Yeah. Back in my day I had to buy boosters in the mall, and it wasn't from a game store. In the future, mommy will buy a whole box of boosters for $50.
Did you have a game store as an option? In my case, I had multiple options for stores, but the game store actually ran sales and had deals. The grocery stores had sales periodically, but not often enough.
Regardless, your experience and Rym's experiences aren't necessarily the typical case.
You do have an interesting point though, that the Amazon generation generally has yet to breed and introduce their spawn to these games. I still think, though, that impulse purchases will keep gaming stores going. If a parent goes with their kid to the game store to play the latest CCG, there's a good chance that the kid will want to buy something, and many parents will cave and buy it there, because it's easier and gets the kid to quiet down. I'm not sure that that'll change significantly in the future.
In that case, why do we need physical space at all when there are programs like Vassal and OCTGN that let us play our games through our pcs?
We're verging WAY off topic, but just the other day, I bought a new boardgame at my gaming store: Neuroshima Hex. I had never heard of it before, never seen it on Amazon, never seen it on Boardgamegeek, and never seen it anywhere else. It looked cool so I asked the owner about it. He said he had played it and liked it, and that another guy the owner knows owns it. That guy came in a couple days later, I saw the game, I played it, and I bought it.
If the store didn't exist, I doubt I would have ever discovered the game, let alone been able to play it once and determine if I wanted to buy it or not. Even if Amazon or BGG had recommended the game to me, neither one of those sites would have let me demo it. Through the store, I discovered something completely new, asked an experienced person how the game was, used the store "network" to try it out, and eventually bought it.
Yes, I paid full price for it... Oh wait, I didn't. I used my 25% off coupon that the store sends out every couple of months. But regardless, if the store didn't exist, I doubt I would have ever heard of this small game, let alone buy and enjoy it.
Man, so it so unsatisfying to play 40k over Vassal. If I'm notholdingthe Hive Tyrant as I move it with a satisfying "thunk," it's no good.
I completely agree that using these types of programs to simulate games isn't very satisfying. But using Rym and Scott's arguments, it's only a matter of time before ALL physical games become unprofitable and we play everything online. Then, we won't even need to have physical space anymore.
Or, as you and I have been saying, there will always be a place for businesses that offer services that online sites don't.
I completely agree that using these types of programs to simulate games isn't very satisfying. But using Rym and Scott's arguments, it's only a matter of time before ALL physical games become unprofitable and we play everything online.
I never said that. In fact, I said the opposite, that until we have fully immersive VR, physical spaces for interaction will become more and more valuable, much moreso than any retail opportunities presented therein.
The value in the game store is the community and the physical space. It's not in the games. The Pokemon kids and people who buy out of charity fund these places. As long as you continue to do this, people like me can gain access to these places completely free of charge. That's fine and dandy for me. But it's not so dandy when people like me become the majority, and the store is either out of business or just Pokemon.
I never said that. In fact, I said the opposite, that until we have fully immersive VR, physical spaces for interaction will become more and more valuable, much moreso than any retail opportunities presented therein.
The value in the game store is the community and the physical space. It's not in the games. The Pokemon kids and people who buy out of charity fund these places. As long as you continue to do this, people like me can gain access to these places completely free of charge. That's fine and dandy for me. But it's not so dandy when people like me become the majority, and the store is either out of business orjustPokemon.
You also said this:
The only demographic I'm not in anymore is being willing to buy anything in person if I can get it cheaper online under just about any circumstances. I even buy my groceries online (cheaper than the store, delivered INTO MY FRIDGE by porters).
So, based on the above, you don't need to buy ANY boardgame ever again if it's available on Vassal or another program. No more need for a physical space at all. If cheaper is always better, than free is better than cheaper.
So, based on the above, you don't need to buy ANY boardgame ever again if it's available on Vassal or another program.
Buying the exact same product from an online store instead of a physical store is not the same as buying a digital version of the product.
Exactly. I order physical, real board games online. They're cheaper than from gaming stores and arrive forthwith. I'm not sure how this could have been confusing. Did you think I was ordering virtual groceries?
Game stores can't compete with Internet vendors on price and reliability, nevermind convenience. And, for me, this applies to almost all retail.
