3,000 New Games Per Year

charlest wrote:

SuperflyTNT wrote:

charlest wrote: One thing that's lost in these comparisons to other industries is the extremely weak margins for tabletop games. .

For every 2000 unit print run they only need to sell 550 to break even.

In that example, what's the production cost of each unit and the price they're selling to distributors? Usually art is a one time fee up front and not paid out as a percentage, are you including that?

I've commonly heard the retail price is somewhere between 4-6 times the unit cost from the factory. That doesn't factor in art, licensing. For a game with plastic figures, unless you're buying existing figures/molds, that's gonna add some cost in a hurry. Another overhead is fulfillment cost, whether its done by the publisher or farmed out to a third party ( hopefully not Game Salute or whatever name Yarrington is using this week ) .

I backed a Kickstarter for a deluxe reprint of The Vesuvius Incident that got fully funded and hit their one stretch goal of $25,000, back in 2012.

www.kickstarter.com/projects/printplayga...t-editio/description

Andrew did a nice job with the reprint. The cardboard tokens were upgraded to wooden tokens with stickers. The b/w paper map became a much larger board in color. The rules were re-organized and re-written for clarity, and the game balance was tweaked to give players more of a fighting chance to beat the game. Unfortunately, there were some production issues, and Andrew ended up with no profit at all, losing a few hundred dollars. But he made the game we wanted, and he made damn sure everybody got their order fulfilled, though it took more than a year after initial funding. He probably should have charged more and set a higher base target to make sure that he could get decent economy of scale from the production.

Erik Twice wrote: I agree. There are too many books being printed. Last year, just in Spain, over 82.000 thousands were printed, most of them derivate, terrible and uninteresting. This are surely the signs of an artistic apocalypse, a truly sign of malaise and unhealthyness in the medium.

Look, I'll be honest, I think the argument that there are "too many games" is nonsense. I have yet to see any of the supposed drawbacks.

Your snarky comparison with books isn't accurate, however snarky you make it. Comparisons with other media fall flat becuase of time.

The time required to read a book varies with it's difficulty and length. But a clever reader - say, a book critic - can probably read a book a day. Maybe two.

Our hypothetical book critic will have those days, too, because they're well paid for what they do. They can afford to take the time to scrutinise a book a day. Their reading time is taken seriously, paid for. And there are plenty of them, too.

So between them, the critical media around books are quite capable of finding and promoting what's worthwhile among 80k books published each year: many of which will be textbooks or children's books. When the Booker prize and the Pulitzer are given out each year, although there will be disagreement about who won, no-one ever accuses the committee of not reading enough books.

A hobby game often takes 1-2 hours or more to play. Generally it requires other players to also give their time to get it played. Often it will play quite differently with different groups, or with different player counts. Sometimes a game will not reveal it's secrets until after quite a lot of play.

Game critics are almost all amateurs. They don't get paid for their playing or writing time. So they usually have to offer their opinion after just a few plays. Woefully insufficient time to think about and undesttand a game

Yet other gamers expect them to give good advice on the quality of games. And why not? After all most games cost ten times what a book does. So they get angry and disappointed and lash out.

The result? 3k games come out in a year and no one has any real idea which are actually any good. At least not until it's too late to stop hundreds of gamers spending hundreds of bucks on it due to FOMO. And by then, they'll be forgotten as everyone rushes to repeat their mistakes on next year's 3k of games.

And you think this is not a problem? That it's just a few old grumpy guys annoyed at the kids?

(Oh - that's another thing - you can always borrow a book from a library or buy a cheap e-copy after the print run is over)

I think the hate for kickstarter is somewhat ridiculous.

So we have a medium where it allows people who are not tried and true to be able to publish there own game -- actually being able to compete with established publishers. What is the downside here and how is it different than other industries? Is the downside that shitty games are made? Yeah, well a lot of up-and-coming bands have put out a ton of shitty albums. A lot of new books are shitty. How much music from the 80s would you rather forget? Probably a lot. How many shitty TV shows have there been since 1990? A lot. Everyone probably has watched their fair share of shitty B movies.

