good wargames...pitty is that they usually don't even know these games exist.

Greed:

15 years ago, most of the gaming industry was made of people enjoying games...now, it's all been taken over by big business...the only thing that matters is money, money, money...

The usual scapegoats. Since more than 10 years, good wargaming articles in mainstream gaming press are gone ( the real new is the gaming press is gone too ). And almost all wargames today are published out of the big business. The point isn't here now.

[Anguille]

And almost all wargames today are published out of the big business. The point isn't here now.

Yes they are but it's only recent that big business has completely abandonded them and that there isn't any mention of these games in the press.(last 3 - 4 years). BOA had a small article in the Gamestar but that was the last AGEOD game mentionned in that magazine.

Real wargamers are willing to pay 50$ and expect only patches. There's also no dark period of history for a real wargamer either...then there are the other gamers. I can bet that Vainglory of Nations will do nicely...

PS: i am not sure of what kind of free upgrades you're referring to as i haven't read in that direction.

[Franciscus]

1) by exiging low prices and free upgrades to wargames. Applying a simple computing about the ratio time passed on the game/price would show how much a 50$ game is far superior to any movie or other entertainment activity. In a small niche genre, lowering prices doesn't signify wider audience. Wargames will never been mainstream.

2) By refusing to buy obviously good games about obscure periods. In reality, when you know the game is good, buying it will maybe be the real occasion to discover a new field of interest; if not, you will have earned the company revenues for other games more at your taste.

3) By denying the right for a developper to do wrong sometimes. A poor game isn't in itself the sign of a certitude of failure for future games. But looking at any forum will reveal endless messages stating the contrary...

I am sorry, but I do not agree with you, Clovis.

As a matter of fact, I do not think "wargames" (including serious strategic/operational/tactical genres) are dying, on the contrary. As I mentioned in another thread, we are fortunate enough to have lots of good games coming in our direction lately. Just to name a few:
- All the Ageod stuff - Rop, lately. VgN will surely be a classic. WW1 gold coming soon
- HWLG: A work of art from a genius (or madman ? ); a bit rough, but surely to be polished in the years to come (yes, I said years. This is probably the definite Napoleonic tactical wargame)
- SOW: Gettysburg: Just out, an incredible game, a must have.
etc.

What is happening is maybe a shift in paradigm. Good wargames are definitely becoming a niche market, with the risk of being unknown to many of us, and available only in the Internet. They will probably not become mainstream again in the foreseable future, and due to the fact that developers/publishers must make a living, the risk is that they (and not us) abandon this genre (as is happening with Magitech ).

About you point 2: Releasing games about obscure periods is risky, of course. Many of us (me included) are not number-crunchers or history professors. Many are a bit romantic, and like to relive famous passages of world history and maybe try to rewrite them. That's one of the reasons why, for instance AACW will always be more sucessful that RoP, even in Europe.

Nevertheless, if this is the end of wargames, it sure is an end with a big bang. At least I have in my hands true gems that will keep me occupied for many years to come.

Regards

[Generalisimo]

What is happening is maybe a shift in paradigm. Good wargames are definitely becoming a niche market, with the risk of being unknown to many of us, and available only in the Internet. They will probably not become mainstream again in the foreseable future, and due to the fact that developers/publishers must make a living, the risk is that they (and not us) abandon this genre (as is happening with Magitech ).

Exactly, but that's a problem for the developers... like you said, like Magitech.
To be able to feed your children, you need to stop doing what you like and start doing IPhone games...

[Pocus]

The guys doing the Strength and Honour serie are abandoning the genre?

There are still people who makes games because they like that (us at Ageod, sure, but I'm speaking of others here ). With the internet era, see how easy it is to have his game published, say at Matrix, Battlefront, Shrapnelgames. Now, I'm not saying they will get the same coverage as if strategy games (except Civ5 et al. ) could be sold in bricks and mortars shops, but still...

[Spharv2]

I would say my issue currently is the same as a lot of people. A bad economy has led to less disposable income right at the time when we are seriously being flooded with good/great war and strategy games. Add in that with the economy being crappy, people are working more leaving less free time for gaming.

