After reading Sean Shaw’s review on BGG and listening to everyone’s responses, I punched this letter to WOTC. Don’t expect a response.
Topic: Axis and Allies 1942
Dear Wizards,
Do you know what attracts new players to Axis and Allies? Older players. I have never known anyone who got into A&A based on your non-existent marketing campaign or lame attempts to peddle the Avalon Hill Brand.
What I have seen, time and time again, are new players brought into the fold by veteran players. It’s their love for the game and all its strategy that hooks new players. New players are able to find groups of like minded people and, in doing so, are enticed to buy their own copy of the game.
This is the system from which your revenue flows. Players bringing in players, encouraging each other to develop their skills and collection through competition and affirmation.
But that depends on certain things. It depends on a certain level of continuity and improvement over successive generations of A&A. It depends on a rich and “complete” strategy game being available (A&A Anniversary). It depends on Wizards respecting their fan base and not insulting their intelligence.
In the case of Axis and Allies not all change is bad. The Revised brand was in desperate need of a face-lift. I agree with that. Anniversary did a admirable job of reviving a storied franchise. However, the conscious decision to cheapen the Axis and Allies brand with 1942 is bad. Changes made only to make the game “easier” and “more accessible” to players, without a thought as to how it affects strategic depth, is most certainly bad. Especially when these changes include – or rather “exclude” – the removal of Tech, Printed Currency, a Battle Board, and/or enough Playing Pieces.
I am not currently planning on quitting this game. I have my copy of Axis and Allies Anniversary, and I enjoy it quite well. However, for those players who do not own Anniversary and won’t pay the outrageous prices for one on e-bay, then understand that pissing off your existing playerbase has significant risks. Especially when you refuse to do a second printing of Anniversary and instead opt for this piss-poor version of Revised.
On a more constructive note, rather than conducting market research only on potential clients, maybe you should address the clients that are responsible for most of your income. Because neglecting them is probably a bad idea.
