Much like video games, some folks like to mostly collect without playing and some like to play everything at least once, or are avid players. I think the cost of materials and shipping going up is...
Much like video games, some folks like to mostly collect without playing and some like to play everything at least once, or are avid players.
I think the cost of materials and shipping going up is huge, but also, the interested, original audience being older, with more bills but not necessarily more money or time for these games, is impacting things too.
But there's always a reason for new media - games, books, TV, audio.
It'd be odd to say no new books need written for the same reason
That same logic can be applied to video games, movies, novels and all sorts of media. There's no need to develop new games, but it's still fun for players to have more options and for developers...
That same logic can be applied to video games, movies, novels and all sorts of media. There's no need to develop new games, but it's still fun for players to have more options and for developers to work on new ideas.
I agree with others - there's an inherent value to novelty - but you do have a point that I think may factor into this. With books, movies, TV shows, story-based video games, etc... though people...
I agree with others - there's an inherent value to novelty - but you do have a point that I think may factor into this. With books, movies, TV shows, story-based video games, etc... though people certainly revisit a story after finishing it, there's an obvious desire for new content and new stories.
However, with some video-games, and almost all board-games, they are designed to be replayable. After all, most people wouldn't watch the same movie one to two times a month, but if they have a game night on the regular, they could easily play the same games at that game night at least that often! Heck, many people have weekly game nights!
Furthermore, with board games, many players find learning rules daunting, so that's another factor that makes an existing catalog more appealing. To some consumers, this new game may well be 'better' or 'more fun' than what they have, but their existing game is comfortable and familiar to them, so they may question whether it's really worth getting a new game when they could just keep playing the old one, which fills a similar niche.
The most enfranchised board game players - the ones who were largely fueling the tabletop crowdfunding boom - are, probably, the kinds of players who do appreciate mechanical novelty more than most, and are more willing to purchase games simply to collect them, or in the hopes of adding them to their rotation. So I'm not sure these factors are enough to explain why tabletop crowdfunding is losing its steam, but they certainly may be contributing. I'd agree with ~DefinitelyNotAFae, and the article: diminishing value and a lack of leisure money and time are the most likely factors. But, as the enfranchised player's time and money grow more thin, they could certainly start to look at their backlog, and think "Maybe I should just focus on playing the games I already have"... and start to think more along the above lines.
To piggy back off your last paragraph: I'm a pretty enfranchised board gamer. I love board games and have a collection of around 100 different games and I've spent the pretty penny that that...
To piggy back off your last paragraph:
I'm a pretty enfranchised board gamer. I love board games and have a collection of around 100 different games and I've spent the pretty penny that that entails. I would agree that my money is a little thinner these days and that stops me from buying new games. I would also agree that my time is pretty thin as well. But it's not just my time that has to be considered, as board games are (for practical purposes) a community event. As all of our available time reserves get smaller, it's harder to schedule times to play. After a few months of minimal play, the desire to buy more games dwindles pretty hard. Add in the regular old Kickstarter friction (delays, failures to fund, just waiting for things to be printed) and the desire to buy games in that format disappears. From just a board games perspective though, it's hard to get excited about a new game because the novelty generally comes from what the board is skinned as instead of novel mechanisms.
Yeah the coalescing time crunch has really hit my ttrpg games hard, both virtual and IRL. I have a group that can really only manage to meet three times a year virtually. One owns their own...
Yeah the coalescing time crunch has really hit my ttrpg games hard, both virtual and IRL. I have a group that can really only manage to meet three times a year virtually. One owns their own business and travels/farms/etc. One's a pediatrician with hospital responsibilities alongside office visits. And the rest of us just have stressy lives. It's hard to commit long term anymore.
Time has got to be the biggest one for me. I'm far from a prolific collector but I've got a good 30+ board games in my house and the most played ones have short set up and play times. Every time I...
Time has got to be the biggest one for me. I'm far from a prolific collector but I've got a good 30+ board games in my house and the most played ones have short set up and play times. Every time I look at KS for new board games I see a lot to love but also a lot I know I won't have the time for. DRG, Gloomhaven, FrostHaven, big complex games usually get beaten by Sequoia, Ticket To Ride or Catan Jr. I'm hard pressed to even get a game of Carcassonne on...
Why buy more when I can only get players for something shorter or more simple?
