"Value Gaming"?

Obviously everyone's threshold is different, but F:AT is basically the last spot I still talk about games online, my own blog notwithstanding. A big reason is because we can have conversations like this. If I were to try to talk about this on, say, /r/boardgames I would get people actually angry with me for not being ra-ra about the hobby all the time. On BGG I would probably just be ignored.

I understand wanting to step away from online discourse for a stretch, because I did it for about a month. It was good for me too.

I'm not much of a collector, but I do have a handful of games that I very rarely play that I still won't get rid of. They aren't losing value monetarily, and when I see them I remember how much fun I had with them and how much fun I'll hopefully have again at some point. If I sold those games I'd be exchanging extrinsic value for intrinsic value, but not necessarily gaining anything from a value standpoint unless I start assigning value to shelf space or decision space (number of games to choose from). I do assign value to both shelf space and decision space, which is the primary driver for getting rid of games.

I don't totally agree with the idea that having two similar games reduces the value of one (or the other or both). I'd rather state that having a lot of games reduces the playtime-to-cost ratio of each individual game. Having a lot of games has caused me to not thoroughly explore some of my favorite games because my game selection decision space is so large that they aren't often selected. I don't feel that having both Thunder Alley and Formula De and choosing to play one over the other decreases the value of the unplayed game, but simply having a large number of games decreases the (non-monetary) value of every game that I have.

I think what you've done is certainly commendable. That dragonstout quote has weight behind it and in some ways is profound, however, I don't exactly espouse many of these ideas.

I don't have an enormous collection, although it certainly is big. I have about 70 games and you'd have a hard time making me cut it down. I typically look to sell something if I'm bringing something new in, and I often go through my collection and ask myself what I can live without. I think my previously owned stat on BGG is actually higher than my owned for this reason.

However, one thing that is often discounted or ignored when these conversations come up is the joy of content discovery. I game with a guy that likes to look through the even deck before the game begins where I'm completely the opposite. I don't want to know what my Mekanoid Dragon's Evolution cards are before I draw them, I don't want to know that the church could possibly burn down in Yedo before it actually happens, and I sure as shit don't want to know what evil monstrosities could be around the corner when I'm playing Space Alert.

If I restricted myself to playing only 10 or so games, none of that magic or mystery would be there. I wouldn't have those "oh shit!" moments of surprise. Those are some of my most memorable moments in past years and I don't want to give that up.

Jeff White wrote: Also, getting played less means more rules reviews than the others.

To me, this is important and is probably the #2 reason for slimming down a game collection (particularly wargames/more complex games). #1 being the fact that, since I have too many damn games, we don't get to play my favorites nearly often enough, so yeah, buying a new game, even if good, takes away from the games I love. If I gamed a lot more often, that might not be as much of a concern.

PS: I tend not to think in terms of "value", though, maybe to my detriment; I was just responding to Barnes' absurd claim that buying like a hundred new games this month, even if cheap, was good "value".

PPS: The user "rarevos" on BGG has a nice series of blogposts and comments about a streamlined game collection; I'd say he's the best over there on that subject.

PPPS: I'm not hardcore on this at all. I have like 8 Magic draft-sim cubes, which are both really expensive, and, from an outsider's perspective, all the same game. I also think that selling is dumb a lot of time, because of what Wadenels said: the great games are more likely to GAIN value as you wait than lose value, assuming you picked good games. I wish I'd waited to sell Jambo, from what people are saying about it's $100 price. It depends on how much you value your shelf space, cash on hand, and not having to even look at a game you would rather not play.

I've been tearing apart my game collection and when added to my trade pile I have about 100 games I'm getting rid of, so hopefully none of you all are too minimalist because I'm going to be pushing wares soon (including a few ERP darlings).

Jambo is selling for $100? Fuck I need to add that to the sell pile with my $800 copy of Through the Desert!

Mad Dog wrote: Jambo is selling for $100? Fuck I need to add that to the sell pile with my $800 copy of Through the Desert!

$22 on BGG marketplace.

I own nearly 100 games, including about 10 CCGs. I don't consider myself a collector in the sense that I am buying and owning games for the mere sake of owning them, but I do find myself very reluctant to get rid of games that rarely get played. My feeling is that I would play those games if I played games more often, though there are probably some that I should I sell anyway, due to the low probability of future plays. My collection does keep me from joining the Cult of the New. I can't justify buying new games unless they are particularly great, or at least offer something very different from the rest of my collection, in terms of theme or even license, or at least in some aspect of gameplay.

One thing to keep in mind is that owning games doesn't particularly cost you any time or money (storage space and transportation when moving house are about it). The main cost for games is buying them in the first place, and as long as you keep your focus on the buying stage (do I really need this?) value will naturally arise.

I'm a minimalist with 20 games. Partially due to $$$, but currently that's not big of a factor. I just blew what's enough for 5-10 board games for a significantly smaller number of 40k boxes, because I *do* like plastic kits and painting.

There are several reasons for this, the most important I have said in the other thread. I love repeating games. I believe good games have lots of nuances to explore, even the simplest ones. These games *require* repeat play to be appreciated. I only have 1 or 2 compulsive buy, and the other purchases were made only after extensive research.

Then I also have this... sentimental feelings about unplayed games. Not guilt, just sadness. I have faith in my picks, and I feel that I betray it if it doesn't get played enough. This is not "denial due to purchase". If I don't like a game, I'd like to know why.

Lastly, I do love practicing efficiency. Making the least number of games while trying to cover all the subjects I want. Having one game cover 2 subjects, discovering that a game could cover for a subject... that kind of things. It's almost like character building in an RPG. It's a game in itself.

Would 20 games be enough? Most certainly. Between Steam & miniatures painting, I have a lot of things to juggle around.