Honestly, there are a bunch of games I would love to buy right now, but I can't afford them. Plus with all the good choices out there, the small base of war/strategy gamers is faced with picking and choosing. Gotta figure out some way to expand the base, but I agree with Gray, these aren't the instant gratification games, and it's an instant gratification world these days.

[Anguille]

The guys doing the Strength and Honour serie are abandoning the genre?

It's not official...let's say it's on "hold" until they can manage to do a new one (they are doing i-phone wargames to make some cash). Ming-Sheng Lee, the lead designer of Magitech has a passion for these games. I guess, if it was for money, they would have stopped long ago. I expect them do a new game at some point. A collaboration of some sort, why not with Ageod/Paradox, would be a good thing (better graphics, better marketing).

[Adlertag]

1) by exiging low prices and free upgrades to wargames.

I would add that, as everybody knows, the product has the price you are willing to pay for it and after being so often disappointed by games released in an unfinished state, players tend to think, from their own point of view, that prices should be lowered.

The main problem is that players now don't trust so much game companies to release a good product worth the price, and continuous patching policy is finally and paradoxically giving them more argument to think like that.

[caranorn]

Clovis, I fear I have to disagree on all three points you made...

1) Real wargamers have been willing to spend a lot of money on their hobby for ages. I can't even estimate the value of my game collection and I know I'm not exceptional in that by far. Most I believe would not expect free updates either, just good patching and no serious charges for minor improvements...

2) Obviously obscure topics sell less than well known ones, but I'd take RoP as a perfect example on how it can work anyhow. Before RoP I'd read one serious article about the European part of that conflict, quickly browsed through one board game and that was it. I bought RoP right away as I knew Ageod could make an interesting game about a period I know relatively little about. I'm sure I'm not the only one to think so...

3) Are those really wargamers complaining? When I read those kinds of posts I feel like I'm faced with spoiled brats most of the time, if it were not for lost business I'd say good ridance, let them play some FPS, or RTS...

Anyhow, I think the question really is, who or what is a wargamer or a wargame. The first thing that comes to mind for me is board games, some old brand names. In order of my discovering them that was Avalon Hill, Victory Games, SPI, West End Games, GDW, the Gamers and many, many more (oh I frgot Jeux Descartes, Jeux Rexton, Eurogames, Azure Wish ;-) ). And of course magazines like Journal du Stratège, Casus Beli, Strategy and Tactics, Command Magazine, Vae Victis. Not to forget computer games by SSG, SSI, AH, Talonsoft, Matrix, Paradox (to a limited degree wargames in my mind) Ageod and many more. I've been wargaming since I was about 5 years old (pushing Sherman tanks in Panzer Leader for my big brother), that's 33 out of 38 years of my life. I'm not sure what nearly killed board game wargaming 10+ years ago, I've read many theories about it, but none ever entirely satisfied me. But I seriously doubt computer wargaming will be killed, at worst it will become even more of a fringe/nieche thing than before. But it will not go away, at least not as long as there are some of the old wargamers left and as long as even a few new wargamers come along...

And yes, for me there are ever fewer interesting computer wargames. The last few years I've bought all of Ageod's games and maybe 2-3 from Matrix. Other than Ageod I'm only keeping an eye open for Matrix's World in Flames as I was part of the open Beta (Chris Marinnaci's WiF) and one of the original betas at Matrix, and of course for a while in contact with all of the big names behind the WiF board game...

Unfortunatelly for me computer wargaming meant a bit of a death of wargaming, simply because I'm not a programmer and can't build the games I'd like to (I have a few completely designed as well as a large number of partially designed board wargames on my computer disks and shelves, ranging from Alexander the Great to contemporary Israelo-Palestinian or Korean wars (guess contemporary should be 1990's in that respect as I stopped even considering modern wars after the first Gulf War). But all of that is a different topic, how to make best use of wargamers, wannabe game designers or researchers who know how to turn on a computer, but cannot program more than a few lines in a basic script...

