[DL] This whole, sad, sordid affair.

[Ross Coburn <coburn@sympatico.ca>]

Good morning, everyone.

I've been following the various anti-Cybergames threads (and the occasional
counter-propaganda), and have decided that the list can no longer do without
my wisdom.

I begin by stating that I have never met Shane, nor the people at Cybergames
personally.  That said, I cannot think of a single person in the gaming
industry who is as universally liked and admired by his peers and customer
base as Shane Hensley, a fact which is attested to regularly in this very
forum, among other places.

Furthermore, my own experience with Pinnacle and Deadlands has been
overwhelmingly positive.  While I haven't necessarily thought every single
product released was brilliant, the overall level of quality is as good or
better than anything else in the business.  As far as customer relations, I
cannot think of a company (or group of individuals) who have worked harder
at establishing and maintaining good relations that PEG, and as far as I
know Shane is absolutely unique in the industry in terms of 'fessing up when
he goofs, and refusing to point fingers otherwise.  In short, when Shane
says something (on the list or elsewhere), I take it as gospel that this is
what is going to come to pass, to the limit of his ability to make it so.

This is a refreshing contrast to other gaming companies I could name whose
customer relations strategy seems to be "you can buy what we release when
we're good and ready, but otherwise, please don't try to reach us; customers
bother us."

This has often amused me almost as much as it irritates me, as I have a very
high opinion of myself and value my time (for which I am superbly
compensated when I work, blessing me with the disposable income to buy any
and every RPG product that strikes my fancy, however briefly, which I would
suspect places me in a highly desirable demographic, not to mention the fact
that, as the default Marshal/DM/Referee etc., in our group(s), my
preferences strongly influence the buying decisions of at least ten other
people).

Cybergames seems to fall directly into the latter, far less desirable
category, and this is being charitable; I strongly suspect that they have
been dishonest, but as I cannot prove it, I make no explicit assertions to
that effect your honour.

Among my professional experiences (which also include stints as an editor,
publisher and writer), I have worked with Prophet Brand Strategy, one of
your country's leading branding firms.  While I do not claim to be an expert
in the subject, I did absorb the bare basics of the field, which revolve
around the following concept:

A recognized brand is a valuable commodity.  Consumers make an overwhelming
percentage of their purchasing decisions based on established reputations.

Given the choice, would you buy Sony or Imaknockoff?  What if I told you
they had the same components?  Right...  I'd stick with Sony too.

What I'm getting at is this; Pinnacle has built tremendous brand recognition
in the gaming industry, based on quality of work, honesty and integrity.
Cybergames seems to be doing their level best to destroy this accumulated
goodwill, though whether this is due to malice aforethought or simple
incompetence is not for me to say.

Ask Apple Computer how important they think their brand recognition is.  Or
Mercedes?  It's a difficult thing to build, and an easy thing to destroy.

I sincerely hope that the people at Cybergames have the best of intentions
and wake up and look around, very soon.  These rumblings of discontent are
indicative of a serious problem, people.

Take heart, Shane!
-- 
Ross Coburn
coburn@sympatico.ca