The following is a proposal I intend to submit to GAMA and the Academy
for review. Following the widespread dissatisfaction with this year's
ORIGINS Award process, I believe rapid, significant change is necessary
to rebuild the stature and interest in the Awards that is required to
make them meaningful and relevant.

Your comments are welcome!
-----------------------------------
PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE ORIGINS AWARDS - DRAFT

Intent:
=======
The intent of this proposal is to focus the ORIGINS Awards toward the
games which are produced by the members of GAMA, specifically products
that represent the bulk of the products sold by the majority of the
members of GAMA, and to position the ORIGINS Award as the pre-eminent
award which could be earned by those products in any venue.

Problems with the Current System:
=================================
1. Awards Not Representative of Best in Class
------------------------------------------
Due to the challenges in working with European and Japanese publishers,
the ORIGINS Awards do not fully represent the extremely active and
diverse publisher communities in either region. As a result, awards in
the Board Game, Card Game and Trading Card Game categories (by any
terminology) often overlook worthy entrants. And, even if the
nominations process was improved, the vast preponderance of voters are
located in North America, meaning that the chance of a product from
either Europe or Japan winning in its category regardless of merit is
essentially nil.

2. Specificity of Game Types
-------------------------
The increasing overlap between the terms used to describe tabletop games
and video/computer/console games makes it hard to differentiate the
ORIGINS Awards from Awards targeting the computer game market.

3. Get Out the Vote drives unduly influence winners
------------------------------------------------
Each year, a handful of publishers make an extraordinary effort to
motivate their consumers to vote on their behalf for ORIGINS Award
consideration. As a result, a number of products have won ORIGINS
Awards despite overwhelming general consensus that they were not the
best products in the categories in question. This effect is especially
pronounced when the publisher in question operates a widely distributed
house-organ such as a magazine or a highly trafficked website.

4. A number of categories are outdated
-----------------------------------
Several ORIGINS Awards are given to product categories which no longer
have any material effect on the financial health of the industry. These
categories slow down the awards presentation, clutter the ballot, and
reduce the overall impact of ORIGINS Award nomination and winning.

5. A number of categories are subordinate to other awards
------------------------------------------------------
A number of the current ORIGINS Award categories are subordinate to more
prestigious awards handled through other venues. Continuing to make
awards in these categories, without realistic hope that the ORIGINS
Award will rise to become the pre-eminent award in that category,
reduces the overall value of the ORIGINS Awards substantially.

Proposed Award Category Revision
================================
The following is a list of the current Award categories, and a proposed
list of new award categories, removing a number of existing categories
and adding three new general recognition award categories.

Current Categories (as of 2003):
--------------------------------
* Best Abstract Board Game
* Best Board Game Expansion or Supplement
* Best Card Game Expansion or Supplement
* Best Game Aide or Accessory
* Best Game Periodical
* Best Game-Related Fiction Long Form
* Best Game-Related Fiction Short Form
* Best Graphic Design of a Board Game
* Best Graphic Design of a Book Format Product
* Best Graphic Design of a Card Game Or Expansion
* Best Graphic Fiction
* Best Historical Board Game
* Best Historical Figure Miniature Series
* Best Historical Miniature
* Best Historical Miniature Rules
* Best Play-By-Mail Game
* Best Roleplaying Adventure
* Best Roleplaying Game
* Best Roleplaying Supplement
* Best Science Fiction or Fantasy Board Game
* Best Science Fiction or Fantasy Miniature
* Best Illustration
* Best Science Fiction or Fantasy Figure Miniature Series
* Best Science Fiction or Fantasy Miniatures Rules
* Best Trading Card Game
* Best Traditional Card Game
* Game of the Year

Proposed Revised List of Categories:
------------------------------------
* Best Game Periodical
* Best New Game Aide or Accessory
* Best New Traditional Board Game
* Best New Traditional Card Game
* Best New Tabletop Wargame
* Best New Tabletop Roleplaying Game
* Best New Tabletop Roleplaying Supplement
* Best New Tabletop Roleplaying Adventure
* Best New Game Requiring Sculpted Miniature Figures
* Best New Sculpted Miniature Figures Line
* Best New Individual Sculpted Miniature Figure
* Best New Trading Card Game
* Best New Trading Card Game Expansion
* Artist of the Year
* Designer of the Year
* Publisher of the Year
* Game of the Year

Revisions to Policies & Procedures:
===================================
The following points represent changes to the ORIGINS Award policies and
procedures which are designed to better achieve the objectives of the
Awards in general.