[Clovis]

Caranorn,

In one year 3 computer wargames about Civil War were published: AACW, Forge of Freedom et Gary Grigsby's one. The three have manifestly sold well. Now, with the same engines, 3 games about the Seven Years war would it be as popular?

For the rest, You're speaking about you. Fine but maybe irrelevant.

[Clovis]

I am sorry, but I do not agree with you, Clovis.

As a matter of fact, I do not think "wargames" (including serious strategic/operational/tactical genres) are dying, on the contrary. As I mentioned in another thread, we are fortunate enough to have lots of good games coming in our direction lately. Just to name a few:
- All the Ageod stuff - Rop, lately. VgN will surely be a classic. WW1 gold coming soon
- HWLG: A work of art from a genius (or madman ? ); a bit rough, but surely to be polished in the years to come (yes, I said years. This is probably the definite Napoleonic tactical wargame)
- SOW: Gettysburg: Just out, an incredible game, a must have.
etc.

What is happening is maybe a shift in paradigm. Good wargames are definitely becoming a niche market, with the risk of being unknown to many of us, and available only in the Internet. They will probably not become mainstream again in the foreseable future, and due to the fact that developers/publishers must make a living, the risk is that they (and not us) abandon this genre (as is happening with Magitech ).

About you point 2: Releasing games about obscure periods is risky, of course. Many of us (me included) are not number-crunchers or history professors. Many are a bit romantic, and like to relive famous passages of world history and maybe try to rewrite them. That's one of the reasons why, for instance AACW will always be more sucessful that RoP, even in Europe.

Nevertheless, if this is the end of wargames, it sure is an end with a big bang. At least I have in my hands true gems that will keep me occupied for many years to come.

Regards

I don't know if wargames are dying or not. The point is computer wargames needs much more technical skills than boardgames ( programmation, web stuff, marketing, etc). Now we're several year after the appearence of Matrix( by far the most prolific publisher in wargaming world), Shrapnel ,Battlefront and Paradox.

Battlefront is yet acting on wargaming market, but almost all their attempts to eveade the 3D WW2 tactical games have at last partially failed ( either thier current engine in contemprorary settings isn't as popular than the old, either games they published are yet almost stuck to WW2).

Shrapnel isn't anymore based primarily on wargaming.

Matrix is publishing several wargames a year. A raising part is made of old titles reworked ( more or less).

Paradox is creating new engine about the same game periods; HOI3, Victoria2, EU3.

I almost forgot HPS. They're releasing many games too, on not so common period. In any way, whatever the qualities of these games, they can't be considered as porting the renewal of computer wargaming.

Then here and there others games. Scourge of war: Improving TCM2 ( buy it). Battle chosen: Gettysburg. Great, and Gettysburgh is certainly one the less chosen battle in wargaming industry

Another game about Civil war ironclad by Totem. This one is original, reviews are rather good and in any way graphically as good than Scourge of war... I just wodner how much here know this game?

I dunno if we're about to live the end of computer wargaming. That's just under appearence of relative wealthness, the lack of real innovation or variation of period is maybe the sign of some future trouble...If the companies dissapear , the experience and skill will be done and they're much more difficult to redeem such losses in computing.

[Hobbes]

One thought I have on this topic. I don't actually have the time to play all the true wargames that are now available. A good wargame can take up years of your time. If no more are published I think there are enough available for me to play (and mod) to whatever age I live to. I would even like to go back to a few of the ones I used to play - there are still many scenarios I haven't tried.

The more decent wargames that come out the better - I will still buy many of them - but I probably won't really get into more than 10%.
That 10% though I will enjoy for years.

One snag with wargames is that they are quite difficult to get into. Even if you were an expert a few years ago it's not easy just to pick them up and start playing again - especially PBEM without spending ages refreshing yourself rule wise. I enjoyed Uncommon Valor a few years ago for example and would love to try another PBEM game - but it would take a few months to get back up to speed. A quick game is out of the question.

I am yet to buy RoP and I thought I would always buy AGEOD games the moment they became available. I just know I won't find the time to play it. La Grande Guerre is sitting unplayed on my hard drive for the same reason.

