Originally Posted By mastercommander (30 JUL 2012 5:54pm)

 

 

Funny you say that because Blockbuster and Borders did that same thing you suggest. Look at them now. Their stubborness to broaden their focus led to their downfall.

 

 

Actually, the big internet stores led to their downfall.

Netflix killed Blockbuster.

Amazon killed many book stores. 

That's all pretty obvious.  Note that both businesses that went under were outcompeted, and in the end they attempted to go the cheap internet sales route that their competitors did - a bit too late.

Focus didn't lead to their downfall.   Being outdone by other businesses garnering their customers was.

I completely agree - lack of focus is a major killer of businesses. 

If Matrix & Slitherine started trying to broaden our focus we'd definitely alienate our core customers and might get new customers. We've experimented with this in a few lighter games like Conquest and Egypt. It just doesnt work, unless you're very very lucky!

There's a seminal Harvard Case Study on business failure whose primary (and very convincing) contention is that a principal cause of business failure is companies not understanding what business they are in.  

Wow, I had no idea that many members want The Wargamer to be so selective and elitist that they will only allow articles and threads about super hardcore wargames published by 2 or 3 companies.

Has The Wargamer ever provided a mission statement or definition of what is a wargame? It would be interesting to know the roots of this site. Maybe from the beginning it was only hardcore wargames, maybe it was loose and broad in the definition. I've only been around since 2007 and it seemed fairly broad then.

Back on topic...it was suggested maybe 80% hardcore wargame reviews and only 20% for the others but it might appear that that isn't good enough for many...it has to be 100% hardcore or nothing.

While we're at it let's knock out discussion of the following and not allow anything about:

-Non-historical wars

-Sci-Fi titles

-RPG's (no Mass Effect, Jagged Alliance, etc.)

-Action flight "sims".

-RTS (no Company of Heroes 1 and soon #2)

-FPS (no Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Brothers in Arms, Arma, etc.)

-Alien Wars

-Underwater wars mostly (no Silent Hunter, but yes Harpoon)

Only allow reviews, articles, posts, threads on games published by the half dozen "real" hardcore game companies/publishers. At least that way the field will be super narrow and selective.

I'm not really sure why there are so many accusations of this site losing focus and having "lame" reviews.

Sorry for the sarcasm and controversy but I've never been one for super "exclusivity."

Wow.  Big fan of the straw man, eh?

Edit: I would like to see the RPG stuff go.  Nothing to do with being elitist, just not on topic for this website.

Originally Posted By Nefaro (31 JUL 2012 5:56am)

 

Actually, the big internet stores led to their downfall.

 

 

They are one and the same. The internet sites prevailed because Blockbuster and Borders refused to broaden their focus into the digital and online arena. They simply died because the refused to broaden their fucus away from hard cover producs found in walk-in stores.

Originally Posted By Iain McNeil (31 JUL 2012 7:47am)

I completely agree - lack of focus is a major killer of businesses. 

 

If Matrix & Slitherine started trying to broaden our focus we'd definitely alienate our core customers and might get new customers. We've experimented with this in a few lighter games like Conquest and Egypt. It just doesnt work, unless you're very very lucky!

Not sure how this relates to an online publication.

Conquest! and Egypt were just poor products compared to their competition. Plain and simple. Matrix and Slitherine should have done their research before they ventured into another genre.

Originally Posted By Philippe (31 JUL 2012 8:35am)

There's a seminal Harvard Case Study on business failure whose primary (and very convincing) contention is that a principal cause of business failure is companies not understanding what business they are in.  

Well said, Wargamer needs to realize that there are wargamers out there that enjoy FPS games. And a wargamer's perspective on those products would be something they would really enjoy.

Originally Posted By FrontierCybrarian (31 JUL 2012 10:16am)

Wow, I had no idea that many members want The Wargamer to be so selective and elitist that they will only allow articles and threads about super hardcore wargames published by 2 or 3 companies.

 

Has The Wargamer ever provided a mission statement or definition of what is a wargame? It would be interesting to know the roots of this site. Maybe from the beginning it was only hardcore wargames, maybe it was loose and broad in the definition. I've only been around since 2007 and it seemed fairly broad then.

 

Back on topic...it was suggested maybe 80% hardcore wargame reviews and only 20% for the others but it might appear that that isn't good enough for many...it has to be 100% hardcore or nothing.

 

While we're at it let's knock out discussion of the following and not allow anything about:

 

-Non-historical wars

-Sci-Fi titles

-RPG's (no Mass Effect, Jagged Alliance, etc.)

-Action flight "sims".

-RTS (no Company of Heroes 1 and soon #2)

-FPS (no Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Brothers in Arms, Arma, etc.)