Getting back to comics, has anyone else read Lost at Sea by Brian Lee O'Malley? It's very much so the opposite of Scott Pilgrim, but it's pretty good. Pretty depressing and emo, but with a fairly uplifting ending.
See, this is my major point of disagreement. I suppose it's convenient to order online, in that you don't have to seek out a gaming store and such. However, if you're already in a gaming store, because of a tournament or because you're hanging with friends, then it's far more convenient to just purchase the thing you want right there. That's why those stores hold events; they draw people in for other reasons, and then rely on the instinct to purchase via impulse for instant gratification.
I can think of one instance where brick and mortar stores can beat online: Games Workshop. That's mostly because GW will not ship product to people who sell said products in an online shopping cart for anything less than MSRP. Consequently, a lot of brick and mortar places order the stuff and then discount it in-store. The WarStore does the same thing via phone. That, however, is a unique case.
Exactly. I order physical, real board games online. They're cheaper than from gaming stores and arrive forthwith. I'm not sure how this could have been confusing. Did you think I was ordering virtual groceries?
Game stores can't compete with Internet vendors on price and reliability, nevermind convenience. And, for me, this applies to almost all retail.
My point was, that if you extend your reasoning, that cheaper is ALWAYS better, then something FREE must be better than something that costs money. Internet vendors can't compete with something that costs nothing.
If your goal is to save as much money as possible on games, you don't even need to buy them any more. Use Vassal, use BrettspielWelt. If you can play games for free, your preference for a physical copy of a game is just as irrelevant as my preference to buy from a gaming store.
That's mostly because GW will not ship product to people who sell said products in an online shopping cart for anything less than MSRP. Consequently, a lot of brick and mortar places order the stuff and then discount it in-store. The WarStore does the same thing via phone. That, however, is a unique case.
That's very close to being illegal. And, there are ways around it. Amazon gets around similar trust-like restrictions by selling below MSRP, but not displaying the price until you check out. The only reason no one skirts it with Warhammer is probably just that the market isn't big enough.
My point was, that if you extend your reasoning, that cheaper is ALWAYS better, then something FREE must be better than something that costs money. Internet vendors can't compete with something that costs nothing.
Cheaper is always better for the exact same product. An online version of a game doesn't come with physical pieces: it's a different product. But a physical board game, bought online, costs less than the same game in a store in most cases.
An online version of a game doesn't come with physical pieces: it's a different product. But a physical board game, bought online, costs less than the same game in a store in most cases.
Physical pieces aren't necessary to enjoy a game. If your goal is to save as much money as possible, then as long as you can play the game in any form, that should be good enough.
Physical pieces are just an added benefit that you're paying for. The same as the benefits I'm paying for by buying from a gaming store.
That's very close to being illegal. And, there are ways around it. Amazon gets around similar trust-like restrictions by selling below MSRP, but not displaying the price until you check out. The only reason no one skirts it with Warhammer is probably just that the market isn't big enough.
It's not illegal. Apple does it all the time. Best Buy sells iPods for the same price as everyone else. If they tried to discount it, Apple would just stop selling new iPods to Best Buy.
I didn't say it was. I said it was close. There's a very, very fine line between shady-but-legal price restrictions and illegal price restrictions.
Physical pieces aren't necessary to enjoy a game. If your goal is to save as much money as possible, then as long as you can play the game in any form, that should be good enough.
What part of this don't you understand (aside from the core concept)? It's not the exact same product.
Physical pieces are just an added benefit that you're paying for. The same as the benefits I'm paying for by buying from a gaming store.
How so? I buy a physical copy of Entdecker 2 from Amazon for $40. Or, I buy an identical copy of Entdecker 2 from the local game store for $45. I can play games at the game store regardless of which way I go, since people like you continue to subsidize said store with your charity. The only difference between these two situations is that one costs me an extra $5.
I check Amazon when I'm in anime con dealers' rooms. And if Amazon is cheaper, I order right then and there, instead of buying from the physical vendor. Same with Best Buy. Same with sporting goods. Same with, well, everything. The situation is the same in all cases, and I'm basically taking advantage of the tragedy of the commons for my personal benefit, as the game of economics doesn't enforce retail purchasing. Happily, people like you exist, and subsidize these physical showrooms and spaces for me.
