Zweischneid, you make an interesting comparison, but I think it is not quite right.
Where it falls down is that movies, videogames, even lego kits are all relatively solitary or passive activities. Videogames require no where near the learning curve, just to play, that board or tabletop wargames require. Many videogames seem to live forever, even if the game itself is out of date and no longer produced. The limited run lego kits don't require someone else just to build it.
Dreadfleet requires someone else to play against. Unlike hopping in the car to see a movie, or two buddies buying a video game they can play together, for dreadfleet both need to invest time, energy, and resources to learn the game. Unlike videogames or movies, these complex board games (or skirmish wargames) require a lot more time to learn before being playable. That doesn't even start on the painting aspect.
Once the game is sold out, it is going to be very difficult to convince new players to try to learn it. What's the point? It could be viewed, in the future, that the game was so bad it was discontinued, or if they like it, they can never have it for themself. Thus, zero incentive to learn.
So, the problems with blockbuster model for this product are: it does not allow passive or solitary enjoyment, requires relatively large time investment to learn, and requires at least one other person to make that same commitment. This other opponent must be face to face, so unlike mmo/xbox live games, you don't have a worldwide opponent pool.
I understand the comparison to blockbuster releases , but for above reasons I don't think the analogy works for this product.
Please forgive any typos.
|