3,000 New Games Per Year

One thing that's lost in these comparisons to other industries is the extremely weak margins for tabletop games. You don't see other people going the Emperors of Eternal Evil route because it's not economically feasible.

When a band releases an album, their take home is of course miniscule typically, but you get an extended life out of that effort due to touring. Producing more copies, particularly in the current MP3 age, is not even a thing.

People have been badgering Nate Hayden to print another run of Cave Evil for the past year or so. His response has been that it's not likely because the effort involved would mean he can't work on anything else. He's also said they lost money on the first printing of Cave Evil.

Who would dedicate years of their life to something and lose money? Not many people. Complaining about this industry not taking chances and placing the blame on the consumer is convenient, in my opinion. The real economic challenges consist of this being an analog, low margin product with a high initial cost and a long shot at actually making sustainable profit.

BaronDonut wrote:
I would love to see a demographic breakdown of the people powering the kickstarter money machine. My guess is that you're looking at a pretty narrow sliver of folks paying for this stuff. As long as you only need to appeal to this group to fund your project (which I--perhaps incorrectly--imagine as being overwhelmingly white, male, lower-to-upper middle class, traditionally "nerdy"), then you're gonna end up with piles of similar looking and playing stuff. I wonder how long before this particular well runs dry. Maybe never?

I think there are a lot of "angel" backers who make up a disproportional percentage of KS backers .

In my gaming circle most steer relatively clear of KS, but a couple back a TON of projects.

I do find that in a group of gamers, finding consensus can be tough unless you are with a group of like minded people who aren't disciple of Cult of the New. I'm going to a con this upcoming weekend and have pre arranged most of my gaming. All of my opponents, like me, are NOT hoarders or big collectors.

Of the games being played:

Combat Commander and Angola will probably be about half the time - both over a decade old.

Someone mentioned Ascendancy upthread, we're gonna give that a try - all for the first time. Its what, two years old, or almost that ?

Also gonna try THE EXPANSE, partially due to just having binge watched the show. It came out last year.

SPACE CORPS, which is due out later this year; I have a playtest kit.

PAX RENNAISSANCE will probably make an appearance as well as TERRAFORMING MARS. The latter has seen remarkable staying power in this current deluge of new releases. Definitely an outlier these days .

So new really new stuff other than THE EXPANSE. And I'm fine with that.

charlest wrote: Who would dedicate years of their life to something and lose money? Not many people.

Counterpoint: The title of this thread is "3000 New Games Per Year".

Now, how many people will do it twice? Not as many, thus your note about Nate and Cave Evil.

Please provide me with your home address, and a time when you'll be away, so that I can steal your beta copy of Space Corps. I'm gaming all weekend as well.

charlest wrote: One thing that's lost in these comparisons to other industries is the extremely weak margins for tabletop games. You don't see other people going the Emperors of Eternal Evil route because it's not economically feasible.

When a band releases an album, their take home is of course miniscule typically, but you get an extended life out of that effort due to touring. Producing more copies, particularly in the current MP3 age, is not even a thing.

People have been badgering Nate Hayden to print another run of Cave Evil for the past year or so. His response has been that it's not likely because the effort involved would mean he can't work on anything else. He's also said they lost money on the first printing of Cave Evil.

Who would dedicate years of their life to something and lose money? Not many people. Complaining about this industry not taking chances and placing the blame on the consumer is convenient, in my opinion. The real economic challenges consist of this being an analog, low margin product with a high initial cost and a long shot at actually making sustainable profit.

While this is certainly true for the traditional publication route, the advent of KickSucker has made it less risky . Not only does a publisher not have to finance the printing, the number of pledges makes it a lot easier to forecast demand, reducing the chance of surplus inventory. And by making the majority of their sales direct, they cut out the middleman . Now its certainly possible to fuck it up - see Cambridge Games Factory. But the vehicle is there for decreased risk.

I'd love to see the percentage of tabletop sales done via KS vs traditional distribution channels. When you see trade publications touting industry wide sales increases, I have a feeling that KS is being understated in those figures making the overall trend even more inflated.

MattDP wrote:

stoic wrote: What we get now is an ignorant public backing new games because they look cool because of clever marketing, have expensive miniatures, or the latest popular licenses.

Don't have a lot to add to this debate that hasn't already been said, but I think this is just slightly off the mark. A lot of the people backing this stuff aren't ignorant - they're hobbyists. They've seen this stuff before. They know they're being sold to.

The thing is: they don't care.

You have to remember that for an awful lot of boardgamers, collecting is part of the hobby. They'll have a pile of shame, sure, and hand-wring in public. In private, they're got disposable income and they're perfectly happy to have shelf toads because it gives them something to put on their shelves.

This is only a problem from the point of view of board gamers who have a real interest in quality games rising to the fore. And, let's face it, purchasers who apply plenty of critical thinking before buying products are, almost by definition, not the key demographic that's going to drive design and publishing decisions.