Scope of Awards:
----------------
The ORIGNS Awards will specifically be described as:

"The premiere Award recognizing excellence in the field of tabletop game
publication featuring products distributed in the North American
market."

It is important to note that these are not >game design< awards. They
are product awards, which encompass game design, graphic design,
illustration, editing, marketing, and brand management. As such,
separate recognition for the components of the game products (as per the
current "Art" awards) is not desirable.

Changes to Award Categories:
----------------------------
Many of the current categories represent works eligible for more
prestigious awards in other venues. Several are legacy awards that no
longer represent mainstream unit volume or revenue for most GAMA
members. Others target things sold in game stores which are not games.
And some are subdivisions of categories that already represent small
portions of the general GAMA membership's marketplace.

The list of categories eligible for Award consideration is changed
substantially by this proposal. First, it focuses on the 3 significant
categories of revenue which support the whole industry: RPGs, CCGs and
Miniatures games. Second, it removes legacy categories and categories
with more prestigious awards. Third, it recognizes individual
excellence in the fields of Artist, Designer, and Publisher.

The net effect of these changes should be a much more focused Awards
Ballot and Ceremony, and an increase in the overall prestige value of
the Awards. The Awards will also be more fully representative of the
actual market represented by the GAMA Memebership.

New and Unusual Formats:
------------------------
In the event that a game appears which is both popular, and defines a
new category not covered by the existing ORIGINS Awards categories (i.e.
Diskwars or Magic: the Gathering), the Academy would have the ability
within 2 years of the game's first distribution in the North American
market to award a special "ORIGINS Award for Innovation" to that game to
ensure proper recognition of the achievement.

Selection of Products for the Final Ballot:
-------------------------------------------
Based on market research provided either by GAMA, or gathered by the
Academy in a process acceptable to GAMA, the top 3 best-selling (by unit
volume) products that qualify for each category will be automatically
placed on the Final Ballot.

A Nominations Form will be circulated to the members of the Academy.
The Nominations Form will list all products qualifying for each category
to the best of the Academy's ability to assemble such a list. The list
will not include the marketshare leading products that are automatically
placed on the Final Ballot. The members of the Academy will be allowed
to vote for 3 products in each category. The 3 products with the most
votes in each category will be added to the Final Ballot.

The Academy committee may, at its sole discretion, add one or more
products it deems worthy, but overlooked, to the Final Ballot for each
category.

The Academy Nominations Form will be used to select the Artist, Designer
and Publisher of the Year nominations.

The Academy committee will determine which products are nominated for
Game of the Year. Game of the Year consideration is not limited to
products eligible for the other ORIGINS Award categories.

Publisher Control of Nominations:
---------------------------------
The publisher of a given work may elect to omit that work from the Final
Ballot for any reason and without prejudice. Publishers with products
nominated (or placed) on the Final Ballot will be contacted in a timely
manner prior to the public release of the Final Ballot and asked if they
wish to exercise this privilege. In the event that a publisher
exercises this option, the next product in the natural sequence of
selection for that category would be placed on the Ballot.

Voting Process:
---------------
The winner of the ORIGINS Award will be determined as follows:

Each GAMA Full Voting Member will be permitted to vote, and those votes
will constitute 33% of the total value of the votes.

Each Academy member in good standing will be permitted to vote, and
those votes will constitute 33% of the total value of the votes.

Members of the general public (those who are neither GAMA members nor
Academy members) will be permitted to vote, and those votes will
constitute 33% of the total value of the votes.

In the event of a tie, the Award will be given to both products.

This procedure will tend to minimize the impact of "bloc voting"
engendered by publisher campaigning, and will shift a preponderance of
the vote value to professionals in the industry. Essentially, the
public vote becomes a tiebreaker between the publishers and the gaming
professionals who comprise the Academy itself.

Hi Ryan,

I'm sure others will have many questions and suggestions for you about this proposal. As far as I can tell, the intent is right on the mark. But I'll kick off with my first question:

The automatic awards for sales. Leaving aside the issue of how one even gets these numbers, what is the logic behind this. I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I'm not sure yet what exactly the idea is.