I'm saying that if cheaper is always better, the PRODUCT becomes irrelevant if you can play the GAME for free.
To use your example, when you buy Entdecker 2, you're buying a game to play. You are buying something that gives you enjoyment. If you can play that same game, and if you can have that same enjoyment, even if the product isn't the same, that should be good enough, if we extend your "cheaper is always better philosophy".
By you having a preference for a physical copy of the game, as opposed to an online version, you're adding value to the physical components. You think it is worth money to have a physical copy. You don't need a physical copy to PLAY the game. I add value to supporting my local gaming store, something I don't need to do but I think is worth the money. They're the same thing.
I didn't say it was. I said it was close. There's a very, very fine line between shady-but-legal price restrictions and illegal price restrictions.
Yup. It's not illegal, but it's incredibly dickish. Also, their stipulation isn't just that you can't display the price; it's that you cannot sell their products in an online store that uses any sort of "shopping cart." So, Amazon is right out. eBay is the only way you can do it, and even then, they dislike that. However, they're also the only people that make their game, and it's a damn good one. Apple is the perfect example; yeah, their stuff may be pricey, and they may have some asshole business practices, but the iPod is fucking awesome.
By you having a preference for a physical copy of the game, as opposed to an online version, you're adding value to the physical components. You think it is worth money to have a physical copy. You don't need a physical copy to PLAY the game. I add value to supporting my local gaming store, something I don't need to do but I think is worth the money. They're the same thing.
Except I'm paying explicitly for this product, which I desire. You're paying for some other product, but have no contract with the store owner for these other implicit benefits.
The physical copy's value-add over a digital copy is inherent in the product itself and an explicit part of the contract of sale. The use of the store for playing games is at best a gentleman's agreement. You're paying extra on one product, under the assumption that this will allow another free product to continue to be available due to this. They're very different situations.
There are people who "convert" miniatures from other manufacturers and bring them into Warhammer games. The general "code" among Warhammer players is that you have to be reasonable about it, but we're pretty forgiving of a lot of things. GW-sponsored tournaments - the things with $100,000 grand prizes and all that stuff - require that every single model be comprised of at least 50% original GW stuff. But no, I can't think of anyone who directly tries to copy Warhammer miniatures. It's really difficult, considering that you'd need to be able to get your hands on the molds (which are destroyed once the minis go out of print) or try to make a mold yourself based on the miniature.
The other problem is that the size and shape of the models affects the game; line of sight is determined by how much of a model is actually visible to another model. Thus, really powerful models are very often made large or visible in some other way, making them easier targets on the battlefield. Those little nuances are really difficult to balance using other models.
I just don't believe it will continue to work out. It's silly to do business like this when better, longer-term, sustainable models exist.
I fail to see what it is not sustainable about the business model. I mean, I can see a reduction in the number of gaming stores, but not an elimination. I really really really doubt that we will see a significant drift away from an instant-gratification-obsessed culture, especially when information is so immediately available. If a gaming store can keep their prices sufficiently close to online prices and still provide ample gaming space, it will remain viable for a very long time.
Here's a question: why do vendors bother showing up at something like PAX? There was a great library of games there, and ample gaming space. It's obvious that the focus was to provide an area in which gamers could get together and do their thing. Do you think we will reach a point where vendors at cons will not be making a profit?
Comments
Regardless, your experience and Rym's experiences aren't necessarily the typical case.
You do have an interesting point though, that the Amazon generation generally has yet to breed and introduce their spawn to these games. I still think, though, that impulse purchases will keep gaming stores going. If a parent goes with their kid to the game store to play the latest CCG, there's a good chance that the kid will want to buy something, and many parents will cave and buy it there, because it's easier and gets the kid to quiet down. I'm not sure that that'll change significantly in the future.
We're verging WAY off topic, but just the other day, I bought a new boardgame at my gaming store: Neuroshima Hex. I had never heard of it before, never seen it on Amazon, never seen it on Boardgamegeek, and never seen it anywhere else. It looked cool so I asked the owner about it. He said he had played it and liked it, and that another guy the owner knows owns it. That guy came in a couple days later, I saw the game, I played it, and I bought it.
