The Loose Association of Wargamers

Out of interest, in what ways was BG a 'quality' product? I ask because as a frequent contributor to WI, in all three ownerships, I find some of the comments fellow members have made really quite worrying. If you won't part with £5 or so a month, or every other month for WSS, I do wonder how you afford any figures, terrain and the like.

It's not the price; it's the quality.

The answer to that question is that people view value for money in different ways. They’ll spend £300 on an army that will get used a few times a year, but not £100 on latex cobblestone roads which may well get used in every game that they play

I suspect that cheaper substitutions play a large part in it. They can get alternative stuff online for cheaper or free. They can make their own terrain for cheaper. It’s the reason plastics are generally more popular than metal. They’re cheaper. I suspect with the rise in 3D printing, figure suppliers will die as people print more of what they want for cheaper.

grizzlymc wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:06 am It's not the price; it's the quality.

Do you really mean quality, which you haven't defined, or do you really mean content specifically geared to your current interest(s)?

Jeremy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:16 am ...They can get alternative stuff online for cheaper or free.

The mindset of Johnny Wargamer in a sentence.

Perhaps. It’s also neither right, nor wrong. It just is. The Wargames market as we know it now will be completely different in 10 years I suspect. But it will still be there

My January used to involve sitting in my fathers pool, drinking wine and reading. I would arrive in Sydney shortly before Christmas, sometimes covered in jungle sores, or desert sores, and pick up all the mags I could find in the newsagents. I stopped about 10 years ago because they were getting consistently time wasting. Maybe other people have a different experience.

I always thought BattleGames had a higher consistency of interesting articles that I would actively use, particularly in scenarios and campaign ideas. Not to say that the other magazines didn’t have interesting articles but BG seemed more consistent. I certainly bought all three magazines regularly until about 15 years ago, when I decided to lose the two IKEA bookcases that stored them all, strip out the (fair) number of articles I really wanted to keep and save a lot of space.

There’s also an age/experience factor - there wasn’t much that was new to me now. These days I just dip into the odd one or two out of boredom.

There is an occasional debate going on about whether forums have had their day, that all the smart action is on Farcebook. Personally I doubt that, but it does indicate that the medium is definitely up for change in this period of technical revolution.

Penda wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 10:52 am Out of interest, in what ways was BG a 'quality' product? I ask because as a frequent contributor to WI, in all three ownerships, I find some of the comments fellow members have made really quite worrying. If you won't part with £5 or so a month, or every other month for WSS, I do wonder how you afford any figures, terrain and the like.

I don't know WSS at all. You have to realise that newsagents in OZ carry NO wargames' mags & never have (I'm sure someone will pipe in with an exception but as a fairly solid generalisation, it stands: I've never seen one).
And not 5 pounds but 15 in OZ which is the add on P&P. I indicated that I would pay even that now that I'm a bit more financially flush but back then, school fees, mortgage etc. It seemed an indulgence. My budget for the hobby had limitations. This was one. If I don't buy WI now, it's because though I can afford it, I don't see the value.... personal (& no doubt flawed) preference.

So, "quality product". The term I used is inherently indicative again of personal preference. For example, I like Old School. BG was a purveyor of Old School. You may have noticed the other mag I cited as "quality" was Practical Wargamer....I think that should indicate what I want in a mag as the latter surely was influenced far more by the former than any other publication. Our hobby, as I'm sure you know, is far from being monolithic. I acknowledge & respect the differences in everything from painting style, to scope, to preferred periods etc but not everything clicks with me. In BG, more "clicked" than in other magazines. Jeez, I even liked Mike Siggins.

I hope I have not inadvertently insulted you. I admire the fact you've had articles published and I would not demean in any way the magazines you prefer. I probably should seek out a copy of WSS to see what I'm missing.

donald