Thanks,

Christopher

Hello Ryan,

Welcome to the Forge, and thanks for posting this proposal here (and elsewhere, I presume).

There's a lot to discuss, as I'm sure you know. In general, revising the Origins Awards is long overdue and badly needed. It's one piece of reviewing Origins per se, as a convention, and GAMA as an organization - also badly needed.

But to 'scope down to the details, here's one suggestion: to reduce the awards down into non-redundant categories. I consider "adventure" to be so loosely defined as to be useless, and just considering adventures to be one form of supplement seems fine to me. I also can't quite see how best single miniature and best line of miniatures can be reasonably separated.

Here's another, in agreement with Christopher: it strikes me that the sales-based approach to eligibility is badly flawed. Can you explain just why this approach is desirable, without relying on the tautology of sales = good = sales = good = etc?

Best,
Ron

A game is comprised of many parts. 1 part is the game design, how it plays. 1 is how it looks, both art and layout which are two quite different things. 1 is how its supported. Not just supplements, but discussion forums, downloads, free expansions, a community of fans.

I see no possible way that you can successfully boil down these disparate elements into a single "best" award. Different people put different weightings on the importance of each aspect. Given an RPG of great design and poor art and layout vs a game of medicore design but high production qualities, what standard do you suggest using to determine which is "better".

Any such standard will either be viewed as putting style over substance if one gives superior weight to appearance; or in wrongfully neglecting the hard and important work of a significant number of industry people who contribute to that appearance if one gives inferior weight to appearance.

If you don't have any standard at all and just leave it up to the judges sense of what is "best" you won't have an award that has earned any greater acceptance than it has now because the choice of "best" will be so obviously wrong to people with different priorities. No. I think any award that jumbles together so many different aspects of a game into one award is doomed to failure.

There is a reason that the academy awards give out Oscars for best score and best costume design and not just best picture. Because it is important to recognize people who's contributions are significant even if their name isn't in the marquee. And there's no way that these people would get the recognition they deserve in a single award.

Also, in an effort to reduce categories you're combining some pretty disparate things. Best Historical Miniatures is not the same thing as Best Fantasy Miniatures. I find your dismissal of them as no longer contributing to the strength of the hobby as completely insulting and irrelevant.

Personally I think you should decide on catagories of games: Tabletop RPGs, Tabletop Wargames, Historical Miniatures, Fantasy Miniatures, CCGs, etc.

There should be an award for Game Design, Art, Layout, and Support for each of these categories (with Art Direction and Layout being modified as appropriate for non print based games).

If each category then has a Best in Class (like a Best Picture) award that goes to the game that has the best synergy of all of these elements than so much the better.

Your current list of categories IMO are actually inferior to the existing list.

Um, cares?

- J

I would assume that most here would prefer Mr. Dancey's suggestion that the awards be changed from the current popularity contest/ballot stuffing debacle? I think his voting split sounds quite equitable and would help greatly.


Mr. Dancey will note, however, our reluctance to accept the automatic inclusions of high-sale items. I think that this opinion, too, will be universal here. Essentially most designers here never intend to mass-market their games. Not because they aren't good games, but because that's the level of involvement that we're willing to accept.

Basically, it's odd that the rewards would claim to be accolades for design, production, etc, when in fact a primary selection criteria is based on the value that the games provide for the GAMA members. Essentially this is schitzophrenic. The awards ought to either be based soley on the merits of the games themselves as determined by the voters (who can and will consider the profits that the game makes if they like, anyhow), or they ought to be based on the profits which they provide. Mixing the two would seem to be a conflict of interest.

And one that would alienate designers like ourselves. While only a few independent designers are GAMA members, we'd like to think that our small contributions to the hobby do provide some benefit to the industry as a whole, helping to fill out niches and advancing the "technology" of games. Denying that would only alienate us further, and make us even less interested in what would start to seem to us like an "good old boy" network. Further damaging, rather than increasing the pre-eminence of the awards.

And lastly, if the GAMA members make the nominations anyhow, can't they decide that profit is a determinant, and decide to nominate games based on that criteria if they so desire? I'm willing to bet that the best sellers will get nominated anyhow, eliminating the need for the measure. If there happens to be a so-so game that sells well, and the GAMA members realize it, they can thus prevent it from appearing on the ballot if they feel that such is warranted.