-Alien Wars

-Underwater wars mostly (no Silent Hunter, but yes Harpoon)

 

Only allow reviews, articles, posts, threads on games published by the half dozen "real" hardcore game companies/publishers. At least that way the field will be super narrow and selective.

 

I'm not really sure why there are so many accusations of this site losing focus and having "lame" reviews.

 

Sorry for the sarcasm and controversy but I've never been one for super "exclusivity."

 

Apparently that is what a select few here want. They want only 2-3 companies own the market in which Wargamer publishes. What a shame.

You forgot to mention that Combat Mission, and the Total War series have to go too. They are real-time (total war in battles). Let's just keep it turn-based and hexes only. Nothing else. Wargamer has covered FPS games since I can remember.

Originally Posted By Ansbach (31 JUL 2012 10:30am)

Wow.  Big fan of the straw man, eh?

 

Edit: I would like to see the RPG stuff go.  Nothing to do with being elitist, just not on topic for this website.

I don't remember the last time I seen Wargamer publish an article about an RPG. Not sure what the fuss is about.

Originally Posted By mastercommander (31 JUL 2012 12:34pm)

Originally Posted By Nefaro (31 JUL 2012 5:56am)

 

Actually, the big internet stores led to their downfall.

 

 

 

They are one and the same. The internet sites prevailed because Blockbuster and Borders refused to broaden their focus into the digital and online arena. They simply died because the refused to broaden their fucus away from hard cover producs found in walk-in stores.

 

 

No they're not one and the same.

Borders still sold books.  Blockbuster still rented movies & games.  The comparison would be apt if Borders tried selling exercise machines, for example.  Your comparison highlights competition regarding simple price wars.  Which is irrelevant in regards to game reviews since those aren't charged for.

Originally Posted By Nefaro (31 JUL 2012 1:14pm)

Originally Posted By mastercommander (31 JUL 2012 12:34pm)

Originally Posted By Nefaro (31 JUL 2012 5:56am)

 

Actually, the big internet stores led to their downfall.

 

 

 

They are one and the same. The internet sites prevailed because Blockbuster and Borders refused to broaden their focus into the digital and online arena. They simply died because the refused to broaden their fucus away from hard cover producs found in walk-in stores.

 

 

 

No they're not one and the same.

 

Borders still sold books.  Blockbuster still rented movies & games.  The comparison would be apt if Borders tried selling exercise machines, for example.  Your comparison highlights competition regarding simple price wars.  Which is irrelevant in regards to game reviews since those aren't charged for.

 

 

I think your starting to lose focus.

Books and exercise machines have a lot less in common than do strategy games and FPS.

found this

"Some marketers tout that niche marketing is all about targeting smaller, denser markets. Not necessarily. Sure, it is the most common form — it’s the easiest and most effective one, too, for beginning marketers. But niche marketing is not limited to niche markets.

The word “niche marketing” means a hole in the marketplace that needs to be filled. That hole still can be filled by a product with mass-market appeal, but one offered, sold, and delivered in a unique way or with a unique twist.

In other words, you don’t have to just go after narrow markets to be a niche marketer. You can narrow your message, your theme, your product’s features, your offerings, the results you promise, or a combination of any of these."

http://michelfortin.com/narrow-your-focus-to-broaden-your-sales/

Isn't delivering FPS games in a wargamer's unique way doing what is suggested in bold?

Originally Posted By mastercommander (31 JUL 2012 12:53pm)

I don't remember the last time I seen Wargamer publish an article about an RPG. Not sure what the fuss is about.

You're right - it has been a while, glad to see they stopped.

However, one thing I am still confused about:

Szmania, you guys already do articles about FPS.  So are you talking about doing more than what you currently do?

Originally Posted By Ansbach (31 JUL 2012 4:50pm)

Originally Posted By mastercommander (31 JUL 2012 12:53pm)

I don't remember the last time I seen Wargamer publish an article about an RPG. Not sure what the fuss is about.

 

You're right - it has been a while, glad to see they stopped.

 

However, one thing I am still confused about:

 

Szmania, you guys already do articles about FPS.  So are you talking about doing more than what you currently do?

Ansbach:

We are just getting a feel for our audience. This is sort of a survey to find out where our readers stand, so we can better meet their expectation and ensure we stay on our publishing "center of gravity". Simply, a reach-out for some feedback.

One of the best elements of an online publication vs a print publication (besides being more timely) is that you really aren't limited by space. Want a much more in-depth article not governed by space requirements? No problem. We can extend the article to 3,000 words.

As the former editor of a computer wargame publication we realized we had to broaden the reach of the magazine and its audience if it was going to survive against the big boys, even if it meant irking some of the hard core constituents that had been reading the magazine for years. Here, you can do both and make everyone happy without losing the focus everyone is so keen on maintaining.

