D&D spread originally because it was fun. It was the game where you could do anything. College students and wargamers broke out of the old frameworks; it passed on to smart high schoolers; and from there became the odd part of the popular culture it still remains.
How does it spread?
A game that will take off 'virally' has to do two things.
(a) It has to recruit new hosts. In the case of D&D, this was the smart kids who chose to be DMs, or even contribute to APAs or design their own games. They were total addicts, they played and played and played, etc.
(b) It has to infect people beyond the host population. In the case of D&D, this was all the people who played it and enjoyed it but didn't fall into the DM/designer well of no return.
Side note 1: OK, now, the theory about CRPGs siphoning off tabletop players. CRPGs typically do little or nothing for group a. But it's possible that they provide something to group b that's roughly as satisfying, in some cases more satisfying.
Side note 2: (b) appears to have been two distinct groups over time. The wargamers, powergamers, strategic players I came up with in the seventies, some of whom became awesome roleplayers in any sense you care to define, have almost nothing to do with the Forgotten Realms/Dragonlance/Vampire:the Masquerade setting fanboys (and girls). Except of course they played together and helped to make this subculture together, and again, the second group produced some awesome roleplayers in any sense you care to define. So it may be that there's more than one way to skin a cat here.
Anyway. To make a tabletop RPG successful - selling millions of copies successful, making people who didn't game before game successful, not some bullshit that pays for beer - you need to have your group a and group b in place in society and you need to give them something that they'll want.
Fantasy is out there but there's a million things feeding it and evidently RPGs are not enough, though I think there's a ready audience out there.
RPGs were subversive back in the day. I don't know if you can do that any more either: hardcore porn and satanism are a webclick away at any moment for your average smart 10 year old, and I don't think RPGs can be the kind of vector for subversion that they once were. If I'm wrong then there's a good vector, appeal to working-class antinomianism.
Here's another place I think AD&D1 was better than it looked. There was this idea of the GM as a creative force, as a fantasist, as someone who made worlds and adventures and people and politics. (As a sandbox for the players to mess with if he was a decent GM, but let's not go there.) None of that had much more than a peripheral relationship to what happened in play 90-99% of the time. But it was a draw for the smart kids, for group a: we were the ones who would make our own fantasy worlds.
(GMing itself and the power trip that goes with it, being a social facilitator, helping people realize their fantasies, challenging them, those are all draws for group a too.)
But the game was actually pretty simple to play, especially if you did what the vast majority of groups I ever played with did and ignore segment movement/initiative, ignore weapon vs. armor (even Gygax didn't use those charts), and played the simpler game that was basically OD&D and was basically there all along.
And you got this character who did things and got a big long list of cool imaginary stuff and exploits and sometimes powers. So how cool is that? Group b gets to
b1) compete - I did this, I did that, I got this, check out my magic sword, etc., if they want, and/or
b2) fantasize - I am this, I have experienced that, I have been there, I have met the Lords of Nyarn, I did it doggie style with Raistlin Majere, whatever it is that gets you off.
And this is stuff that you don't have to be that smart to enjoy. You just need to have basic social skills (sometimes not even that), the ability to pretend, to roll dice when someone tells you to, and
a good GM from group a.
I actually think the biggest problem facing TTRPGS today isn't computer games. I think it's the changes in social relations. The seventies were a time when Bob Dobbs seemed like he might be the messiah and slack was everywhere. There was free time and community gathering. That's when this stuff took root.
People are more scheduled now (in the case of the middle classes) and more isolated (in the case of the working classes) and there is much less trust in the shared social spaces that allowed D&D to spread like a virus.
But. They're still out there.
And the challenge is to figure out how to get something to spread through them.
You need your hosts and you need your infectees. The virus has to work on both. Go to work.
(I hope I'm wrong, but I think the ideal you sometimes see in Forge-inspired circles of groups of egalitarian friends getting together to play games in the way they play Catan or whatever won't work for RPGs. Like I said, I hope I'm wrong, but I think you need to generate the crazy obsessives, the fantasists, to spread the disease. Which means you need to give them something to obsess on. As defense for my side I'd point out that it's the only thing that has worked so far.)
Ok, my belief is possibly offensive.
You know why everyone started playing Magic: The Gathering back then?
Because in Magic: The Gathering, you don't have to act.
You don't have to talk in character, or come up with stuff when your'e playing M:TG. It's "just" a game. It's also a game you can be good at, and there were other elements. People really focused in on the collectibility as the reason MTG took off, but I think that was only one factor. The other is, it was truly fun to play, and it didn't require you to suddenly become some kind of Master Thespian. I kinda sucked at it myself and I only had about 300 cards at my height.. but I always had fun, even when i was losing.