Are these awards for the best games, or the most profitable games? Where do you draw the line? If you want to go by profits, then it's easy enough to just compare balance sheets and just go by bottom line. But it seems to me that the profits made by games are their own rewards to those who make the games. Why not compare all games on an even playing field, and actually reward excellence? That would seem to me to be the most legitimizing criteria to me.

Mike

Christopher Kubasik wrote: Hi Ryan,
The automatic awards for sales. Leaving aside the issue of how one even gets these numbers, what is the logic behind this. I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I'm not sure yet what exactly the idea is.

ryand wrote:
Third, GAMA, as an organization, needs to do more to reach out to the largest publishers in the industry. Currently, only WizKids is actively involved in GAMA. Without major publisher participation, GAMA does not, and can not effectively represent the industry. Gettting big publisher attention focused on the awards by getting their products on the Final Ballot consistently will help get them engaged with GAMA in general.

(Great question phrased well, btw.)

Ryan

. Get Out the Vote drives unduly influence winners
------------------------------------------------
Each year, a handful of publishers make an extraordinary effort to
motivate their consumers to vote on their behalf for ORIGINS Award
consideration. As a result, a number of products have won ORIGINS
Awards despite overwhelming general consensus that they were not the
best products in the categories in question. This effect is especially
pronounced when the publisher in question operates a widely distributed
house-organ such as a magazine or a highly trafficked website.

ADGBoss wrote:
Since the big major publishers are usually the ones running the "Vote for X" campaigns

Ok well that makes a bit o sense then. Thank you


Sean

Hi Ryan,

Thanks for the reply.

After considering this thread last night, I'd like to take a step back.

What, actually, is the purpose of the awards?

Is it to recognize the "best" -- just actually, the best, as can be guaged by a public polling of manufacturers and consumers?

Is it a promotional tool to highlight products made by GAMA members?

Is it a tool to promote GAMA?

I understand it might do all these things, but let's say we lived in an imperfect world and had to prioritize. What's the agenda.

In short, what is the mission statement for the awards, and does it mention what, exactly, is being reconized for nominated and winning games?

Thanks,
Christopher

Christopher Kubasik wrote: Hi Ryan,

What, actually, is the purpose of the awards?

I saw that this was cross-posted on RPG.net so I ask again, why do we (The Forge) care? GAMA serves the game industry. More to the point, the retail-distro chain. Why/how does this affect anyone here?

They have their Oscars. We have our Sundance.

Anything that affects the integrity of the RPG industry, like an award, I think has a very big affect on the Industry as a whole. From the big guns down to Indie Games, both free and for pay.

The chance to be able to affect something that may very well reflect well on the industry as a whole should not be ignored. So I think it is very relevant to us here.

Just my 2 Lunars of course


Sean

Now if only someone would get around to making some sort of award... perhaps a peer-only award... for independently published RPGs that don't usually interact with GAMA or the tradtional distrol channels...

:)

-Andy

ADGBoss wrote: Anything that affects the integrity of the RPG industry, like an award, I think has a very big affect on the Industry as a whole. From the big guns down to Indie Games, both free and for pay.

The chance to be able to affect something that may very well reflect well on the industry as a whole should not be ignored. So I think it is very relevant to us here.

Jared A. Sorensen wrote:

I keep hearing this word industry. What industry? Do we care? I mean, I guess you do...and I guess I don't.

- J, the Industry!

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: I saw that this was cross-posted on RPG.net

Hello,

Couple things to go over.

THING ONE
Sean (ADGboss), Jared is making a point that you're not seeing, and I think it'd be valuable for you to consider it - that "the industry" is not necessarily important or relevant to RPG publishers and players. Jared's work has demonstrated this beyond any shadow of a doubt, and my own success at the industry level is based on my earlier success without it.

In other words, participating in "the industry" (retailers, distributors) is an option for, not the definition of, role-playing publishing. This is one of the founding principles of the Forge.

Therefore doing stuff to benefit "the industry" is not the obvious no-brainer that it might seem. To many of us, doing so would be a disastrous waste of effort and money. To others, including me, doing such stuff is necessary but limited - best handled from a strong "what's in it for me" perspective.