What this allows is for different voices to be heard. Most will be terrible. Some will be good. As mentioned above, the problem is the cost of entry as games are as cheap as other things. We should be thanking the handful of people that back all kickstarters -- they allow us to get the chance to find the weird, cool stuff that is different than anything else. Most major companies don't want to take that kind of risk and I don't want to be the dude backing everything.

Hard not to see it as a win-win. Generally, more options are better if you aren't the one compelled to make an initial decision.

I don’t think Erik’s analogy is that nuts. You’re obviously not interested in reading every book that comes out so why do gamers feel like they have to experience each game that is created?

Im a video gamer and I don’t care if it’s 100 or 10,000 games released in a year. I’m sure I’ll still hear about the great ones.

I don’t think Erik meant to sound snarky or anything

What was once called in indie video games market has sort of stacked it due to market saturation. There are still masses of lame indie games out each month on steam but a lot more get lost in the tide, fail to turn a profit and go bust. However this hasn't reduced the faucet of games much. There will always be a lot of boardgames because the barrier for entry for a designer is so low and people have quite a lot of disposable income. Perhaps we notice boardgames more because they are a physical product.

Any discussion about the state of the board game industry/community is a discussion about ourselves as much as about economics.

Those 3,000 games are now made all across the world, with Eastern Europe and Indonesia two areas where newboard game companies have developed since the birth of FAT.

Also there was always a broad home industry of game designers that had print runs of 100-200 that were bought by a select group of other designers and collectors. These guys would publisher regardless of profit and will continue to do so. There's still two halls of those at any Essen show.

The big publishers are publishing more. Small games to fill holes between their biggies

The medium publishers work hard towards their annual release, preferably a new one and an expansion for a previous hit.

Kickstarter has arrived. Yes, it provides an opportunity for newcomers, but they are crowded out now for attention by the big publishers who see KS as a marketing tool.

That's supply side, but there's also a demand side. What has made that possible is a growth of people playing and a rise in their disposable income. The last bit may have to do with people entering this hobby at an age where their disposable income is still growing and they have time to play lots of games.

Only demand will decide whether all this supply is supportable in the long term. The economic crisis of 2008/9 had a serious impact on publishing (eg the end of ever bigger box games from FFG), and it was only kickstarter that was able to tap into the money again. By going for the whales' wallets by offering exclusivity and endless add ons. Who knows whether board games have come back to stay or whether they will be replaced by another fad in a few years time?

Our reaction to all this has a lot to do with where we are in life now. Think of many of us ten years ago: just getting into well paying jobs before we had kids. Now there's kids and money and time are limited. And we have seen it all, or at least we think we have.

We can't be wowed as easily as then. The ease with which we throw the Ameritrash moniker to the dogs just proves that. Apparently those games that we were willing to set up a separate site for are not that important anymore. Even if 'we won'.

I won't be surprised if in a decade a group of youngsters will rediscover those imperfect dice fests in favour of all these celebrated hybrids. Let's make sure they will feel welcome here.

MattDP wrote: The result? 3k games come out in a year and no one has any real idea which are actually any good. At least not until it's too late to stop hundreds of gamers spending hundreds of bucks on it due to FOMO. And by then, they'll be forgotten as everyone rushes to repeat their mistakes on next year's 3k of games.

But, you know, I don't think this has happened. It's no more difficult for me to read about a newer game than it was a few years ago. In fact, I find it easier because there are more critics, more coverage and more reviews. There's more, deeper criticism than ever. And, well, there are more video games than boardgames by at least two or three orders of magnitude and I haven't had any issues knowing if a game is good or not.

In fact, I would say that people have a far, far better idea know of which games are good than any time before now. When I was a kid the only way to know which games were good was word of mouth or corporate propaganda in the vein of Nintendo Power.

