Game: Roll Through the Ages

Thread: Re: Concern about the price

Numskull — 2008-11-08T20:31:15+00:00

But most of this is based off of people having to pay a few extra bucks for a game. Something that happened in the video game industry long, long ago such that people don't bat an eye over it.

I beg to differ. It's based off of people having to pay a few extra bucks AND not getting any appreciable extra bang for said bucks. (Again, consider the Through The Ages fiasco.) Also, video game production has gotten vastly more ambitious over the years, with bigger, deeper, and more sophisticated games being developed, and in greater numbers. Most board games are still designed by just one or two people.

Thread: Re: Concern about the price

le_el — 2008-11-08T11:26:08+00:00

adreeve wrote:

So which part of that hasn't happened and is therefore supressing this hobby's growth...

Not enough quality games?

Or all quality games are priced too high?

Honestly, some games are priced too high (and, mind you, not necessarily "quality" games).

But my point is simple: the higher average prices are, the smaller this industry will tend to be - high prices will chase away potential boardgamers. In an hobby as small as ours, this does make a difference.

So it's important to find a good balance between "consolidation" and "growth". I don't think we have found it yet, and I'm worried about publishers not looking towards expanding the market.

I could also write a bit more about "exposure", but Michael Barnes already did it, more eloquently than I would have. It's an interesting article, if you want to read it.

Thread: Re: Concern about the price

Great Dane — 2008-11-08T08:31:37+00:00

mleacock wrote:
Hi Larry

I've been working closely with FRED on the design, rules, and components, and can tell you that the price is being driven by the quality of the components. We could have gone with a cardboard base, chits, and cheap dice at a far lower price. Instead, expect to find something that will last over many plays.

I'd ask you to reserve judgment until you've got a copy in your hands and expect that you find the extra few dollars well spent.
I saw the finished (pre-production?) copy at Essen, and the game looked beautiful with thick wooden bases and wooden pegs. Absolutely first class!

I was a bit surprised when I saw the dice were huge, chunky wooden cubes (without rounded corners). But they were light and easy to throw, and the icons easy to recognise across the table. My only 'complaint' is that are held in different shades of brown (light brownish wood with icons 'burned' into the faces). I think I would have preferred colors instead of 'style'.

But on the whole the game looks very nice, and I am sure a lot of people will buy the game just for the looks.

Personally I was willing to pay Rick Sued $50 for his copy - but alas, I am still without this wonderful little gem of a CIV game!

Thread: Re: Concern about the price

adreeve — 2008-11-08T07:41:41+00:00

le_el wrote:
On (even) another hand I don't know any local game store here in Helsinki where you can play (their) games. If they happen to have a box open, you can take a look at the components and read the rules, but not play the game. They aren't offering me anything substantial I can't get online, so why should I buy most of my games there? No to say I don't like having them here, it's great to just walk out from there with a great game in my hands, and I do it from time to time, but why should I be forced to pay extra? For what?

I agree wholeheartedly with that although that's another complicated issue and can the game stores afford to open a copy of each game, be familiar with rules, ...etc. I do agree that if they 'act' like e-tailers and offer no benefits of being able to have a face to face relationship then "For what?" is a great question to ask.

Thread: Re: Concern about the price

adreeve — 2008-11-08T07:36:51+00:00

Thedalek wrote:
The video game comparison is flimsy at best, completely divorced from the topic at worst.

While you make several great points regarding differences between the video game industry and the board game industry there are also many parallels.

Both are a form of media and a form of entertainment. Video games used to be heavily discounted by stores like Best Buy when they would be released. Video games, when they were less popular, also used to be distributed via distributors. Since then companies like EA decided they'd do their own distribution. And that's exactly what FRED's doing. They have some games unique to them... others they've simply acquired distribution rights... this it's "FRED Distribution".

I'm just tired of reading how this company has 'damaged' the hobby when they're bringing titles that might otherwise not be brought over, giving other titles like For Sale another print run, ...etc. Obviously it's possible another company might have done the same. But most of this is based off of people having to pay a few extra bucks for a game. Something that happened in the video game industry long, long ago such that people don't bat an eye over it.

Thread: Re: Concern about the price

adreeve — 2008-11-08T07:27:12+00:00

le_el wrote:
You want to make the hobby grow? Here's a simple formula: attract more people by releasing quality games for a reasonable price. Increase their exposure.

So which part of that hasn't happened and is therefore supressing this hobby's growth...

Not enough quality games?

Or all quality games are priced too high?

Thread: Re: Concern about the price

le_el — 2008-11-04T14:44:57+00:00

To be honest, I don't place Mayfair and FRED in the same category. At all.

I don't like Mayfair's price-fixing policy, I don't own any of their games and I avoid buying them, but I respect the company. That's why I will probably get the upcoming Steam, a game for which I have a special interest.

On the other hand, for me FRED is a bully. No tradition, nothing substantial done for the hobby, they come out of nowhere with their conceited freak show. The whole Through the Ages debacle was one of the worst tales of arrogance and greed I've ever heard. This was no mistake, but a intentional rip-off, something any serious company would never have considered. (Now they will offer the new cards and board "for a price". Don't make me laugh.)

