Conquer Club

Jucdor wrote:

Anarkistsdream wrote:You will have to tell me the name of the game in America once you know... I would like to play it!

Oh, the name issue hasn't been discussed. It's the name we presented them with. Now that I once again want to make sure (and this isn't a liptalk, but pure fact) that our cooperation with them has been brilliant. Out of the companies we've negotiated I've liked them best from the very beginning.

So the name of the game is The Club. You can find some more info on from our board game portfolio here: http://www.tuonelaproductions.com/game_portfolio.php. And as I said, it's coming out in September - in International Spieltage in Essen at the latest.

Seeing as you have a website you could just ask the Publisher in the US to include it (web address) in the rules and Publish the Rule wording that you want on your site. I think most of the people that will purchase your game will be inclined to check out the web site and as long as it's clearly identified on your site and make/use the change if they feel it's applicable. Most Wargame Publishers do this for the Rules of their Wargames to correct Typo's and for clarification purposes so this seems to me to fall into the same cat.

MHO of course and take with a grain of salt.

Take your BIG, HAIRY COCK in my mouth with a grain of salt?
Absolutely delighted, old sport.
Pleasure.

Bertros Bertros wrote: Politically they have a strong conservative backbone which has less tolerance for same sex relationships as is generally the case in Europe.

Yes,

Bertros Bertros wrote:As a general rule the consumer there has understandably different expectations to the consumer here.

Yes,

Bertros Bertros wrote: I think its really a case that you need one edition for the US market which excludes same sex relationships and another for the Europe market which doesn't draw the distinction, that way you can please more of the people more of the time.

No!

Jucdor is making an adult-themed board game about picking up hotties at clubs. Possibly it will be the next Monopoly, but realistically (sorry Jucdor), it will be a niche sort of game played by the hardcore board-gamers who buy every game that Europe can throw our way and/or as a novelty at bachelorette parties. These people will not be offended by the OPTION of creating a homosexual "relationship". I cannot see how the OPTION would hurt the games marketability in the U.S.

If the U.S. publishers earnestly think it's a playability issue, that's something you need to discuss and work out with them, Jucdor. But if we have a European version that allows the option, and an American version that disallows it and disallows it for no reason but bigotry, I think you are right that it would be shameful to have your name attached to it.

Jucdor wrote:


.... I don't know if they've done this on purpose or just as an act to streamline the game. What do you think? I mean already in our version gay couples earned fewer points than straight couples, because they practically could not have found the perfect couple unless certain special rules applied. And the possibility to form couples from same sex dancers is not encouraged anywhere - the part that I wrote is all there is about it!

America is, unfortunately, still rather closed-minded when it comes to this issue -- just look at the CC thread on whether Honosexual unions should be legalized.

I suspect that if homosexuality is allowed, the game will lose a HUGE marketing audience. Like it or not, when you are out to make money, you have to look at realities.

So, you have a choice. Do you keep the game "as is", which will essentially put it into the political arena as a "statement" in favor of homosexuality. OR do you decide that you want to market this game, make money and not get into the "politics"? The choice is yours.

I will suggest one alternative ... that is to substitute another factor for gender. Perhaps Republican versus Democrat (which could make it somewhat humerous, if played correctly) or some other factor old/young, rich/poor, etc. I would suggest using humor, if you wish it to persist. The more "universal", the better. Right now, the Rebublican/Democrat issue might fly well, and with humor ... and since those are not found in Europe, might provide a "legitimate" reason for new lables. Later, yoiu can always change the lables.

Anyway, best of luck.

btownmeggy wrote: No!

I wasn't quite suggesting that the actual end players would be offended by the possibility of gay dancing. I think its highly likely as you say that anyone buying this will be totally OK with the option. The problem lies with the publishers and perception of what is acceptable and what other titles they promote. If they are a niche publisher aiming at a market unlikely to take offence then I can't see their proble, if they are usually pushing mainstream with products aimed at all sectors of the population then they risk alienating some of their core consumers for the sake of political correctness. Its a case of pragmatism rather than bigotry. Does including same sex relations option add anything to the game, does removing it detract anything? These are more important questions than have I been representative of all possible players of my game. I wouldn't feel any shame at putting your name to it either way, the bottom line is your making games as a business for profitability, whether or not you support gay rights as a part of that is not important, great if you can, but if you can't your first priority is surely giving yourselves the best chance to sell your product to the widest possible market.

Well, I may not play the game myself no matter what you guys decide to go with (never really played board games all that often), Bertros does have a valid point that if you do try and put in the gay thing, you will lose a large group of customers, because, and lets face it, gay couples and those that are for gay rights/all of that other stuff, make up a very small minority here in the US (though they do have a tendency to be quite loud at certain times).

muy_thaiguy wrote:Well, I may not play the game myself no matter what you guys decide to go with (never really played board games all that often), Bertros does have a valid point that if you do try and put in the gay thing, you will lose a large group of customers, because, and lets face it, gay couples and those that are for gay rights/all of that other stuff, make up a very small minority here in the US (though they do have a tendency to be quite loud at certain times).

Whether gay couples are a minority isnt the point. If its a mater of business the only statistic that matters is how many people won't buy your game who otherwise would have if you do/don't allow same sex relations. As your US publisher, presumably a specialist on their market, thinks it should be removed that implies that in the US they feel leaving in same sex will cause less units to sell than taking it out. Its about business I assume, not gay rights activism, so go with the publisher.