And I seriously see no difference, it's not just snark. There used to be a time in which people argued that there were already enough books. There have been too many movies since the dawn of cinema. There have been complaints about too many TV channels, to many TV shows, too many musicals, too many threater pieces and too much music. I mean, people have said exactly the same thing in the 1980s with RPGs and in the 1990s with fighting games and then we had the "too many AAA" games phase during the 2000s and then the Indiapocalypse that never happened and now this.

So, the question is: When were not "too many games"? When was the number of games right?

MattDP wrote: Yet other gamers expect them to give good advice on the quality of games. And why not? After all most games cost ten times what a book does. So they get angry and disappointed and lash out.

I don't think they get angry and lash out because they aren't given good advice. They get angry and lash out because they see game criticism as an attack to their identity and worldview. They fear that criticism could make them look like uneducated fools, that they'll no longer be special or catered to and so on.

MattDP wrote: And you think this is not a problem? That it's just a few old grumpy guys annoyed at the kids?

I just think that all generations have thought there are too many games just like all generations have complained about newer generations being rude and worse off.

It's not even a grumpy guy thing, young people also think there are too many games now. If you go to Resetera or any mainstream videogame site you'll see plenty of teens complaining about "too many games on Steam". Most of Jim Sterling's audience is young and he's the most well-known "too many games" guy on Earth.

(Oh - that's another thing - you can always borrow a book from a library or buy a cheap e-copy after the print run is over)

It's easier to get a game, any game, than it has ever been. And much cheaper too!


PD: I'm more than willing to jump in with my microphone and record a podcast on this issue. I think it could be interesting.

Black Barney wrote: You’re obviously not interested in reading every book that comes out so why do gamers feel like they have to experience each game that is created?

I think it's a combination of three things:

1) The belief that they could experience all notable games before
2) The fear of missing out
3) The thought that it would reflect poorly on them not to do so

I don’t think Erik meant to sound snarky or anything

Well, I did mean to sound snarky, but I do believe in that it's no different from any other medium.

Erik Twice wrote: Look, I'll be honest, I think the argument that there are "too many games" is nonsense. I have yet to see any of the supposed drawbacks and it's "this generation doesn't respect its elders" in nerd form. Seriously, this argument has been around for decades.

Aren't you the guy who has become a big fan of both Dune and Cosmic Encounter in relatively recent times? And aren't you the same guy who was complaining about the lame modern games that your friends keep wanting to play? I apologize if I am confusing you with another poster here. But if that is you, than yes you have seen the specific harm of too many games. That harm would be great games getting overlooked and underplayed because of the current obsession with playing new games that are essentially lazy re-themes of other games of relatively recent vintage. I keep hosting my own small gaming events despite a gradual decline in attendance, because I know if I go to the better-known local gaming venues and events, I will be pressured to learn the rules to a whole bunch of boring euro-clones that were churned out via KickSucker. I would rather play less often but with people who actually comprehend that some games are significantly better than others.

I just bought Concordia a couple of months ago. It was published 5 years ago. It's an amazing machinery of four pages of rules.

Good games will be *heard*. Actually, this many games should be good. The ones I'll still be hearing a few years ahead should be *really* good.

There's no denying that the signal to noise ratio is getting worse.

Too much noise from KS and a weakening signal buried under component fetishization in reviews. The curators are becoming QVC hosts. Let's work to change that.

Three things. Maybe four.

1. The quality of board game components have never been better. And no, components are not all that important as some (most) BGG reviews make you think, but quality is important considering board games are a physical medium.

2. A LOT of innovative things are going on in board gaming right now. Integration of apps and board games, real time elements, legacy games, storytelling games, etc etc. And yes, some of it is drowning, but that has always been the case. However, finding comments, reviews, playthrough accounts and other information about games has never been easier. So even though a shitton of games are coming out every year, it's still relatively easy to find out more about them and judge whether they'll be fun or not.

3. People play games in different ways and for different reasons. It's fine that you like playing the same game again and again (I also do that with some games), but the idea that it's somehow better or more - dare I say - refined than playing new games and see what they offer is stupid. You don't mock people for buying new books to read, so maybe we shouldn't make it a huge problem that some people buy new games to play.