It's not surprising that rising material costs have turned some projects insolvent. Kickstarter board games have always had a reputation for being focused on stuff to entice backers. Look no...
It's not surprising that rising material costs have turned some projects insolvent. Kickstarter board games have always had a reputation for being focused on stuff to entice backers. Look no further than Kingdom Death: Monster. On the upside, designers can go really crazy with the direct funding and produce some absolute classics.
Kickstarter has always been a gamble. Sometimes you get the Slay the Spire board game, other times you get Mighty No. 9.
As someone who doesn't really play these games, is there a direct need for new development? Isn't there a large backlog of games that could be played?
Much like video games, some folks like to mostly collect without playing and some like to play everything at least once, or are avid players.
I think the cost of materials and shipping going up is huge, but also, the interested, original audience being older, with more bills but not necessarily more money or time for these games, is impacting things too.
But there's always a reason for new media - games, books, TV, audio.
It'd be odd to say no new books need written for the same reason
That same logic can be applied to video games, movies, novels and all sorts of media. There's no need to develop new games, but it's still fun for players to have more options and for developers to work on new ideas.
I agree with others - there's an inherent value to novelty - but you do have a point that I think may factor into this. With books, movies, TV shows, story-based video games, etc... though people certainly revisit a story after finishing it, there's an obvious desire for new content and new stories.
However, with some video-games, and almost all board-games, they are designed to be replayable. After all, most people wouldn't watch the same movie one to two times a month, but if they have a game night on the regular, they could easily play the same games at that game night at least that often! Heck, many people have weekly game nights!
Furthermore, with board games, many players find learning rules daunting, so that's another factor that makes an existing catalog more appealing. To some consumers, this new game may well be 'better' or 'more fun' than what they have, but their existing game is comfortable and familiar to them, so they may question whether it's really worth getting a new game when they could just keep playing the old one, which fills a similar niche.
The most enfranchised board game players - the ones who were largely fueling the tabletop crowdfunding boom - are, probably, the kinds of players who do appreciate mechanical novelty more than most, and are more willing to purchase games simply to collect them, or in the hopes of adding them to their rotation. So I'm not sure these factors are enough to explain why tabletop crowdfunding is losing its steam, but they certainly may be contributing. I'd agree with ~DefinitelyNotAFae, and the article: diminishing value and a lack of leisure money and time are the most likely factors. But, as the enfranchised player's time and money grow more thin, they could certainly start to look at their backlog, and think "Maybe I should just focus on playing the games I already have"... and start to think more along the above lines.
To piggy back off your last paragraph:
I'm a pretty enfranchised board gamer. I love board games and have a collection of around 100 different games and I've spent the pretty penny that that entails. I would agree that my money is a little thinner these days and that stops me from buying new games. I would also agree that my time is pretty thin as well. But it's not just my time that has to be considered, as board games are (for practical purposes) a community event. As all of our available time reserves get smaller, it's harder to schedule times to play. After a few months of minimal play, the desire to buy more games dwindles pretty hard. Add in the regular old Kickstarter friction (delays, failures to fund, just waiting for things to be printed) and the desire to buy games in that format disappears. From just a board games perspective though, it's hard to get excited about a new game because the novelty generally comes from what the board is skinned as instead of novel mechanisms.
Yeah the coalescing time crunch has really hit my ttrpg games hard, both virtual and IRL. I have a group that can really only manage to meet three times a year virtually. One owns their own business and travels/farms/etc. One's a pediatrician with hospital responsibilities alongside office visits. And the rest of us just have stressy lives. It's hard to commit long term anymore.
Time has got to be the biggest one for me. I'm far from a prolific collector but I've got a good 30+ board games in my house and the most played ones have short set up and play times. Every time I look at KS for new board games I see a lot to love but also a lot I know I won't have the time for. DRG, Gloomhaven, FrostHaven, big complex games usually get beaten by Sequoia, Ticket To Ride or Catan Jr. I'm hard pressed to even get a game of Carcassonne on...
Why buy more when I can only get players for something shorter or more simple?
It's not surprising that rising material costs have turned some projects insolvent. Kickstarter board games have always had a reputation for being focused on stuff to entice backers. Look no further than Kingdom Death: Monster. On the upside, designers can go really crazy with the direct funding and produce some absolute classics.
Kickstarter has always been a gamble. Sometimes you get the Slay the Spire board game, other times you get Mighty No. 9.
Edit: spelling