Cheers, Chris

[TheDoctorKing]

I have found VASSAL the biggest benefit to wargaming since Charles Roberts invented the hexagon. I was a big-time Advanced Squad Leader player for many years. When I lived in Baltimore, I went to the playtest sessions at AH, I translated articles for Tactiques, and I went to conventions and played 48 hours straight. Then, life happened and I put my ASL luggage away in the closet, playing maybe two or three times a year with a few devoted friends who live nearby. Then, I got into playing over VASSAL. Now, I play ASL two or three times a month, plus a weekly game of World In Flames with the infamous Wendell (source of the expression "to Wendell" an attack, meaning to make the one roll that spells defeat for an almost-certain victory).

The downside of VASSAL is that there is no AI to play against. And you need to own the game or at least the rules - and my World in Flames materials over the years have cost over $1000. But I have to say that I am not holding my breath for Matrix's World In Flames, especially after seeing what they did to Empires in Arms.

[caranorn]

Just quickly on the WiF and EiA thing. Just look at how long they've been working on the computer version of WiF, EiA on the other hand seemed to be published almost overnight. I don't exactly recall the problems with computer EiA (I don't even recall whether I bought it which is a bad sign for a game), but I expect the short time to code and test that game played a role. Of course that need not mean that MWiF will be a sucess...

Oh and on the three novelty games published in a row versus three on well known topics. Yes, the second and third is unlikely to be as sucesfull (hope that won't happen with Vicky-2 and VGN) as the first. That's one reason why one reason to look into new topics, new games, to look for a nieche. So far I think Ageod has done so nicely, getting a name on nieche products (BoA, WiA and RoP) but also drawing customers in with popular subjects (AACW and NCP)...

[Banks6060]

Very interesting topic of discussion. I have to say that I disagree about computer wargames "dying". And I have one glaring reason why.

Paradox Interactive and AGEOD

These two companies, I believe, are strong...develop and publish excellent strategy titles (All the EU games, HOI, AACW, RoP, Crusader Kings, the list goes on and on....) All of these games get decent enough press to be noticed and each company's forum has a robust base of posters and readers.

Yeah, we wargamers get a bit spoiled, but it's only because we like a certain level of historical authenticity and we don't want to have to pay out the butt to get it...afterall...you don't really need to have uber-crazy-awesome graphics to make a great strategy wargame.

Sites like Shrapnel, Matrix, and Wargamer will continue to make less sold titles with narrower appeal...but they are titles that cater to the "hard core" wargaming crowd. And to say that the video game industry has EVER catered to the "hard core" wargamer...even 10 years ago...would be a bit unrealistic. Hard core wargames just don't make money.

Now, with all that said...as a whole, I'm very saddened to see where PC games are turning. There are fewer true strategy titles worth a damn out there anymore....strategy, for a long time, is what kept PC games relevant. Now...it's all MMORPG's (which I don't necessarily have a problem with) and FPS. But like I said, companies like AGEOD and Paradox are the ones I see blazing the trail in future years. I think you'll only see certain PERIODS of wargame start to fade away. Fewer people are interested in the ACW now...far fewer are interested in 19th Century conflicts altogether. It's a sad fact....but as more and better games start coming out about periods like WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Middle East, etc...I think we strategy fans will have plenty to feast over.

[Fastsnake]

I'm kinda new in Wargames actually, as I spent my childhood playing japanese RPGs on games console.
Not that I'm not a real wargame addict (the kind who destroy the system as I read further), but come on, we all have to start one day before being a real follower of the thing!

As I was very involved in the french RPG-gamers community, I always had the bad feeling that we were not truly recognized as we should. We felt like a fifth wheel.

As I'm currently interested in wargames, I see that our situation was not so bad. But on the other hand, it's different concerning wargames, because I don't feel like the genre is trying to advance into the front rank in the video games industry (is this sentence correct?). Wargames community is small one, which most of you prefer, but conversely it turn out to be at the same time more or less closed, since it's difficult for a newbie to come here and make his own place in the sun.
So this small word that we may like sometimes backfire against us, as it prevent the genre to attract more gamers, which is undoubtedly necessary for every developer, Ageod included.