Well, that was how roleplaying games used to be as well. You played them As games. The Fantasy Trip. Melee. Chitin I (remember that one?), etc.
And some people added more performance and 'in-character' stuff and acting and stuff into their game too, and it was interesting as hell and cool.. but it wasn't mandatory. Anyhow, it eventually became mandatory. By the time the 90s rolled around, roleplaying was all about performance. I noticed that some people have a hard time thinking about it any other way now.
So in order to 'save' roleplaying games? I have no idea, but I do know that when I'm not up to being a master thespian, I can still run some combats or play out puzzle encounters.
In any case, my idea is to deemphasize "acting in character" as a mandatory activity in roleplaying games, and refocus on the gaming part.
I'm basically with you on that, Maw.
Although, if characters are self-inserts, and if situations aren't forced to be any more complex than you want them to be, a little acting comes pretty naturally to most folks, without performance anxiety. If it's 'what would I do' instead of 'what would he do'. (I honestly think the second question is a variant of the first anyway, but I do agree it's harder for a lot of folks to wrap their head around.)
And the potential to take it towards roleplaying needs to be there as well, if you want it.
But actually these 'simming' games show that you can emphasize the acting/roleplaying thing and make it popular to a different segment (arguably, these were the folks who loved dragonlance and vampire and didn't mind the metaplot). I think the important thing is that you give people something fun and manageable as a core activity. But also give the viral hosts something to obsess on so they'll want to spread it.
I tihnk the one thing I can agree with you on, just in my own personal taste, is in the importance of leaving room for world building.
I hate, hate, hate, hate games with overdefined settings. I want the opportunity to make my own version of the world. If it's a modern or future Earth setting, I want to have the freedom to make my OWN decisions with my group as to what this alternate Earth version of my hometown is like, rather than some other guy making the decisions for me.
I want high concept. I want the basic idea, the basic theme of the setting, and less in the way of overspecific details about places and people. Because people and places mean a hell of a lot more when they're your own people and places.
I've seen Rifts players who refused to play in a part of the world that hadn't gotten it's own sourcebook yet, simply because they were afraid to get creative and roll their own, because they knew they could be pre-empted at anytime by the latest sourcebook, and then suddenly their version of that region was "wrong".
That just doesn't seem right to me.
Quote from: Abyssal MawIn any case, my idea is to deemphasize "acting in character" as a mandatory activity in roleplaying games, and refocus on the gaming part.
In what games are "acting in character" mandatory , AM ? And what exactly is the "gaming" part ? It seems to me you can't be an rpg without the rp part.
Regards,
David R
"Saving" rpgs? What are we being asked to save them from?
Fantasy, that's D&D. And D&D exists. So, the next big thing, which will surely come, will be anything BUT D&D, just as it will be anything BUT whatever else currently exists and has been unable to challenge D&D. In all likelihood, it will therefore feel a tad odd. To us.
As I keep saying, pop culture reboots itself every couple of decades. Currently we're looking at the tail end of the Age of Anime. That didn't produce an RPG that could dethrone D&D. Well, until the next wave.
(The Forge is not it. Rather, they're in a phase of consolidation already, not unlike the scene in the age of FGU--de-differentiation of earlier paradigms, which in FGU's case boiled down to lots of tables and any genre they could think of, so long as it wasn't D&D fantasy.)
QuoteFantasy, that's D&D. And D&D exists. So, the next big thing, which will surely come, will be anything BUT D&D, just as it will be anything BUT whatever else currently exists and has been unable to challenge D&D.
I think this is somewhat correct. The games I know of that actually made a sizeable enough splash to compete directly with D&D, were also not fantasy or too much like D&D.
Traveller, for instance. Or Vampire. I feel the urge to suggest WEG's Star Wars as well, I know it was at least pretty successful.
I think it could still be a sci-fi game that's the next one, mainly because it's underrepresented at present, and there really hasn't been a break out sci-fi game since Traveller.
But at the same time, sci-fi isn't the big public phenomenon it has been in the past either. It's been turned into a niche interest at best, and in many ways subverted by anal retentives who've lost sight of the adventure elements that really drew people to it in the early days.
Superheroes don't really work, because that's all about idolatry, and that doesn't mesh with the goals of an RPG, which is I think why supers have always been a niche interest in RPGs.