4. Kickstarter is great for board games. The thing is that stupid amateurs have always been able to self publish games that would then tank. You just needed a boatload of cash and some people had that. Maybe that is easier to do know when you can orchestrate a great campaign and lure people in. But at the same time as a independent designer you don't need to shelf out a lot of money in order to make the game you want. And while the big KS productions with loads of minis dominate the scene, there is a lot of other things going on on the platform. And if you look at the tabletop games, the obvious duds are in fact not getting funded. But the disdain for Kickstarter games also ties in with my third bullet. Because even if some huge KS games aren't innovative, they can still deliver a lot of fun to people. And I know of several groups who play the shit out of their kickstarter games and have fun.

Shellhead wrote: Aren't you the guy who has become a big fan of both Dune and Cosmic Encounter in relatively recent times? And aren't you the same guy who was complaining about the lame modern games that your friends keep wanting to play? I apologize if I am confusing you with another poster here. But if that is you, than yes you have seen the specific harm of too many games. That harm would be great games getting overlooked and underplayed because of the current obsession with playing new games that are essentially lazy re-themes of other games of relatively recent vintage.

I am indeed that guy. But I don't think my issues were caused by there being too many games or even that I had any issue with great games being overlooked or underplayed at all.

My issue with my playgroup would have existed at any other time and is of a personal nature. Quite simply, one of my mates has a very different taste, he got into the Kickstarter train and pushed his games too hard while ignoring the rest of the group. In the first three months of the year, I played Gloomhaven (his game) 11 times, Blood Rage 3 (another game of his) and Dead Man's Doublouns at least 2 and we didn't play any of mine or any that I liked except once. So I was a bit fed up.

I joined a club and things couldn't be better.

As for Cosmic and Dune, well, I haven't had any issue with them being overlooked or underplayed. I have played Cosmic at least 30 times since I got it six months ago. Thirty times! And while I'm a bit sad Dune has only gotten 2 plays in that time frame, that's mostly related to group size, I plan to rope people from my club to play it and I'm sure my plays will increase.

I didn't have an issue finding about both games, either. I've known about Cosmic for years and years and the only reasons I didn't get it were my reduced playgroup at the time (3 players) and that, when I played it, I thought it was fun but didn't see its depth. As for Dune, I was taken aback by the required player count and the fact that I would need to build it.

And, hey, I do think that the cult of the new and the strenghtening wave of consumerism is a terrible thing. It goes against all that is interesting and good of the hobby and harms it. But it's the consumerism and not the high number of games that is the problem.

Frohike wrote: There's no denying that the signal to noise ratio is getting worse.

Too much noise from KS and a weakening signal buried under component fetishization in reviews. The curators are becoming QVC hosts. Let's work to change that.

and yet I've seen it stated multiple times on reddit, BGG, facebook that the opposite is true. Usually someone comes in an argues against it, but that is perception among newer gamers is that the ratio of good/bad games was worse in previous eras of gaming.

Maybe the ratio of Ok/decent games to bad games is better. There certainly is a higher floor in component quality, mechanics and basic design.

as for 3k games, as others have stated, good games will eventually rise up. I'm thankful for places like the Fort to bring up games that other like-minded people have enjoyed. This gives me a starting point to look for things. Things like Technobowl, wherein charlest's writing on it encouraged me to dig up a copy, which I really enjoy. or the various games MB has looked at, several of which I have pursued. There's to much to try everything.

Like said above, and railed on here continuously, better reviewers help and are needed. in the meantime sharing of individual experiences here help fill in the gaps. BGG is probably too big for the most part. some of the smaller communities fill this spot decently (wargame subforum on BGG is pretty good) but the site as a whole doesn't really help to find these subcommunities.

As for KS, I've sworn off, but it has a place. It is just frustrating to run into a game that is fun and no-longer available. Which happens with regular distribution too. Especially the smaller designers/publishers who cannot keep a game in rotation. The big difference is that the initial phase of a game where it is played regulalrly tends to line up closer to the 'unavailable' time vs a regular produced game where by the time initial print run runs out most people will have moved on.