However - and this is important - some independent RPGs do rely largely on the "industry" functioning. Therefore this topic is relevant to the Forge (which is my answer to Jared), even though it's not overwhelmingly crucial to everyone here.

THING TWO
It strikes me as perfectly viable for someone, GAMA most likely best suited, to offer awards based strictly on monetary gain or volume of sales of some sort. In other words, Ryan, if you're looking for an indicator of RPGs' physical and commercial presence in our society, as a means of advertisement, why not jettison the whole "awards based on content" in the first place? Supposing that the numbers regarding profits and sales-volume could be gathered, just list the getters of the Mostest in order, as the winners of the awards. All done.

If these companies are themselves the recipients of other, content-based awards as well, regardless of commercial presence, then it's a bonus - both "big" and "good" would be rewarded independently.

Letting the one be the gateway for eligibility to assess the other, though, seems quite odd to me.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: In general, revising the Origins Awards is long overdue and badly needed. It's one piece of reviewing Origins per se, as a convention, and GAMA as an organization - also badly needed.

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,

Couple things to go over.

THING ONE
Sean (ADGboss), Jared is making a point that you're not seeing, and I think it'd be valuable for you to consider it - that "the industry" is not necessarily important or relevant to RPG publishers and players. Jared's work has demonstrated this beyond any shadow of a doubt, and my own success at the industry level is based on my earlier success without it.

In other words, participating in "the industry" (retailers, distributors) is an option for, not the definition of, role-playing publishing. This is one of the founding principles of the Forge.


Therefore doing stuff to benefit "the industry" is not the obvious no-brainer that it might seem. To many of us, doing so would be a disastrous waste of effort and money. To others, including me, doing such stuff is necessary but limited - best handled from a strong "what's in it for me" perspective.

However - and this is important - some independent RPGs do rely largely on the "industry" functioning. Therefore this topic is relevant to the Forge (which is my answer to Jared), even though it's not overwhelmingly crucial to everyone here.

Best,
Ron

ethan_greer wrote:
Ron, can you elaborate on the reasons underlying this opinion? It's not that I disagree - just seeking better understanding of where you (and Ryan, and others) are coming from.

Being an academy member let me point out that the main problem which has been sited will remain a problem and there is little this restructuring will do to solve it.

The main problem people seem to be sighting is one of a "Popularity Contest". The initial list of games we received out lined so many I had never heard of and thus had no opinion on. Guess what, I also had much more important things to do than research the many games mentioned. In the end I voted for the games I had a knowledge of (I happen to own the LOTR game and was greatly disappointed with it). Whether you have the vote split into three (of which I qualify for all three) or have it based on an elite "Academy" it will still come down to what you know. I received a bunch of Hackmaster and Kenzer co stuff as a preview of their material. Up until then I had not owned a single Kenser co item. I was seriously offended that Hackmaster won last year(I was not a member of the academy then) after reviewing their products. To be honest, I will probably not renew my membership as I see no benefit in it.

Allow me to also say I do not see much benefit being a part of GAMA as an organization. I find the GPA to be a massively more beneficial organization and cheaper. I am a voting member there for $60 while it costs $300 to be a voting member in GAMA. This all comes back to the Origins Awards and what does it say about the org. Does it garner more sales for winners? I honestly do not know. Does it garner respect and is it something sought by the best of the best? All the companies I have ever talked to at the 3 GTS that I have attended fall into two groups. The small group of winners which claim it is a great honor and the larger group of individuals who really did not care.

In the end, I am not sure what Mr. Dancey’s motives are but the overall change would seem to be to the benefit of the big companies that are most popular. Sum zero. No effectual change.

My suggestion would be to either make it a popular vote award where every vote is weighted equally or make it an elite rotating staff made up of respected individuals from all parts of the gaming community but very finite. This could be along the lines of 2 retailers, 2 distributors, two manufacturers (including indie), 2 gamers. Make it no bigger than 12-15 and allow submissions by all nominees to these individuals for their review. Establish a criteria by which each category would be judged. If you want sales to be a driver make a category for it. Take the top 5 selling games and have them judged against each other. Other than that category ignore sales and judge games on its own merits. Some of these ideas were already expressed in this thread but I wanted to express my agreement.

All the above is of course my opinion and may be ignored at will.