Pirates could've been lept on maybe, but with the last PotC movie now out in the theatres and with a very LotR-ish ending, I dunno if you could really make an RPG of that now. I think the crest of the wave was realyl the first film, and now it's just a matter of time before the tide rolls back completely.
Well, my own theory is that you can't be counter culture and expensive. No I don't care to debate whether rpgs are a good value for the dollar. I think they're not bad, but in today's youth culture they're far to close to the cost of video games.
Not to mention costing a lot more than some pot.
Quote from: David JohansenNot to mention costing a lot more than some pot.
I'm of the opinion that pot was essential for the success of D&D. Maybe RPGs need a new drug.
Quote from: JimBobOz"Saving" rpgs? What are we being asked to save them from?
Obscurity? Old age?
Maybe "saving" wasn't the best of terms, but it certainly couldn't help to figure out new ways to promote RPGs.
RPGPundit
Oh, promote them?
Well, best way to do that is to invite non-gamers into your game group. If you can get one person every three months to give it a go, then each year you'll have created a whole group's worth of people who've at least tried out roleplaying games. Some of them will stick with it.
It's like, that's how most people are recruited into the Army, at least here Down Under. They know someone who's in, or has been in, and who speaks well of it and recommends it to them. It's pretty rare for people to respond just to some Army advertisment and walk in off the street.
It's the same with restaurants. A person is much more likely to go to a restaurant recommended them by a friend, than to respond to an advertisment. It's why customer satisfaction is so important - one happy customer tells one other person, one unhappy customer tells ten others. So if only one out of ten of your customers are unhappy, about half your potential customers will have a negative report of your place. So you have to invite them in, and try to make them all happy, or at least not unhappy.
Same with roleplaying. However it's advertised or presented by the companies and shops, however prettily-drawn, well-edited, brilliantly-written the books are - in the end, you'll usually give it a go because someone you know, someone you trust or at least like, says, "it's fun, try it out, come next Monday night."
You want more gamers, make them. Our hobby can be pretty insular. Me, I try to make one non-gamer into a gamer each year - not just someone who's tried it once or twice, but someone who takes it on as a new hobby. Looking back, since I started gaming in 1983, to the best of my knowledge I've made a couple of dozen new gamers. And I'm not particularly charismatic or anything like that. It's just effort. Of course, most people can't be arsed doing that, so instead they say, "oh no I'll stick to my little group, fuck off n00bs stranger danger! But what can the companies do?"
Quote from: HalfjackI'm of the opinion that pot was essential for the success of D&D. Maybe RPGs need a new drug.
I disagree. About 70% of the people I've roleplayed with are potheads. Pot'll do the job just as good now as it did then, and it's better in quality these days, to boot.
:hehe:
I agree with you on both points, JimBob. But I do think rulesets that give both the smart obsessives and the casual hobbyists easy entry can help with this.
Viral marketing is tricky business and not appropriate to every product and service. Focusing on regular ol' marketing will probably have to do...
Moreover, the world has changed enormously since the 70s. Best to forget about the factors that might have made D&D and AD&D a success back then.
Particularly since the niche who would be most interested in RPGs now have other creative outlets, such as MySpace pages, CRPGs, etc..
I'd try to attract older folks who'd never played.
Seanchai
Quote from: SeanchaiViral marketing is tricky business and not appropriate to every product and service. Focusing on regular ol' marketing will probably have to do...
Moreover, the world has changed enormously since the 70s. Best to forget about the factors that might have made D&D and AD&D a success back then.
Particularly since the niche who would be most interested in RPGs now have other creative outlets, such as MySpace pages, CRPGs, etc..
I'd try to attract older folks who'd never played.
Seanchai
You could call it Elderly Novice Roleplaying Old-timers Network. There's a name to impire confidence!
-clash
Quote from: Abyssal MawOk, my belief is possibly offensive.
You know why everyone started playing Magic: The Gathering back then?
Because in Magic: The Gathering, you don't have to act.
You don't have to talk in character, or come up with stuff when your'e playing M:TG. It's "just" a game. It's also a game you can be good at, and there were other elements. People really focused in on the collectibility as the reason MTG took off, but I think that was only one factor. The other is, it was truly fun to play, and it didn't require you to suddenly become some kind of Master Thespian. I kinda sucked at it myself and I only had about 300 cards at my height.. but I always had fun, even when i was losing.
The real reason that M:TG is so popular is because it was the first of it's kind and is back with a lot of $$.