And it's true that, if Ageod was the only firm that could compare itself to Paradox in terms of games and attractiveness, now that it merged with Paradox, I don't see any concurrent.
I know there is this or that company around here, but they're all even ten times more unknown (and thereby difficult to access).

Concerning critics, I'm overally ok with the first message, except the fact that we should not only cheer our favourite developers.
If their job is fairly good and we appreciate them, we can tell them, but the better thing to do remain - in my humble opinion:
1/ to help publicize Ageod and Paradox games (but above all Paradox games! ).
2/ to help them improve their games by saying what doesn't work (because even my favourite Ageod's game, WWI, is far from being perfect, even with the gold patch!).

[tagwyn]

Franciscus: What "true gems" are you referring to? t

[Franciscus]

Franciscus: What "true gems" are you referring to? t

Games that I intend to keep in my hard-drive (and play) for many years, God-willing:
- AACW, RoP (VgN in the future)
- WW1
- HWLG
- SoW: Gettysburg
- S&H2

Regards

[hgilmer]

I "rediscovered" AACW that I have owned for a long time. I just bought RoP. I have a feeling I might actually buy some of the other games out there already as well and the Vain Glory of Nations is intriguing to me.

I see people talking about "Victoria". Is that the 2003 game? I never played it.

[wodin]

Know one has mentioend the prolific output of HPS sims.

Anyway I think the problem is finding new blood. Not one of my friends have ever heard of or even know what a real wargame is. I say I play mainly wargames on the PC and the usual reply is "What Call of Duty or Yeah Ive played Command and Conquer"...

They wouldnt know what a wargame looked like let alone know how to find out about them and how they play. I also know a small percentage would really enjoy them aswell once they got into it.

[hgilmer]

I tried to get some friends from an online mmo interested in a wargame and they act like they don't like even the idea.

My best friend once saw a wargame I was playing and he asked, "Why are the graphics so bad?"

That's what wargames are fighting. Everyone wants visual stimulation and they don't care that a wargame's best features many times lie behind the scenes or more accurately in the gameplay not the graphics.

[beatoangelico]

Anyway I think the problem is finding new blood. Not one of my friends have ever heard of or even know what a real wargame is. I say I play mainly wargames on the PC and the usual reply is "What Call of Duty or Yeah Ive played Command and Conquer"...

I think there are no easy answer for that. My best bet would be attract in some way the paradox/stardock crowd.

I'm myself a paradox fan that is crossing over to wargames thanks to AGEOD. I think BoA/WiA is very good introductory wargame for several reasons: the graphics are very nice (I don't like the style of NCP, but it's still miles ahed of its direct competitors), the interface is mostly good, the rules aren't extremely complex, there is a demo, and the price is low. Another system that I think could attract more people is the Panther Games' one (Airbourne Assault, now Command Ops), but it still lacks a graphical makeup and a good interactive tutorial to made the leap (which is no small thing).

Most wargames don't have most or any of these features (I'd say that some don't even care)...I think that are a lot of good games around, but most of them are buried under late nineties interfaces and a lot of guys theorically interested, including me, won't even consider to buy them (I mean, I love the nineties but interface design has gotten so much better in the meantime...the designs have become more complex but the interfaces haven't kept up)
Also there's the pricing issue. Maybe we young guys are being spoiled by the drastic drop of the PC games prices in the last years: nowdays between digital delivery sales and UK webshops I rarely pay over 20 € for a game.

It's curious that in this regard the wargaming market is the complete opposite of the mainstream one: while the mainstream makert is going full speed in the direction of shorter more action oriented games because they can satisfy both the younger audience (which doesn't even know that something differente existed) and the older one (which has got less time to play and also less mental energies to invest), the wargaming market conservatism mirrors in some way the conservatism of its older core audience (which has more likely than not an established job and thus is more willing to spend, and at the same time doesn't care much about interface, graphical presentation and so on)