If the store didn't exist, I doubt I would have ever discovered the game, let alone been able to play it once and determine if I wanted to buy it or not. Even if Amazon or BGG had recommended the game to me, neither one of those sites would have let me demo it. Through the store, I discovered something completely new, asked an experienced person how the game was, used the store "network" to try it out, and eventually bought it.
Yes, I paid full price for it... Oh wait, I didn't. I used my 25% off coupon that the store sends out every couple of months. But regardless, if the store didn't exist, I doubt I would have ever heard of this small game, let alone buy and enjoy it.
I completely agree that using these types of programs to simulate games isn't very satisfying. But using Rym and Scott's arguments, it's only a matter of time before ALL physical games become unprofitable and we play everything online. Then, we won't even need to have physical space anymore.
Or, as you and I have been saying, there will always be a place for businesses that offer services that online sites don't.
Me: "Big deal.. I know Twilight Imperium: Third edition"
The value in the game store is the community and the physical space. It's not in the games. The Pokemon kids and people who buy out of charity fund these places. As long as you continue to do this, people like me can gain access to these places completely free of charge. That's fine and dandy for me. But it's not so dandy when people like me become the majority, and the store is either out of business or just Pokemon.
Game stores can't compete with Internet vendors on price and reliability, nevermind convenience. And, for me, this applies to almost all retail.
I can think of one instance where brick and mortar stores can beat online: Games Workshop. That's mostly because GW will not ship product to people who sell said products in an online shopping cart for anything less than MSRP. Consequently, a lot of brick and mortar places order the stuff and then discount it in-store. The WarStore does the same thing via phone. That, however, is a unique case.
If your goal is to save as much money as possible on games, you don't even need to buy them any more. Use Vassal, use BrettspielWelt. If you can play games for free, your preference for a physical copy of a game is just as irrelevant as my preference to buy from a gaming store.
Physical pieces are just an added benefit that you're paying for. The same as the benefits I'm paying for by buying from a gaming store.
I check Amazon when I'm in anime con dealers' rooms. And if Amazon is cheaper, I order right then and there, instead of buying from the physical vendor. Same with Best Buy. Same with sporting goods. Same with, well, everything. The situation is the same in all cases, and I'm basically taking advantage of the tragedy of the commons for my personal benefit, as the game of economics doesn't enforce retail purchasing. Happily, people like you exist, and subsidize these physical showrooms and spaces for me.
To use your example, when you buy Entdecker 2, you're buying a game to play. You are buying something that gives you enjoyment. If you can play that same game, and if you can have that same enjoyment, even if the product isn't the same, that should be good enough, if we extend your "cheaper is always better philosophy".
By you having a preference for a physical copy of the game, as opposed to an online version, you're adding value to the physical components. You think it is worth money to have a physical copy. You don't need a physical copy to PLAY the game. I add value to supporting my local gaming store, something I don't need to do but I think is worth the money. They're the same thing.
The physical copy's value-add over a digital copy is inherent in the product itself and an explicit part of the contract of sale. The use of the store for playing games is at best a gentleman's agreement. You're paying extra on one product, under the assumption that this will allow another free product to continue to be available due to this. They're very different situations.
Cut back on the games and sell snacks instead. I spent more at the cafe next to the Dragon's Den than I ever spent at the store itself.
The other problem is that the size and shape of the models affects the game; line of sight is determined by how much of a model is actually visible to another model. Thus, really powerful models are very often made large or visible in some other way, making them easier targets on the battlefield. Those little nuances are really difficult to balance using other models. I fail to see what it is not sustainable about the business model. I mean, I can see a reduction in the number of gaming stores, but not an elimination. I really really really doubt that we will see a significant drift away from an instant-gratification-obsessed culture, especially when information is so immediately available. If a gaming store can keep their prices sufficiently close to online prices and still provide ample gaming space, it will remain viable for a very long time.
Here's a question: why do vendors bother showing up at something like PAX? There was a great library of games there, and ample gaming space. It's obvious that the focus was to provide an area in which gamers could get together and do their thing. Do you think we will reach a point where vendors at cons will not be making a profit?