QuoteIn any case, my idea is to deemphasize "acting in character" as a mandatory activity in roleplaying games, and refocus on the gaming part.
yes, as soon as people start requiring people to "act" at the table is when you scare off newbies. Lets face it, most people think what we do is weird to begin with.
Well, the rpg industry could stand to learn from others. So here's ten sales and marketing techniques a guy learned from strippers (http://www.wisecamel.com/2007/06/20/10-sales-and-marketing-tips-i-learned-from-strippers/).
Quote from: JimBobOzWell, the rpg industry could stand to learn from others. So here's ten sales and marketing techniques a guy learned from strippers (http://www.wisecamel.com/2007/06/20/10-sales-and-marketing-tips-i-learned-from-strippers/).
This link has pictures, right? I comprehend better with graphics.
Regards,
David R
Damn! How will I ever get rid of the picture of Gary Gygax twirling round a stripper pole?
Quote from: JimBobOzWell, the rpg industry could stand to learn from others. So here's ten sales and marketing techniques a guy learned from strippers (http://www.wisecamel.com/2007/06/20/10-sales-and-marketing-tips-i-learned-from-strippers/).
Actually, its not a bad link.
Something to ad, though (and yes, I'll tie this in to RPG promotion in a sec), is when you go out to a strip club in Tennessee you can bring in a bottle of liquor. Now, if you choose the right liquor (a good vodka, Crown Royal, or Southern Comfort usually works), the strippers will come to you and offer customer service for a shot or two of the drink. Often the bouncers are watching this, so the strippers must flirt or give a lap dance so that it looks like they are actually working so the boss doesn't get mad. Then you get tipsy or drunken strippers giving you lapdances for the price of a drink (or free) which is much less than the going rate.
Now, apply this model to gaming.
Go to a coffee shop or wine/beer bar, sit at a table, and pull out a gaming book or two and start drawing a dungeon map. Pull out some miniatures and place them in strategic positions on the map and occassionally roll some dice. Write down the results. Pretty soon, someone is going to ask you about what you are doing - explain the game to them and invite them to play if they look interested. Voila! You've just began to create more gamers.
The best selling point for gaming is that it is a social activity, so go out and be social with it if you are that interested in getting new gamers. I'd recommend doing this in a chain bookstore with an attached coffee shop - that way, you can point the prospective gamer to the gaming book section of the store and increase their interest.
My own guess is that short of a re-introduction / re-invention capturing the public imagination from outside of the existing industry and hobby, we're pretty much stuck with what we've got.
Even if we manage to draw in more people we can't help but lose them faster to the ever more competitive and shiney alternatives.
Regarding bringing in new gamers. Perhaps it's best to wander of the reservation and bring in folks who don't have gamers taste....that's right. Non-geeks. I know quite a few people who have become gamers and are not interested in the usual gamer stuff like comics/sf etc.
Also I think there is good for the hobby and good for the industry. I recently met a chap online who I had introduced to gaming a couple of years ago. He and his group of five only play free rpgs they get of the net. I had not even heard of most of the games they play. I was surprised at the amount of free stuff out there. Hell, he sometimes even downloads homebrew campaign settings that he gets from forums etc.
So there's the hobby and the industry. I wonder if the former can survive without the latter?
Regards,
David R
I do think the existence of "the industry" - that is, people making their living from producing, distributing or selling rpgs - helps "the hobby." One encourages the other.
Taking the FLGS part of it, though it's often run by idiots and is a really terrible place for recruiting gamers, is a good place to encourage gamers. You go there and see all the shiny books and are filled with a mixture of nostalgia for old games and enthusiasm for new ones. For example, I'd had a break for a while from gaming, hadn't bothered to go looking for other gamers. One day I caught up with an old gaming buddy for lunch, and we visited the FLGS because we happened to pass it. He saw GURPS 4e on the shelves, we discussed it a bit, and I said, "look, I'll buy it if you agree to play it or GM it with me - even if it's just us two." He agreed to that, and that led to our current spell of gaming, running a group each and having given game sessions to about 20 people over the past couple of years (not counting people where we joined their existing group, just the individuals who came to games we ran).
I think that "window shopping" aspect of the FLGS is pretty significant in keeping actual game sessions happening. It's like how even if you closed down all the churches and temples and mosques, and lost all the holy books, people would still be religious - but the physical building and books help.
Don't underestimate the fact that for most people in wealthy societies, being able to go out and buy props, gear, etc. for your activity is a feature, not a bug. People like spending money on the things they spend time on.
So, there's a big plus to playing games that you can buy in regular stores, and a smaller plus to playing games that you can buy in specialty stores, for most people.