Bill

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,


In other words, Ryan, if you're looking for an indicator of RPGs' physical and commercial presence in our society, as a means of advertisement, why not jettison the whole "awards based on content" in the first place? Supposing that the numbers regarding profits and sales-volume could be gathered, just list the getters of the Mostest in order, as the winners of the awards. All done.

Hi Ryan,

Well, real-world data can go two ways.

1. Just as you describe, including multiple variables can result in identifying a "vector" among their distributions that is not expressed by any single one, but which means something on its own and can be named.

This is how biologists measure "size," for instance. No single variable is itself "size," but the aggregate portion of variance among different variables that all varies together can be called size.

2. Conversely, the vector can be mathematically derivable, but conceptually not worth the paper it's printed on. IQ is quite likely such a pseudo-variable ("reification"); the data used to get it make more sense as a set of separate variables or categories than their shared vector does as a single number (i.e., there's no "it").

So which is it for RPGs? Damn good question. I favor the latter. I'd be happier with two separate awards, one with its winners and runners-up based on commerce, and the other with its winners and runners-up based on content alone (and play thereof). Again, if a particular game scores really well, well then hey, it wins both awards.

You apparently favor the former, which is OK too - because frankly, distinguishing between the two phenomena in the real world is often very difficult, and relies very heavily on the nature of the original measured variables.

Best,
Ron

I wanted to point out a waiting trap in thinking about awards based on sales, with an example.

WotC sold Everway in mixed palettes with Magic: The Gathering cards for a while. That is, distributors who wanted their M:TG also had to buy Everway. So a lot of copies of Everway left WotC. But those copies sitting in distributors' warehouses didn't all move on to retailers, and certainly retailers did not sell Everway in earthshaking quantities. What WotC sold and what gamers bought differed quite significantly.

That kind of thing happens all the time, too, though usually less extremely. Sometimes a company sends out a lot of copies...and then gets a lot of them back, in chain bookstore returns, stock abandoned by distributor collapse, and like that. Sometimes things fly to retailers, and then don't move, because end customers prove less interested for whatever reason.

What we'd need to have awards based on sales is genuinely reliable sales data - the equivalent of Soundscan and Bookscan, with verifiable data and methodology. That doesn't exist in gaming at all. There are some stores (physical and online) that have reliable point-of-sale data, and every single one I know of can discuss ways in which they're not representative. None of us actually knows what's sitting around not moving in J. Random Gamer's semi-hobby store. Or flying off the shelves there, for that matter.

Okay, I suppose we could have awards for companies most successful in selling to distributors, but it wouldn't mean anything even to most of us in the business, let alone to the public at large. The data that matter, I think, are the ones about customers at the far end of the chain are doing, and they are terra incognita to a very large degree.

Now if WotC and its regular associates were to back a big push for point-of-sale data collection and processing in the gaming business, that would be an enormous boon, and I'd sign on with much enthusiasm as long as the results remained open to inspection and verification.

Ron Edwards wrote: So which is it for RPGs? Damn good question. I favor the latter. I'd be happier with two separate awards, one with its winners and runners-up based on commerce, and the other with its winners and runners-up based on content alone (and play thereof). Again, if a particular game scores really well, well then hey, it wins both awards.

> What we'd need to have awards based on sales
> is genuinely reliable sales data - the
> equivalent of Soundscan and Bookscan, with
> verifiable data and methodology.

but hey, aren't most gaming products just books? (or am I just biased? :)

Nielsen Bookdata (I think the new name for Bookscan) seem to cover almost everything with an ISBN, I think what they'll miss are:

- books without ISBNs

- books not distributed through gigantic distributors (Ingram, Gardners et al)

...in other words, indie games

GAMA could use this data if their members distribute through the right channels

all in all, though, I'm in favour of seperate bestseller tracking and awards

also, perhaps take another look at the Oscar model? that said I can't remember exactly how it goes, something like...

1) nominations by relevant academy members (directors nominate for Best Director, actors nominate for Best Actor) and award voted by The Committee

or 2) nominations by all academy members, award voted by relevant academy members

(where academy is replaced by GAMA)

again, box office success is tracked seperately in this industry

here's hoping for the day I see a special issue of The Bookseller on roleplaying

A lot of specialty shops aren't covered by Bookscan; this isn't unique to gaming, by any means.