I see no reason why you cant cater to the grognard who is only interested in the more traditional faire while bringing in new blood by discussing military-based FPS such as ARMA, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Ghost Recon, etc. Is there really any harm in discussing tactical shooters that simply address the battlefield from a different perspective?

Lightning

Originally Posted By mastercommander (31 JUL 2012 12:53pm)

Originally Posted By FrontierCybrarian (31 JUL 2012 10:16am)

Wow, I had no idea that many members want The Wargamer to be so selective and elitist that they will only allow articles and threads about super hardcore wargames published by 2 or 3 companies.

 

Has The Wargamer ever provided a mission statement or definition of what is a wargame? It would be interesting to know the roots of this site. Maybe from the beginning it was only hardcore wargames, maybe it was loose and broad in the definition. I've only been around since 2007 and it seemed fairly broad then.

 

Back on topic...it was suggested maybe 80% hardcore wargame reviews and only 20% for the others but it might appear that that isn't good enough for many...it has to be 100% hardcore or nothing.

 

While we're at it let's knock out discussion of the following and not allow anything about:

 

-Non-historical wars

-Sci-Fi titles

-RPG's (no Mass Effect, Jagged Alliance, etc.)

-Action flight "sims".

-RTS (no Company of Heroes 1 and soon #2)

-FPS (no Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Brothers in Arms, Arma, etc.)

-Alien Wars

-Underwater wars mostly (no Silent Hunter, but yes Harpoon)

 

Only allow reviews, articles, posts, threads on games published by the half dozen "real" hardcore game companies/publishers. At least that way the field will be super narrow and selective.

 

I'm not really sure why there are so many accusations of this site losing focus and having "lame" reviews.

 

Sorry for the sarcasm and controversy but I've never been one for super "exclusivity."

 

 

Apparently that is what a select few here want. They want only 2-3 companies own the market in which Wargamer publishes. What a shame.

 

You forgot to mention that Combat Mission, and the Total War series have to go too. They are real-time (total war in battles). Let's just keep it turn-based and hexes only. Nothing else. Wargamer has covered FPS games since I can remember.

 

 

 

Originally Posted By Ansbach (31 JUL 2012 10:30am)

Wow.  Big fan of the straw man, eh?

 

Edit: I would like to see the RPG stuff go.  Nothing to do with being elitist, just not on topic for this website.

 

I don't remember the last time I seen Wargamer publish an article about an RPG. Not sure what the fuss is about.

The biggest issue your missing is FPS aren't "wargames" in the traditional sense. They are like action RPG games (Diablo series) are to real RPG games (Baldur's Gate or Dragon Age or Elder Scrolls). A wargame is about a war and handled mostly in strategic and operational modes, divisional/corp level and hexes and squares with thinking time for strategy. FPS are action activity in a tactical sense but not really much to do with the "war". There's no "campaign" level to it, no campaign links to them just more or less kill or be killed action FPS games on a tactical level set in a certain period of war but not a warGAME again in the traditional sense.

It's like what do I care about a single soul who hides in the top of a cathedral picking off idiots with headshots one by one? There's no history to it it's just make believe from start to finish. But a REAL wargame has HISTORY behind it. A real story a real outcome. Thus Paradox games and Total War games can count even though there's RTS in them because they are real history with real outcomes.

What they should do is FPS SNIPS with short takes on what it's about and how well the AI plays and how many players can play MPer. No AAR's needed. Thas my opinion and I'm stickin to it.

Originally Posted By Wolverine101 (31 JUL 2012 7:23pm)
 

The biggest issue your missing is FPS aren't "wargames" in the traditional sense.  

Well, if you want to keep wargames in a traditional sense, then  throw away the board games and the computer games. Wargamer would have to stick exclusively with miniatures.

Ultimately, I don't mind seeing non-wargames occasionally (as is the current case) but I certainly don't want to see an increase. 

As numerous people have stated, there are many "wargames" coming out these days (the term could be used loosely to add even more) and there are already a boatload of FPS reviews plastering the 'net.  So I don't see much reason to drop the specialty ,which is quite healthy right now, for more mainstram stuff.

I suppose if it brings in more viewers for the site, however, then that's could be attractive.  I'm not sure how successful taking on the big boys would be in that case.

Originally Posted By mastercommander (31 JUL 2012 8:32pm)

Originally Posted By Wolverine101 (31 JUL 2012 7:23pm)
 

The biggest issue your missing is FPS aren't "wargames" in the traditional sense.  

 

Well, if you want to keep wargames in a traditional sense, then  throw away the board games and the computer games. Wargamer would have to stick exclusively with miniatures.

No I wouldn't agree with that either because wargames in the "tradional" sense have been "turn based" or "igo/ugo" not Fraps or Frames per second.

What if we talk about conventional military wargames that are played in real time by real troops?

