What makes a reprint successful?

FFG rightly is known for tinkering with reprints, but it's hardly something they're alone in. Mayfair definitely had their way with Cosmic Encounter and third edition of Talisman had some changes too. I would say that most new eiditons of games change at least something.

Also, it's easy to say that FFG games that change the least are the most successful, but then we have Nexus Ops and Merchant of Venus, both of which are entirely playable in their original form with the new versions. I mean art makes a difference, but that much difference?

I was also wondering about what effect the publisher has on stuff like this. A lot of times I feel like FFG is only really interested in marketing games that can turn into product lines. That makes sense, they need to make money. But a lot of these games, like Nexus Ops, Fortress America, and Borderlands all got new versions that were then basically forgotten by their own publisher.

actually I think the graphic design on Nexus is a pretty big factor, the different terrain types dont really pop and it all just clumps together in a big mess. I'm a big fan of the winsome style anyways, and I think my home made version of Nexus Ops I faffed about with using just solid colour hex spares from (looks like Settlers maybe?) and plain coloured wooden bits in different sizes looks loads better.

Though, to be honest, could Nexus be any more of an obvious "get this on the iPad" game?????

Jackwraith wrote:

Colorcrayons wrote: Building an original IP can be a huge benefit years down the line. Look at GW and how they have ripped everyone else off and its small wonder they are so vicious in court, so that they can lay legitimate claim to their theft. Their IP's are worth quite a bit now.

Just out of curiosity, whom has GW ripped off other than Robert Heinlein in a fairly generic manner (and they were not the first to do that)? I've seen more evidence of GW's material being appropriated (most notoriously by Blizzard) than the converse, but maybe I'm forgetting something.

Ermagherd... where to begin?
Many others have done the same the same theft/borrowing/ inspired by, but at least they acknowledged their influences instead of thinking that nothing outside of their business exists, as GW very clearly does. They market themselves as if their products are the totality of analog and even digital entertainment.

Tolkien (though this is easy as every fantasy trope is inspired by this), Moorcock (ever read about the chaos symbol copyright? A thesis unto itself), Herbert (a few bits here and there), Aliens (space hulk anyone), etc. Some are so obvious, as the catachan special character "Sly Marbo" for instance. Sly Stallon's character Rambo. "Get it? See what we did there? It's clearly not based on a famous character in popular culture. We devised this clever thing all by ourselves. Don't you dare try to do the same thing or we will get mad and our lawyers are hungry." This tact is pretty typical for them.

The worlds have developed quite a bit since their original incarnations. WHFB has a really pronounced background as it has played off of years worth of creativity of past writers involved with them on those stolen foundations.

This topic can take up numerous threads on its own, but the best I can offer is that after being involved with GW as a consumer since 1986 until 2008 and watching their own products develop while my own exposure to literature broadens, there is an instinctive "Wow, I have definitely seen this before" that surrounds each of their products, and components of those products both physical and ephemeral.

I don't begrudge them developing off of past ideas, as that is how life evolves. It's a good thing.
What I despise is their lack of acknowledgement, and litigious nature as if their IP is as pure as undriven snow from the uncanny creative genius at Games (we done make anymore) Workshop. They whine at Blizzard for doing the exact same thing as they do. That's some very conspicuous and audacious hypocrisy right there. And I never could work up sympathy for GW because of that. Personally, I would love to see GW legal get steamrolled by Blizzard legal.

ldsdbomber wrote: actually I think the graphic design on Nexus is a pretty big factor...

This. It's the one thing I hear people complain about the most online and in person, and was the only reason why I didn't buy it myself, despite being willing to have such redundancy in my collection.

Gary Sax wrote: nt titles.

The folks at MMP talk about this a lot. They have to deal with it all the time since their print runs are small, and the perception of demand due to price can be quite large.[/quote]

DAK reprint a case in point. Reprinted due to suposedly high demand, deeply discounted to get rid of it.

Now OOP again and getting decent prices.

Yeah Nexus Ops graphic design blows. I made a home made copy during the void and planned to buy the new one. But how it looks really stopped me.

I'd rather have top-down view tiles with overwrought sci-fi style that Barnes hate than these... psychadellic and new age tiles... It's really weird. I mean FFG is the *master* of tiles. Runewars, Descent 2nd Edition, Imperial Assault... they have great tiles. Still don't know what happened with Nexus Ops.

I agree with colorcrayons, the barefaced cheek of GW to try to go after people using even terms like "space marine" is just incredible to me. Their stuff couldn't be any more obviously generically ripped from a thousand different old sci fi tropes if it tried.

Board games are pump-and-dump heaven. You can get a scare up with three people.

Barnes says that if the game ain't broke don't change it. But the problem with that is that you need to compete with all the old copies out there. You need to find a way to add some compelling reason to buy yours instead. You can do that artistically without changing the rules I suppose but then the price climbs.

The old Nexus Ops wasn't a good choice, because the art on the old one was modern. The Merchant of Venus -- that was a bare-bones game. There was room for a reprint. It's only through a very odd twist of fate that the original rules were included, one that I don't think we'll see again. Had FFG produced just the "Standard Rules" instead of including Hamblen's classic I wouldn't have merely been not interested, I would have been mad enough to not buy on principle. I think MoV is the official poster child of successful reprint.

S.

I know this is kind of my thing to defend the card combat in the new Dungeonquest, but let's just remember that it was a change the original designer suggested as far as we've heard. It was not just tinkering for the sake of tinkering, but an active choice they all believed would make the game better. You can agree or disagree, but since the game is being reprinted neither Terrinoth nor the new combat system can have been huge deal breakes outside of a very vocal online group.

mads b. wrote: I know this is kind of my thing to defend the card combat in the new Dungeonquest, but let's just remember that it was a change the original designer suggested as far as we've heard. It was not just tinkering for the sake of tinkering, but an active choice they all believed would make the game better. You can agree or disagree, but since the game is being reprinted neither Terrinoth nor the new combat system can have been huge deal breakes outside of a very vocal online group.

The card combat absolutely killed my interest in the reprint, and I love DungeonQuest. The combat die variant rescued it for me. In fact, last week I was at a friend's house and we were gonna play DQ but then remembered he hadn't made a combat die yet so we shelved it and played something else. The card combat is so un-DQ that I don't care if El-Adoran Sureshot himself designed it, it's just awful.

Hey speaking of reprints, how about that new St. Petersburg, which not only replaces the thematic and interesting old art with generic Euro art but also throws in some kind of spreadsheet business so it can add a fifth player that no one needed? I'm not crazy about the game anyway, but it was a nice design with personality that can now look like any old junk on the market. Still, the usual suspects are excited for a bunch of people in period costumes replacing the "terrible art that looks like a first grader did it" since we have no concept of history except for what wars were fought, so who knows how it will do.

Come on Dave, don't you know that Larry Elmore > Andrei Rublev?