RIBBIT...RIBBIT...ribbit

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 and it's "this generation doesn't respect its elders" in nerd form. Seriously, this argument has been around for decades. Remember the Famicon crisis? Back in 1986 people already thought there were too many games. And before that there was the Arcade Slump of 1982 and the too many RPGs crowd of the 80s. Why do you need another D&D?

It's telling because nobody argues there were too many games by the time they got into the hobby or that they games they like shouldn't exist.

I mean, compare these two quotes:

stoic wrote: What we get now is an ignorant public backing new games because they look cool because of clever marketing, have expensive miniatures, or the latest popular licenses.

“Selling Famicom games is a cinch!
All I need is some popular characters and flashy advertising!”

It's the same thing.

charlest wrote: One thing that's lost in these comparisons to other industries is the extremely weak margins for tabletop games. You don't see other people going the Emperors of Eternal Evil route because it's not economically feasible.

Yeah, this is an important point. It's the downside of what I love about the hobby--tactile, in-person, analog experiences. While there's not a lot we can do about global economic realities like price of shipping, printing, plastic, etc., I do think it's possible to contribute positively to this dilemma by altering the way we talk about games. A lot of folks, when they talk or write about games, tend to fetishize component quality. While there is something undeniably satisfying about thick stock, custom minis, and other luxury components, I think we've already covered the way these things can prop up an otherwise unremarkable game. While we may not be able to convince the rank-and-file, I think writers and other gaming tastemakers can minimize the coverage/importance of these kinds of superficial elements, or at least focus attention on the ways "lo fi" gaming experiences can also be beautiful or appealing through the use of good design, innovative art, etc.

Note that I'm not talking about you or your game writing here! Thinking about the kinds of BGG reviews with a dedicated "component" section.

charlest wrote: Who would dedicate years of their life to something and lose money? Not many people.

I know a lot of folks working in a bunch of different mediums who have dedicated their lives to making stuff that has little to no chance of making money. While I think this is super shitty, since they work hard and do good work, it's one of the unavoidable economic realities of making stuff in America in 2018--if you're trying to create art that takes risks and says something new, you probably have a day job doing something else. While I certainly wouldn't fault someone for making conservative design decisions in order to have a chance at financial success, I'm not gonna give them credit for it, either.

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 and it's "this generation doesn't respect its elders" in nerd form. Seriously, this argument has been around for decades. Remember the Famicon crisis? Back in 1986 people already thought there were too many games. And before that there was the Arcade Slump of 1982 and the too many RPGs crowd of the 80s. Why do you need another D&D?

It's telling because nobody argues there were too many games by the time they got into the hobby or that they games they like shouldn't exist.

I mean, compare these two quotes:

stoic wrote: What we get now is an ignorant public backing new games because they look cool because of clever marketing, have expensive miniatures, or the latest popular licenses.

“Selling Famicom games is a cinch!
All I need is some popular characters and flashy advertising!”

It's the same thing.

Yep, all of that is fine from a buyers perspective. From a publisher's perspective, the idea that you have a few thousand competitors instead of thirty or forty could be pretty daunting. For the moment people are buying, but bubbles like this don't last. At some point the market will bottom out and retrench. That will be an interesting day. Won't bother me so much because I have no interest in ever making a game!

stoic wrote:

MattDP wrote:

stoic wrote: What we get now is an ignorant public backing new games because they look cool because of clever marketing, have expensive miniatures, or the latest popular licenses.

Don't have a lot to add to this debate that hasn't already been said, but I think this is just slightly off the mark. A lot of the people backing this stuff aren't ignorant - they're hobbyists. They've seen this stuff before. They know they're being sold to.

The thing is: they don't care.

You have to remember that for an awful lot of boardgamers, collecting is part of the hobby. They'll have a pile of shame, sure, and hand-wring in public. In private, they're got disposable income and they're perfectly happy to have shelf toads because it gives them something to put on their shelves.

This is only a problem from the point of view of board gamers who have a real interest in quality games rising to the fore. And, let's face it, purchasers who apply plenty of critical thinking before buying products are, almost by definition, not the key demographic that's going to drive design and publishing decisions.

RIBBIT...RIBBIT...ribbit

I don't know why it bothers me when people here call Gloomhaven a shelf toad, but it does, and I can't help but respond. I think this is a terrible example as it rose to popularity not because of its physical appearance or massive size, but because people played it and loved it and kept playing it. It's one of the great examples that runs counter to most of the Kickstarter culture here.

Reading books is not a niche hobby as far as I know.

ChristopherMD wrote: Reading books is not a niche hobby as far as I know.

The median American reads four books per year.

www.pewinternet.org/2016/09/01/book-read...1_book-reading_a-01/

i read one!

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.

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?