New Funtiers

Review: I paid $99 for New Funtiers' [redacted] to review my game and to possible work as my agent.I figured he wouldn't become my agent and show the game to companies, but I was wanting a great review worth my money. Instead I got a horrible fabricated "Dear [redacted]" letter that he obviously sent out to all in my game genre where he put in one place something I told him about my game that I thought gave it different feature. When I called, he didn't even know anything about my game, I could tell he didn't read nor reviewed it. When I asked him, "What games are like me?" He could only give generic answer and didn't tell me any. Here's the letter:Dear [redacted]:Thank you for your submission. We appreciate your interest in working with us, and the opportunity to review your strategy war game product idea.We're sorry it has taken us several weeks to get back to you. However, since we dont wish to compromise our review of the new products we see from independent inventors weve accepted the reality of not adhering to a rigid review schedule. We, therefore, thank you for your patience and understanding.As a result of our evaluation meeting today, the following is the feedback on our discussion on your game, "[redacted]."Preface:Let me explain how we evaluated your game. First, it's important to understand that we make a distinction between games that game consumers might like, and those which we believe we can license to our game company clients. As Im sure you can imagine, all of the games we receive from independent inventors, come to us with rave reviews from friends and family members, and in some cases potential consumers. Their enthusiasm, however, plays only a small role in our analysis and decision making. The fact is, all of our game company clients make the assumption that we will only present them new product ideas which have a high level of consumer appeal. So we focus our reviews on the licensability of games we receive using the same criteria that game companies use...Desired Settlement: I want a refund of my money.Anyone interested, read this website:http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/fisher-price-stan-clutton/new-york-new-yor...⇄ not the only one who's had problems with Mr. [redacted] and New Funtiers.

Business

Response:

Mr. [redacted] submitted his “[redacted]’ game to our company on January 24, 2014. We reviewed his game on February 12, 2014, in the form of an email letter, entitled "[redacted]" Strategy War Game. (Please Note: We’ll be happy to provide Revdex.com a copy of the evaluation letter backing up all of our statements in this rebuttal to Mr. [redacted]’s Customer’s Statement of the Problem, including copies of the complete text of all email correspondence between NewFuntiers and Mr. [redacted].) In Mr. [redacted]’s statement he says he paid $99 for NewFuntiers to review his game. This is correct, despite the fact that our evaluation fee is $100. (We never mentioned this to him.) He says, even before we evaluated his game, that he had “already figured he (I) wouldn’t become my (his) agent and show the game to companies, but I (he) was wanting a great review worth my (his) money.” And that’s exactly what we did. Here is our evaluation letter feedback: The first thing we did was to list the licensing issues we considered that impacting on our evaluation’s conclusion: 1. The game's current level of ‘licensable’ innovation. 2. The game's overall ‘uniqueness’ both online or in the retail marketplace. 3. The game's current competition online and at retail. 4. The game's current play feature and/or component format interest level 5. The game's "scope" in the mass market toy industry. 6. The game's current positioning in the marketplace. 7. The game's potential for TV promotion. Although we wrote that we were quite impressed by the work he done on your game, as well as the comprehensive nature of his game’s play and the description and presentation materials he provided us, we also informed him that we believe his game would be very difficult game to license to game companies marketing games in the strategy war game category. We further, and generally, explained the difficulties of licensing a strategy war game in a category filled with a wide variety of on-line games and those found at retail. We explained that the marketplace has been saturated with strategy war card & board games using all manner of traditional, and license property game themes, components, and play patterns, and that the continuing sluggish economy in the U.S. has caused game companies to limit the number of new games they're bringing to the marketplace, concentrating instead on expanding existing game lines. And, finally, as companies continue to have fewer opening is their lines in specific product categories they’ve also increased the level of unique and protectable game play and component innovation embodied within the games they license. This is the general background information we provided him. We then went on to describe the licensing concerns we had with his game, which basically came down to two (2) important licensing issues: His overall use of well-known game components and game play patterns, i.e. how the game is played. We explained that our game company clients “expect us to show them games with totally new play features and game formats that are entirely new and novel.” It was important for him to understand that his game's comprehensive, in depth play, albeit it challenging and fun to play would not overcome our game companies’ basic licensing requisite: That they were only interested in presentations of games that ‘contained unique and innovative game components that allow you to play a game in a new and novel way.’ We also told him that it was important to understand that strategy war games, with the exception of a few well-known, classic, games, is one that has almost entirely become relegated to the ‘specialty game’ marketplace, comprised of small, single proprietor, brick & mortar, and online website stores. And that other than existing, well-known war games, new strategy war games are becoming thematically tied to well-known, popular, license properties from movies and/or popular video/computer games. And in general, strategy war games with unknown thematic premises, like his, along with ubiquitous component play, appears to be more viable in the form of games offered by individuals and small game companies for play or purchase online, as they become more and more impossible to license to game companies who already have successful strategy war card and board games in their product lines. In our Evaluation’s Bottom Line section we wrote: “You've created an in-depth, strategy war game with a simple plus or negative feature that basically relies on traditional and well-known strategy war game play patterns. In it's current form we believe that it will run into very difficult licensing issues with Wizards of the Coast or other specialty market game companies.” And in our evaluation letter’s Next Steps section we wrote: “This is an extremely tough category with, as you probably know, several 800 lb. gorilla games that own the marketplace, and we don’t see this changing in the near future. However, since our evaluation feedback may require further explanation, I encourage you to give me a call so we can go over our review of your game. Of course, you may want to consider getting a second opinion from another well-known professional in the specialty game marketplace. They will either validate our feedback or provide you with an expanded view of your game’s potential as a license product in either the mass market or specialty game marketplace.” After receiving the evaluation letter email, Mr. [redacted] call to discuss his game. We spoke on the phone for at least 20 to 25 minutes. He asked lots of questions, and I provided answers to each of the questions he asked. He then asked me if I would keep his game in mind if things changed within the strategy war game category. I explained that we keep records of all of the products we’ve reviewed on behalf of independent inventors, and when there is a change in the licensing criteria or a new or expanded opportunity within a toy or game category, we contact those inventors who’s previously reviewed product appears to fit our company client’s new product needs. In fact, we’ve licensed products for independent inventors who first submitted their products to us 3 to 5 years after they were originally evaluated. Mr. [redacted] was pleased that we would keep his game in mind, and contact him if a licensing opportunity came up. Then, unexpectedly, we started to receive several emails from Mr. [redacted] with additional questions. For clarity purposes, let me provide the complete text of Mr. [redacted]’s first email along with my reply: From: [redacted] Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:27:12 -0500 To: NewFuntiers Subject: Re: Subject: “[redacted]” Strategy War Game Dear [redacted], I had a few more questions yesterday, but thought it would be better to e-mail you them so I can have them in writing. 1. Could you please give me a list of war strategy games that work off the role playing paper-based scheme (where the players use a piece of paper with statistics on it for the game)? 2. Could you please give me a list of war strategy games (not figurines) that use the d20 or flip a coin? I tried looking this information up before, but found nothing. Being that you are a professional and have seen so many games come and go; you would have a vast infinity of knowledge on the subject compared to the piece of sand I have. Yes, I am flattering you, but what I'm saying does have some truth to it. If you answer my questions, I would like to thank you in advance. Sincerely, [redacted] ———————————&md...⇄ From: NewFuntiers Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:41:11 -0700 To: [redacted] Conversation: Subject: “[redacted]” Strategy War Game Subject: Re: Subject: “[redacted]” Strategy War Game [redacted], We’ve seen role playing strategy war games from independent inventors. Speaking with our game company clients, we know that they’ve seen and considered them as well. Whether or not you find them doing searches on the internet, from a licensing perspective it is not a new game feature. As for strategy and strategy war games that use a d20 or coin flip, it’s up to you to do that sort of research. Alone or together they are not make or break game features. The purpose of our evaluation of your game is to determine whether or not it’s overall game play, components, game patterns and game features are strong enough together to license it in today’s marketplace. As we’ve written, and I discussed with you at length, we do not feel your game is strong enough to license to one of our game company clients. Therefore my advice, again, would be to get a second opinion from another professional who will either validate our feedback or provide you with a broader perspective of your game’s licensing potential. Best of luck and future success. Regards, [redacted] ———————————&md...⇄ We then received three (4) additional emails from Mr. [redacted]. The first giving us an indication that we may have a problem with, what professionals in the industry refer to as, a ‘problem inventor’. (Illustrating one of the reasons why major toy and game companies don’t work directly with independent inventors.) He began his second email by saying I must have misunderstood him. Then going on about how he got lost in Google while trying to find the answers to the information he was requesting. Okay so far. But, then at the end of his email he writes: “I know what your business does, but this is only a simple two questions. Please give me at least a few names... I'm begging you so kindly. I am so simple compared to your wonderful gaming greatness. Help me….” Noting the sarcasm I new this wasn’t going to end well. In my reply email I pointed out that a quick search of d20 dice resulted in pages of links for him to review. As for his question about wanting me to provide him the names of strategy war games that also use a role playing play pattern, I again told him that the game’s we’ve seen were from independent inventors, and that our game company clients have also told us they’ve seen strategy war game play with this combination of play features. Ending the reply to this email with: “We’ve provided this information to you in an evaluation letter, again in a comprehensive phone conversation, now in two followed up emails. You are now responsible for seeking any all addition information that you will need to further your game.” I hoped this reply would suffice, allowing both of us to move on to more productive work. Unfortunately, Mr. [redacted] was not done. In his next email he was no longer being subtle. He accused us of not providing him a real review of his game. And that in our long phone conversation I didn’t know anything about his game, other than the ‘negative and positive’ play feature which he says, “I believe I told you about before in an e-mail.” Not true. And then continued, “At best, it's obvious that you didn't read my game instructions.” Since there was no email from Mr. [redacted] telling me of this feature, it was clear that my knowledge of this game play feature came from our review of his game instructions. The remainder of his email simply attempts to justify his rationale for believing we knew nothing about his game. I’m including the full text of his final email, as well as my reply, because it brings his thinking process into full focus, as well as the frustration I felt with his non-productive emails: From: [redacted] Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:23:29 -0500 To: NewFuntiers Subject: Re: I don't doubt what you said before but need other games to compare notes with Hey [redacted], I'm sure you're right about the d20. They are after all, much used like most other dice. As are the other dice I use in my game. "Our evaluation's bottom line: You've created an in-depth, strategy war game with a simple plus or negative feature that basically relies on traditional and well-known strategy war game play patterns." You just lied in your previous message, you mentioned nothing to me before about having a "positive or negative outcome based on a flip of a coin". Also, our phone call was really all about very generic topics, you gave no real illustrations related any of it to my game. I'm sure you flipped through my instructions, but please don't try to foul me. You didn't read it before, but I'm sure since I've started annoying you, you have. I want my refund. ———————————&md...⇄ From: NewFuntiers Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:13:44 -0700 To: [redacted] Conversation: I don't doubt what you said before but need other games to compare notes with Subject: Re: I don't doubt what you said before but need other games to compare notes with [redacted], The fact that you can’t make the mental jump in terminology between the phrases, “plus or negative” and “positive and negative” indicates how fruitless further correspondence with would be. Therefore, I will simply wish you the best of luck with your game, and leave it at that. [redacted] - NewFuntiers ———————————&md...⇄ (As previously mentioned, we’ll be happy to provide Revdex.com with copies of the complete text of all email correspondence between NewFuntiers and Mr. [redacted].) We’ve now spent over 3 professional hours reviewing his game, writing a follow-up evaluation email letter, speaking with him over the phone, writing back follow-up emails, and now answering his complaint. But Mr. [redacted] is not done making accusations. In his Desired Settlement he brings up the website: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/fisher-price-stan-clutton/new-york-new-york-10010/...⇄ with Mr. [redacted] stating: “Im not the only one who’s had problems with Mr. [redacted] and New Funtiers.” Setting aside his unfortunate attempt to show some relationship between the afore website’s post and his alleged problem with NewFuntiers, it would have behooved Mr. [redacted] to read the rebuttal below the complaint. If he had he would have seen that the information provided in the rebuttal was backed up by one of the toy industry’s most well-known and respected professionals, Dr. [redacted], a noted author and expert in the toy industry. Having provided Revdex.com the information contained in this rebuttal, and in light of Mr. [redacted]’s false statements and accusations, we will not be refunding Mr. [redacted]’s evaluation fee. However, we’ll continue to wish him the very best of luck and success with his game.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because: NewFuntiers response to me is more of an attack than anything else. All it proves is my point, that I've tried and tried to work with him, but he is unwilling.