If the world economy really does crash at some point expect tabletop RPGs to get HUGE again; the other option is another pop culture connection like we got with D&D and Vampire. Those things are probably more important than rules in the end, RPGs are 'out there'.
I do think really good RPG products, like the D&D basic sets of yore (the current one is decent in terms of props but it should really go to level 2 or 3) should let non-roleplayers get their seats in butts and play within half an hour though.
Quote from: David RRegarding bringing in new gamers. Perhaps it's best to wander of the reservation and bring in folks who don't have gamers taste....that's right. Non-geeks. I know quite a few people who have become gamers and are not interested in the usual gamer stuff like comics/sf etc.
Also I think there is good for the hobby and good for the industry. I recently met a chap online who I had introduced to gaming a couple of years ago. He and his group of five only play free rpgs they get of the net. I had not even heard of most of the games they play. I was surprised at the amount of free stuff out there. Hell, he sometimes even downloads homebrew campaign settings that he gets from forums etc.
So there's the hobby and the industry. I wonder if the former can survive without the latter?
Regards,
David R
Same here. I've had creat success over the years bringing in non-geeks.
-clash
Quote from: David RSo there's the hobby and the industry. I wonder if the former can survive without the latter?
Well, I can't imagine the hobby existing without
spawning an industry of some sort. I mean ... people are going to make their systemss, and eventually somebody's going to say "Hey, I could charge money for this ... people would pay it!" and then you're back in the business of selling RPGs, in at least a small way.
Could the hobby survive if the way the industry was structured
totally changed? Sure. It's done so before. When was the last time you went to a model railroading store and rooted around the back to find their RPG section? That's what I did in my youth ... it was all just "Hobbies."
Quote from: flyingmiceYou could call it Elderly Novice Roleplaying Old-timers Network. There's a name to impire confidence!
I get to be Sting. You can be Jagger.
Seanchai
Quote from: flyingmiceSame here. I've had creat success over the years bringing in non-geeks.
I've brought a couple into the fold, but it hasn't stuck. Sure, they play when I'm there, but give up gaming when we drift apart for whatever reason. The long term successes I've had bringing people into the fold have been with folks for whom gaming and its associated elements resonated - i.e., geeks.
Seanchai
Quote from: SeanchaiI've brought a couple into the fold, but it hasn't stuck. Sure, they play when I'm there, but give up gaming when we drift apart for whatever reason.
I've seen two standards for "Who is a gamer?"
One standard is: If you say "Hey, let's play an RPG?" and they say "Cool. I know how to do that, and it'll be fun," then they're a gamer.
Another standard is: If you drop them in a new city, with no gamers to prompt them, they will have both the motivation and the skills to seek out (or start!) a gaming group of their own.
I honestly find that pushing the second standard as the "important thing" is one of the fastest ways to turn prospective people
off of RPGs. Folks are happy to learn to play a fun, new game. They're not so happy to orient their lives (even in part) around RPGs.
Quote from: TonyLBWell, I can't imagine the hobby existing without spawning an industry of some sort. I mean ... people are going to make their systemss, and eventually somebody's going to say "Hey, I could charge money for this ... people would pay it!" and then you're back in the business of selling RPGs, in at least a small way.
I get what you're saying. I guess I was thinking of the "hobby" as a group of gamers releasing stuff through the net for free (with no industry in sight). *shrug* I don't forsee this ever happening, I suppose there always will be an "industry" of some sort.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: TonyLBI've seen two standards for "Who is a gamer?"
Okay, but that's not the key element. The key element is sustainability, particularly when you're talking business and marketing.
Quote from: TonyLBI honestly find that pushing the second standard as the "important thing" is one of the fastest ways to turn prospective people off of RPGs.
But folks who will seek out and purchase RPGs because of internal factors rather than external ones
Quote from: TonyLBThey're not so happy to orient their lives (even in part) around RPGs.
That's hyperbole.
Let's talk in concretes. There are two non-gamers who I introduced to gaming about four or five years ago in the same campaign. Lina was a big fantasy/sci-fi fan and enjoyed computer games. Michel was into reading the classics - you know, those books that are on sale at Borders for $3 - and enjoyed being competitive.
Lina took to RPGs like a duck to water. She was all about the story - re-creating the types of things she'd read and watched. Once the campaign ended and I barely saw her, she sought out a new group, bought her own games, went to conventions and married a gamer.
