I am sure Knightmare and his experience with Games Workshop USA has plenty to go off of on how developers focused on the hardcore demographic of thier audience are lucky to still be functioning.
I'll bite.
During my tenure with GW Corporate, one of the corporate idioms that always struck me as funny was their term for Warhammer 40K. GW Corp employees used to call it "Chutes & Ladders". Meaning, compared to Fantasy, 40K was a decidedly simple game, and therefore a child's game.
In an office of about 50 people, not including Red Shirts, I'd say maybe two-to-three were 40K players first and Fantasy players second. It's a telling percentage, but not so telling considering these people were dedicated GW hobbyists – We're talking about Golden Demon, National Championship-type hobbyists here.
So keep that in mind.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying these people disliked 40K. Quite the contrary. Almost every employee had a least one 40K army in their collection, but most found the Fantasy game to be more complex and more challenging; therefore a better game for the "hardcore" competitive player. Fantasy was clearly more advanced, and the player type consistently proved it.
That said, most people would then assume Fantasy was the better selling of the two main GW product lines. After all, a dedicated, highly motivated, and competitive cadre of hobbyists would be keen to purchase lots of product.
Anyone want to take a guess which line actually sold better?
If you said 40K you'd be correct.
While the models and storyline have a lot to do with initial appeal, the truth was that 40K play was better suited to young or new table top gamers. One of the many trends we capitalized on as Account Managers was the transition from 40K to Fantasy/LotR – bringing new gamers through one product line and then into another – once they reached a certain point in their hobby, i.e. where "hardcore" or competitive play was now the norm.
Truth be told, by the time these hobbyists reached the aforementioned point they were typically already hooked for one reason or another, but branching them out to another, more complex line made sense and would generate additional revenue. Also, at this point in the hobbyist cycle there's a whole different set of requirements to keep them happy – which I'll get into below.
99.9% of all targeted hobbyists generally fall into two categories. Those with limited or no exposure (new market) and existing (old market) hobbyists. They're two different, yet inter-connected hobby markets.
I've intentionally left out lost, or the returning hobbyist market because their market value is much smaller than the other two...
Having a game or game line with ascending levels of complexity and difficulty is extremely important. A "dumb" basic game for introductory, general and even some tournament play is especially useful in garnering new hobbyists from an extremely competitive market. Which by the way, isn't shrinking.
Table Top Market Econ 101 – The niche Gaming Market is not (truly) affected by Macro-Economics. So now you're scratching your head. Why you ask? Well, the easiest way to explain it is to tell you about the young kid who gets $10 a week for lunch money and a $10 a week allowance. Every week the kid buys his school lunch and spends his weekly allowance on Pokemon cards. Life is good. Then all of a sudden his parents lose their jobs and can only provide their kid with the $10 for lunch. You know what happens? Market and research data shows that the kid will starve himself every week just to spend the same $10 bucks on his Pokemon cards.
This same scenario plays itself out every day.
It's true that economic recessions reduce market size, but the gaming industry is affected differently. In fact, the board game industry saw a decent jump in overall revenue growth during the first years of the American Recession because parents and families found the value in repetitive game play.
Remember, Table Top Gaming is an investment. So, the product's "value" is typically in excess to the product's cost. The capital outlay pales in comparison to the hours upon hours of fun.
Ain't psychology grand?
So how is that applicable to BattleTech...
Well, without getting into specifics – I neither want, nor care to pass judgment, I'm just talking about a game, not a company – BattleTech would do well to have a simplified, fast, easy-to-play introductory game (which I think it has with Quickstart IMO). A game that appeals to today's typical gamer, but with the capacity to add layers of advanced and technical rules.
In terms of complexity, I think BattleTech already has a great line of Core Rule Books that serve up the complexity by the bucket full. That said, would a simpler introductory game hurt BattleTech? Absolutely not.
IF anything it'll help introduce and reintroduce casual gamers to the line, while the advanced core rules will help keep them playing well after the glossy veneer of "simplicity" wears thin. There's a reason why video games start off easy and progressively become more difficult.
Challenges are invitations for investment. Investment generates revenue. Revenue creates new product and happy gamers.