He couldn't even give me an example of a game that is like my game. Their responses are those that could be given to any strategic game maker. The Positive and Negative feature was one I mentioned in my letters to them before. I have no real prove they even read the instructions or even went over it. My Positive and Negative feature also includes dice, which they failed to acknowledge because it is very obvious they didn't even read my games instructions. They didn't even know it was paper based. I would've been happy with just a real review of the entire game where they talked about it in detail. But now I want my refund of $100.

Sincerely,

Business

Response:

In response to Mr. [redacted]’s additional complaint MESSAGE please let me offer the

following response:

1. My initial response to his complaint was a factual account of what transpired

during our work with him and our subsequent review of his game. His

assertion that my response was “… more of an attack than anything else.” is

easily refuted by simply reading my initial Complaint Response.

2. Mr. [redacted]’s assertion that I didn’t give him “… an example of a game that is like

my (his) game.”, is correct. As I pointed out in my Initial Complaint Response,

below, we have seen role playing strategy war games from independent

inventors. Speaking with our game company clients, we know that they’ve

seen and considered them as well. The fact that Mr. [redacted] continues to expects

us to share ‘proprietary’, and ‘confidential’, game information about games

we’ve seen from other inventors is hard to understand when you consider that

all of the game submissions we see from independent inventors are made

under a Confidential Nondisclosure Agreement; the same Agreement we and

Mr. [redacted] signed when he submitted his game to us. Further, when meeting

with our game company clients in new product presentation meetings they will

either express ‘interest’ or ‘no interest’ in the games we present. If there is ‘no

interest’ they will provide us specific and/or general reasons why they are not

interested. One potential reason for not being interested in a game is as

simple as ‘they have worked on similar game play internally’ or they have seen

games from other professionals in the industry that had ‘similar play features,

play patterns, and game components’ to the one we’re presenting’. They do

not disclose the actual games to us for the same confidential reasons we do not

disclose independent inventor games to other independent inventors.

Therefore, the information the information our game company clients provide is

simply intended to insure that we do not waist our time or theirs by presenting

similar games to them in the future.

3. His continued assertion that we did not read “… the (his game’s) instructions or

even went over it.”, is simply not true. It should be obvious from, both, the

written evaluation of his game, as well as our follow-up phone conversation and

subsequent emails that we had a good understanding of his game, short of

actually play testing it, as we do with game submissions that meet our game

company clients new product needs. His continued assertion that we did not

specifically mention his game’s use of ‘dice’ in regards to his game’s Positive

and Negative play feature is not a mistake or an oversight on our part. Having

also explained to him that we were concerned about his game’s use of well-