It then becomes very similar to an FPS for a lot of the troops involved in the wargame. You may not be the general, 

but you are still playing a wargame 

Using this logic I say anything simulating or potentially trying to simulate a war is a  war game. This obviously does not include those

games which rather than simulating a war are just using war as a theme.

Originally Posted By destraex (2 AUG 2012 6:22am)

What if we talk about conventional military wargames that are played in real time by real troops?

It then becomes very similar to an FPS for a lot of the troops involved in the wargame. You may not be the general, 

but you are still playing a wargame 

 

Using this logic I say anything simulating or potentially trying to simulate a war is a  war game. This obviously does not include those

games which rather than simulating a war are just using war as a theme.

Well, at any rate the Admin was looking for who's in favor of and who doesn't really care for FPS articles and I think the forum has spoken.

Originally Posted By Wolverine101 (2 AUG 2012 3:17am)

Originally Posted By mastercommander (31 JUL 2012 8:32pm)

Originally Posted By Wolverine101 (31 JUL 2012 7:23pm)
 

The biggest issue your missing is FPS aren't "wargames" in the traditional sense.  

 

Well, if you want to keep wargames in a traditional sense, then  throw away the board games and the computer games. Wargamer would have to stick exclusively with miniatures.

 

No I wouldn't agree with that either because wargames in the "tradional" sense have been "turn based" or "igo/ugo" not Fraps or Frames per second.

 

Well you better, because turn-based strategy computer games didn't exist 2,000 years ago. Not sure where your getting at with "traditional".

Originally Posted By destraex (2 AUG 2012 6:22am)

What if we talk about conventional military wargames that are played in real time by real troops?

It then becomes very similar to an FPS for a lot of the troops involved in the wargame. You may not be the general, 

but you are still playing a wargame 

 

Using this logic I say anything simulating or potentially trying to simulate a war is a  war game. This obviously does not include those

games which rather than simulating a war are just using war as a theme.

I can agree with this.

The idea that there are 3 publisher means people are thinking PC only. There are hundreds of companies producing strategy and wargames. My point is many of them have never been mentioend here. I am interested in wargames on all formats, PC/Mac, iOS, Tabletop, boardgame.

Currently the vast majority of coverage is for PC games broadening out to other genres like RPG, RTS and FPS. 

I think the broadending should be to the missing formats. iOS, Tabletop, boardgame. Not new genres. There are literally hundreds of developers who have never been featured here. 

I thought they did feature board and minatures games?

As for the IOS, meh.

Originally Posted By mastercommander (3 AUG 2012 12:13am)

Originally Posted By Wolverine101 (2 AUG 2012 3:17am)

Originally Posted By mastercommander (31 JUL 2012 8:32pm)

Originally Posted By Wolverine101 (31 JUL 2012 7:23pm)
 

The biggest issue your missing is FPS aren't "wargames" in the traditional sense.  

 

Well, if you want to keep wargames in a traditional sense, then  throw away the board games and the computer games. Wargamer would have to stick exclusively with miniatures.

 

No I wouldn't agree with that either because wargames in the "tradional" sense have been "turn based" or "igo/ugo" not Fraps or Frames per second.

 

 

Well you better, because turn-based strategy computer games didn't exist 2,000 years ago. Not sure where your getting at with "traditional".

No but "turn based" did and that's what I'm talking about with "traditional" wargaming. Electronic wargaming didn't exist in mainstream until the 1980's so it's waaaaaay behind in being "traditional". FPS once again are NOT wargames. They are battle action games nothing more.

Originally Posted By Lightning (31 JUL 2012 6:16pm)

One of the best elements of an online publication vs a print publication (besides being more timely) is that you really aren't limited by space. Want a much more in-depth article not governed by space requirements? No problem. We can extend the article to 3,000 words.

 

As the former editor of a computer wargame publication we realized we had to broaden the reach of the magazine and its audience if it was going to survive against the big boys, even if it meant irking some of the hard core constituents that had been reading the magazine for years. Here, you can do both and make everyone happy without losing the focus everyone is so keen on maintaining.

 

I see no reason why you cant cater to the grognard who is only interested in the more traditional faire while bringing in new blood by discussing military-based FPS such as ARMA, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Ghost Recon, etc. Is there really any harm in discussing tactical shooters that simply address the battlefield from a different perspective?

 

Lightning

Exactly, and I think the realization that you simply can not please every single person as evidenced here no matter how vocal they become or how hard you try. The 'Wargamer' has been a misnomer for as long as I can remember anyways. RPGs get far more talk and interest here than wargames, which isn't suprising really as wargames have always been a niche segment of the gaming arena. Only catering to that select group, and I'm not implying any sort of elitism, just differing interests, would not be feasible at all. Broadening your appeal without losing focus is necessary imo.

The standard definition of a wargame, which is pretty specific: