Game Industry = Scavenger Type

Price point and accessibility are definitely major issues. You can grouse all you want about the LCG or "starter"/"core" set models...god knows I have...but at the end of the day, that model makes a HELL of a lot more sense both from a business risk perspective and a consumer value one. An X-Wing starter is thirty bucks, retail. You can judge for yourself if the contents are worth $30, but at the end of the day that product- which is one of the best games on the market today IMO- is literally ONE THIRD the retail price of many larger games which, as has been mentioned, often mean iterative design that "fixes" previous games or offers gamers a "better" version of an existing title.

If you tell someone that they've got an all-or-nothing $100 purchase versus a try-it-and-see $30...well, the smart money is on the lower price point. Granted, really top-tier stuff like Robinson Crusoe bucks that trend, but I think the future of board games is in a la carte products and not so much in all-in-one single purchases.

Diskwars is $27 street. For that price, I get a _fantastic_ game with unlimited replay value that I just need to bring a $3 piece of green felt into. I have the option to buy another starter, and I will have the option to buy the add-on units that will eventually be released. This is such a better value proposition than a $100 game I might buy and play once. Further, the serial purchase model also means that the game will be FRESH and that I'll likely continue to play it over a longer period of time. Additionally, with these kinds of games it makes more sense to own them even if your friends do.

This is why, I think, we've seen FFG shift very perceptively away from "Here are the five big box board games we will be releasing this year" to "Here are the five product lines we are introducing this year". I've balked at that in the past, but it just makes more sense in today's market and considering today's trends in playing habits. When I look over the single purchase, expensive big box stuff FFG has released lately...I don't really see any major hits. Even Eldritch Horror has kind of fallen off the radar. I'd bet that Arkham expansions are outselling it.

I still think that the Runewars/Horus Heresy "death knell of the coffin box" was a Waterloo moment...but that said, how do you account for the even more niche titles on Kickstarter that are pulling $200+ a head? Impressive numbers aside, the volume sales on those games is still really, really low compared to how Arkham Horror, TI3, and such used to sell- and likely still are selling.

Frankly, I'm much more in tune with spending $200 on a single game over the course of three years than spending $100 on a one-time purchase. This is what's kept me away from Nations, A Study in Emerald, and a lot of the more recent stuff. I'd rather support my favorite titles with expansions, as I mentioned above, than to risk a $100 debacle.

Maybe this "next big thing" game is going to be something that is 100% a la carte...everything sold in modules at a very low price point. Companies have tried this in the past (Duel of Ages, for example) but maybe the time is right for a game where you DON'T buy everything in one box, you buy the parts you like. Lower price points go a long way to getting people on board.

Back in the days of Dominion and Race for the Galaxy the hype took over BGG (and thus the hobby). I'm not sure how many independent websites, blogs, video reviewers, etc there are now, but I'm sure its a lot more than there used to be. A lot more new game releases too so even hardcore gamers can't keep up. Making it less likely for the early adopters to be hyping the same game(s) at the same time in the same place.
My guess is the next industry changing game will not really be discovered until its 2nd printing. Either because its a kickstarter or it just didn't get picked up by enough people among all the other releases that Essen.

Michael Barnes wrote: I don't know if Seafall is it...the Legacy thing is cool and all, but I don't think that's really the kind of profound effect we're going to see...there are still a lot of issues regarding disposability, replayability, and group commitment that could keep that sort of idea from hitting that crossover kind of flashpoint that Ticket to Ride/Carcassonne/Dominion/Settlers have.

I think Seafall will be interesting, but I don't think it will be a defining moment. What we're due for is a defining moment.

The more I think about it, the more I do feel the Legacy Games is/was that next breakthrough. As to if it becomes fully utilized though...

What I experienced through playing Risk: Legacy is something that I've never experienced and haven't experienced since. I wasn't just thinking a few turns ahead, but I was thinking a few GAMES ahead. That I think was a pretty big breakthrough in gaming.

And broaden the scope a bit. Think of an abstract game where the board changes, the movement abilities of pieces change game to game depending on what players do. A game like Sentinels of the Multiverse where the heroes suffer damage that alters their ability game to game. A dungeon crawl or adventure game where you buy a character pack where your adventure shapes your character and backstory. I really do think there are tons of possibilities and avenues that can be explored.

As far as the next the next Magic, Settlers, Carc, Ticket to Ride, Dominion...It may be decades before we see another one or group of games like these again.

I think there's a big question of implementation with Legacy. Really, it's just applying campaign continuity between sessions which is not something unique or new. The key is that those changes are made directly to components, which permanently alters them and effectively offers branching paths for future games to develop. This is somewhat on trend with video games, where "permadeath" has become prevalent again and with the notion of user-created content to some degree, but I think it abraids against the demand for a board game to be replayable and offer a replicatible, continually valuable experience. I get the thinking that it's cool to make permanent, game-altering changes but for them to have meaning you have to play with the same group repeatedly- which is a challenge for most gamers, let alone more casual/mainstream players.

But there is something about locking the game into consequence that is compelling, and there may be something to that. But I feel like there is, at least based on Risk Legacy, something falling short in terms of implementation. I've not played or bought Risk Legacy specifically because of the concerns I have about it and although I'm very interested in Seafall I want to see how the idea has evolved, if at all.

I actually think Pathfinder is a better concept, but it only touches the character development so far. But what if the adventures in future expansions were changed in some way to reflect achievements/failures in prior ones? That could be a really interesting way of enacting this sense of continuity and permanent change without having to put stickers on the board, opening secret envelopes or whatever.

This kind of goes back, possibly, to a serial concept as well. What if Risk Legacy were sold in such a way that you didn't get all ten (is ten?) games in the box. You got the first three. The next "episode" would contain the next three, and so on. This could make for a game that could evolve and change over YEARS instead of just having it all in the box and then spoiled when you're done with the campaign.

In my opinion if you aren't playing Risk: Legacy until you actually name the world, then you're not playing the game. Like I said, yes there is the one off game, but like I mentioned I was working and strategizing a few GAMES ahead.

Regarding replayability, I feel too much emphasis is placed on this. Yes there are some games that you'll play time after time, year after year, but for the most part if you get 14 or 15 games out of a game then you're doing well with it. Now as it if gamers can accept that the game does have an "end point" (which is actually false since you can continue playing R:L after), getting them to accept that could be problematic. But when you are taking a game and altering and change it, there should be an end point just to make sure things don't spiral out of control so to speak.

As far as playing with the same group...To run a campaign in Descent you pretty much need the same group. I feel to get the most out of a game like Space Hulk, Dread Fleet, Claustrophobia, Earth Reborn, or any game that has interconnected scenarios and storylines they are best experienced with the same person. But again I think this is an issue that could be mitigated or eliminated with a creative person, which I am not.

If something 'big' does get released i don't expect it to come from Kickstarter. Ticket to Ride, settlers, carcassone and Dominion, i could be wrong here, but all these games use mechanics that have been around in games (not just board games mind you) for a long time. They were presented in a very very clean and well refined way, often by quite experienced and knowledgeable designers. KS doesn't generally produce clean tried and tested designs by experienced designers (well Vacarrino and the Carc dude weren't but..).

I could only see Legacy becoming the thing if a very simple well refined game using the concept was released.

Duke, you've touched on something that I think is very significant- and pretty commonly overlooked.

When a game hits it big and becomes a new tentpole title, it's almost always something that is a highly refined, highly developed evolution of _existing_ concepts. And quite often, the core mechanics are rooted in very traditional kinds of gameplay- not so much hobby qualities.

There's a little Bingo in Acquire, there's some Poker in Cosmic Encounter, and Settlers calls back quite explcitly to Craps. Ticket to Ride runs a Rummy chassis and Carcassonne is a hobby verion of Dominoes. Dominion is deckbuilding lifted out of the CCG context, of course.

This is really key in crossover games, I think...and these kinds of crossover games tend to be the ones that have the biggest sales and influencing potential. It does come down to this very clean, very refined presentation...because that makes the ideas that cross over from hobby more approachable.

This is also why the more hardcore hobby games stay hardcore hobby and will never be the next big thing. Because there has to be that flashpoint that only occurs when games have that X factor that appeals to both segments.

I really think Yomi could have done it, but between Sirlin and the way the game was sold/marketing, let alone the artwork, price, and some of the more esoteric/insular elements of it, it just didn't have a chance to cross over like it could have. Oddly, it being a two player game also hurt it, I think.

Another element that is really important is a variable play experience. It's important in these games that things aren't "fixed", that every game has some modularity or variety. Ticket to Ride would seem to be the exception, but there is a lot of varition in the order the cards are drawn/played and the routes that players can potentially draw each game.

SO in sum...the next big thing will:

- Feature one or more "classic" gameplay mechanics, presented in a highly refined, clean way
- Offer modular/variable gameplay options
- Have a theme that is somewhere halfway between abstraction and specificity
- Possibly be sold/marketed in a new way (perhaps the first "serial" board game)
- Likely be Milch und Gherkin

Refined is the key for me.

I'm not looking anything new, and I highly doubt that anything new is that interesting. There is a lot of existing genres that haven't quite reached the mark.

I've been thinking more about this. If we take Settlers, Carcassone, Ticket to Ride, Acquire and Dominion as the 'big' cross over games they have a number of other features in common.

In four of these games you build either the board, or a network on the board.

In all five games you get a random input before you take your turn (or at the end to consider for next turn). This taps into the slot machine mentality as you usually want something specific and are really hoping for it.

All five games are about building something to accumulate points. There is no destruction.

All five games work very well with player counts from 2 up to 4.

All five games work very well as a light family game, or for hypercompetitive eurotards

Four of these games have a decision tree that grows outward through the game. Ticket to Ride is probably the only that doesn't, as board spaces get filled the decisions reduce a little.

IN many respects Dominion is the ugly duckling of the group. Whilst you draw from your deck is a random you can always buy any card (if you have the monies) so it has a more open decisions from an earlier stage. It is also the only game that you can really screw yourself in the first couple of turns. Its really a paring down of the engine building euro concept to its absolute core. All the other games use a more traditional game structure.

My recipe for a major hit board game is as follows; Take a mechanic from traditional games such as set collection, trick taking, or tile laying, and combine it with building something either with cards or on a board and probably throw in a simple resource or interesting scoring system for good measure. Also add a friendly theme about the medieval or ancient world.

DukeofChutney wrote: All five games work very well with player counts from 2 up to 4.

Don't agree with this one for Acquire or Settlers, but all your other points are good.

good point.

Based on what I'm reading the only thing Through the Desert is lacking is a random element.

through the desert offers too many choices on the opening turn. Like Go you start with lots of choices and slowly reduce your options. Most of the popular games mentioned are the opposite. You start with a few and the choices grow over turns. Ticket to ride does give you an open board but it constrains you with the cards.

There is another feature all these games have in common. Expandability. Each of them either has new boards or cards or tiles etc. Through the Desert could in theory be expanded but its theme and mechanics are so conducive to being a serialized game as the other examples are.

DukeofChutney wrote: There is another feature all these games have in common. Expandability.

Again, not Acquire. Maybe you should drop it from your list, as it seems to be mucking up your point about more modern games.