Michel enjoyed the more competitive and game-like aspects of the campaign. She barely acknowledged the story elements of the game and just wanted to get to the next fight. She was very meticulous about her character, etc. - she created her own spellbook and selected and painted a mini - but once the campaign ended and we went our separate ways, she had no interest in gaming anymore.
If you introduce Linas to gaming (through marketing, play experience, or whatever), they'll expand the hobby and industry. If you introduce Michels to gaming, they'll game when the opportunity exists but won't really help grow anything.
Seanchai
Quote from: SeanchaiIf you introduce Linas to gaming (through marketing, play experience, or whatever), they'll expand the hobby and industry. If you introduce Michels to gaming, they'll game when the opportunity exists but won't really help grow anything.
Yeah, I think you're probably right. But you're talking as if introducing Michel was a pointless exercise, and I just don't think it was at all. You've created another person who will play RPGs when they are offered as an activity.
Monopoly is an insanely successful game by almost anyone's standards, but the number of people who self-identify as "Monopoly Gamers" and who push the limits of what Monopoly can be ... I'm guessing (though I don't have numbers) that they're a tiny minority of those who play. Would anyone benefit if new versions of Monopoly were only pitched to that minority?
I understand the temptation of pitching and selling RPGs as something that is only for people who are going to get involved with the Hobby as a whole, and seek out new and different RPGs and, basically, make being a gamer into part of their identity. I just think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy: If you're only producing products that will be loved by the most committed, the most engaged ... well then, you're forcing RPGs more and more into the cul-de-sac of being a niche industry of and for the extreme loyalists.
Just for the record, the idea in my original post was that for an RPG to find great success it needs to have something to offer to both groups of people.
Quote from: CalithenaJust for the record, the idea in my original post was that for an RPG to find great success it needs to have something to offer to both groups of people.
LOL! You're completely right. I lost track of that, but we seem to have circled right back to your original point. Now I feel a little silly :deflated:
Quote from: TonyLBYeah, I think you're probably right. But you're talking as if introducing Michel was a pointless exercise, and I just don't think it was at all. You've created another person who will play RPGs when they are offered as an activity.
Sure. It's not a bad thing. But if I had to choose between Linas or Michels, I'd take the Linas.
Quote from: TonyLBI just think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy: If you're only producing products that will be loved by the most committed, the most engaged ... well then, you're forcing RPGs more and more into the cul-de-sac of being a niche industry of and for the extreme loyalists.
I agree with you in terms of the type of product. It sounds like I disagree who to aim it at.
Seanchai
Quote from: SeanchaiSure. It's not a bad thing. But if I had to choose between Linas or Michels, I'd take the Linas.
"Choose" in what sense? Because I'd be happy to have either of them in my group - in fact, I'd be happiest with both, because a variety of playstyles makes the game most fun, whatever Uncle Ronny &co think.
For the hobby as whole, it's just a matter of getting the numbers through. Some people will be Linas, some will be Michels, and some will be Janes - try none or one session, and not be interested in doing it again at all. As I said, I've made probably a new gamer each year of my gaming life - new Linas (in terms of continuing interest). But for each new Lina there were two or three new Michels, and dozens of Janes.
You just work the numbers through. That's what any "industry" does, it's why they have advertising, free sample products and so on, to make the most people possible aware of their product. But the most effective marketing tool is a current satisfied customer. Gamers make new gamers.
Unfortunately, many gamers and their groups are quite insular.
Quote from: JimBobOz"Choose" in what sense?
Main Entry: choose
Pronunciation: \ˈchüz\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): chose \ˈchōz\; cho·sen \ˈchō-zən\; choos·ing \ˈchü-ziŋ\
Etymology: Middle English chosen, from Old English cēosan; akin to Old High German kiosan to choose, Latin gustare to taste
Date: before 12th century
transitive verb
1 a: to select freely and after consideration
b: to decide on especially by vote : elect
2 a: to have a preference for b: decide
intransitive verb
1: to make a selection
2: to take an alternative — used after cannot and usually followed by but
— choos·er \ˈchü-zər\ noun
Quote from: JimBobOzYou just work the numbers through. That's what any "industry" does, it's why they have advertising, free sample products and so on, to make the most people possible aware of their product.
Except that's not true. Advertisers and marketers don't throw out ads, promotions, etc. out there and hope someone bites. They spend a great deal of time and effort selecting potential audiences so that they won't be wasting their time and money.
Quote from: JimBobOzBut the most effective marketing tool is a current satisfied customer. Gamers make new gamers.
Out of people who are pre-disposed to be gamers.
Seanchai