Bertros Bertros wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Well, I may not play the game myself no matter what you guys decide to go with (never really played board games all that often), Bertros does have a valid point that if you do try and put in the gay thing, you will lose a large group of customers, because, and lets face it, gay couples and those that are for gay rights/all of that other stuff, make up a very small minority here in the US (though they do have a tendency to be quite loud at certain times).

Whether gay couples are a minority isnt the point. If its a mater of business the only statistic that matters is how many people won't buy your game who otherwise would have if you do/don't allow same sex relations. As your US publisher, presumably a specialist on their market, thinks it should be removed that implies that in the US they feel leaving in same sex will cause less units to sell than taking it out. Its about business I assume, not gay rights activism, so go with the publisher.

You do realize such politics do come into play here for a lot of people in their everyday lives, right?

i think it all depends if it is set in a "Gay" club or a "Straight" club. 2 versions already. if you go with the "Gay" club game, PM me and i'll take a cheque or percentage of the royalties.

muy_thaiguy wrote:You do realize such politics do come into play here for a lot of people in their everyday lives, right?

I'm having difficulty seeing the point you're trying to make with that remark?

I have a spare pair of "BIGOTED BASTARD" specs here, Mustard. All you have to do is ask
Remarkable that Thai Gay doent just declare he is a memeber of the KKK and be done with it.

suggs wrote:I have a spare pair of "BIGOTED BASTARD" specs here, Mustard. All you have to do is ask
Remarkable that Thai Gay doent just declare he is a memeber of the KKK and be done with it.

Got a spare pair for me too? The bigot detection coating on mine seems to have failed, damn these all in one vari-detection spectacles, just not the same as my good old bi-detection ones.

suggs wrote:I have a spare pair of "BIGOTED BASTARD" specs here, Mustard. All you have to do is ask
Remarkable that Thai Gay doent just declare he is a memeber of the KKK and be done with it.

Wrong white supremacist group, I'm a Democrat.

muy_thaiguy wrote: Wrong white supremacist group, I'm a Democrat.

ARE you? When did this happen?

muy_thaiguy wrote:

suggs wrote:I have a spare pair of "BIGOTED BASTARD" specs here, Mustard. All you have to do is ask
Remarkable that Thai Gay doent just declare he is a memeber of the KKK and be done with it.

Wrong white supremacist group, I'm a Democrat.

You're a democrat in the 1860 sense, are you?

suggs wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

suggs wrote:I have a spare pair of "BIGOTED BASTARD" specs here, Mustard. All you have to do is ask
Remarkable that Thai Gay doent just declare he is a memeber of the KKK and be done with it.

Wrong white supremacist group, I'm a Democrat.

You're a democrat in the 1860 sense, are you?

no in the sense of Chevy Chase in "Fletch" or Fletch Lives", i forgot which one it is.

suggs wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote: Wrong white supremacist group, I'm a Democrat.

You're a democrat in the 1860 sense, are you?

Yes...you do rather weep when you see what a once fine organization has become today.

Talking about this as a bigotry/non-bigot issue really misses a couple of points.Though I support things like legalization of homosexuality, I still would not buy a game like this for a few reasons.

1.  A game like this tends to trivialize, rather than educate about complex issues. 
2. I have limited funds.  When I buy a game, I want it one I can play over and over with as many people as possible.   I buy my kids Legos, for example, instead of action figures. (unless I get them for very little at garage sales or such).  Many of my friends and acquantances, many of the parents of my son's friends would be offended by the topic.   I buy Risk, Monopoly, Clue, etc. ... not political or "teaching" games with very few exceptions.

 The gaming industry is very, very, very competetive.Basically, I think you have to decide if you want to stick to the "homosexual thing" as a kind of "political statement"  OR if you just want to sell a fun game.If the latter, then I suggest keeping the same structure, but change the variables.  

Earlier, I suggested using Republicans versus Democrats, but you could really pick any 2 variables.  Cat lovers versus Dog lovers, for example.   Use your imagination.  I would suggest that the more humerous and unimportant your choices, the more the appeal.

The problem is that the game doesn't promote a homosexual agenda, it doesn't promote one over another.

The revised version does promote a heterosexual agenda though. Why not let people decide for themselves? If people who play the game don't like homosexuality they will fill in the rule anyway. So basically the rule is unneccesary.

So what's the controversy here? Is Jucdor proposing a game in which gays aren't burnt at a regulation 3 meter by 20cm radius stake using Vatican-approved kindlewood?

That'll never do...

You're a democrat in the 1860 sense, are you?

The difference between then and now being...?

muy_thaiguy wrote:

You're a democrat in the 1860 sense, are you?

The difference between then and now being...?

They were a decent party. Opposed to big federal government and all.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

You're a democrat in the 1860 sense, are you?

The difference between then and now being...?

They were a decent party. Opposed to big federal government and all.

I'm talking in racial matters, not government.

muy_thaiguy wrote: I'm talking in racial matters, not government.

They were racist back then. (Or at least more racist than republicans I think.)

Snorri1234 wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote: I'm talking in racial matters, not government.

They were racist back then. (Or at least more racist than republicans I think.)

They still are, just without having others in chains.