You want to make the hobby grow? Here's a simple formula: attract more people by releasing quality games for a reasonable price. Increase their exposure. Give people freedom to try them before buying; put the rules online, send copies to LGSs to be played. Here's a formula for doing the opposite: print your games in the cheapest place you can find, double the prices, hyper-protect your treasured "intellectual property" and be sure to, on the way, suffocate people who are willing to try your games; don't release them in other languages.

On (even) another hand I don't know any local game store here in Helsinki where you can play (their) games. If they happen to have a box open, you can take a look at the components and read the rules, but not play the game. They aren't offering me anything substantial I can't get online, so why should I buy most of my games there? No to say I don't like having them here, it's great to just walk out from there with a great game in my hands, and I do it from time to time, but why should I be forced to pay extra? For what?

Now, a small calculation: if I buy Galaxy Trucker + Conflict of Heroes from a LGS, I'll spend ~130€, support 2 companies and a local store. If I buy those 2 games plus, say, Neuroshima Hex online, I'll spend the same amount of money and support 3 game companies (and the store). I really can't say which one is better "for the hobby".

I hope FRED will amend their practices. I won't buy their new edition of Through the Ages (another game I have a special interest for): I'll rather buy the German edition and paste up all 300 something cards. And, mind you, it's not really for the price: I know that the time I'll spend doing this could have earned me more than the 20-euro difference between both editions.

On topic: if you compare Roll Through the Ages to a somehow similar game (components/playing time -wise) like Sushizock im Gockelwok it costs three times as much.

Thread: Re: First look at Roll Through the Ages

Larry Levy — 2008-11-02T17:18:28+00:00

Yes, this is the downside to a clever name: false expectations. What Matt Leacock actually designed was The Civ Dice Game. Civ, as in the original Civilization boardgame, by Francis Tresham. His prototype made this even more obvious, as the tie-ins to Civ were very strong. FRED changed these, either, I suspect, to avoid legal difficulties or to give the game its own flavor. But I bet fans of Civ won't have trouble finding the parallels.

Viewed in this light, with no expectations that the game will have anything to do with Through the Ages, the game is very good and establishes a unique niche for itself. At least, the prototype was; FRED has developed the game and I'm interested to see if the new version represents an improvement. When I played it back in April, trading added interaction, but also slowed the game down for minimal gain. I preferred playing without using trading, since I thought the game was best when it moved quickly, but with the new rules, that may change. It is pricey, but at least they gave it some nice components. All in all, I'm still looking forward to trying this out again and hope the linking to TtA proves to help more than it hurts.

By the way Filip, I love Through the Ages as much as you do, but I can assure you I'm not looking for something to "draw it out". Its duration makes it hard enough to get on the table as is!

Thread: Re: Concern about the price

Thedalek — 2008-11-02T01:45:35+00:00

chuckles2000 wrote:

But see, that's the problem. The discounters have created a perception that the "worth/value" of a designer boardgame is less than what a healthy market (B&M retailer) needs to charge to remain viable. Fred and Mayfair are simply trying to "recalibrate" the public's perception. A teir one video game costs around $60. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect to pay about the same for a well-produced, and well-designed boardgame. It's actually a fairly gutsy play on their part (I'm unsure if I agree with it, but it does take balls, IMO).

The video game comparison is flimsy at best, completely divorced from the topic at worst.

"Tier one" video game budgets reach into the tens of millions. A $60 starting price tag is sound business, considering the numbers involved.

More than that, however, is the structure of the video game industry as a whole. Whereas the board game industry is usually three-tiered (Manufacturer - distributor - retailer) the video game industry is two-tiered (Manufacturer - retailer). In the video game industry, the retailers and manufacturers collectively function as distributors.

Going even further is the matter of price versus time in the video game industry: It is expected that a video game will drop in price by at least 10% in the first year, regardless of its quality. This isn't a store-by-store pricing change, and fast sellers do not necessarily hold onto their value longer (see Sony's "Greatest Hits" series for examples).

In other words, video games are a very different business from board games, and if you really believe in paying more for a better product, then I hope you paid double or triple for Katamari Damacy.

Thread: Re: Concern about the price

chuckles2000 — 2008-11-01T05:08:48+00:00

brafman wrote:
Fact is, not only do most people in the US think of Hasbro games as what a board game is, but they also think that Toys R Us/Hasbro pricing is what a board game should cost. It was bad enough a few years ago to wrap my head around paying $20-30 from online stores for a boardgame, but between recent significant inflation and then game distributors that forbid discounting, growing the hobby has got to be nearly impossible. What percentage of people in the US would ever consider paying $60 for a boardgame? The answer has got to be a very small population.

But see, that's the problem. The discounters have created a perception that the "worth/value" of a designer boardgame is less than what a healthy market (B&M retailer) needs to charge to remain viable. Fred and Mayfair are simply trying to "recalibrate" the public's perception. A teir one video game costs around $60. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect to pay about the same for a well-produced, and well-designed boardgame. It's actually a fairly gutsy play on their part (I'm unsure if I agree with it, but it does take balls, IMO).

Oh, and to keep this on-topic, if RTtA has quality components and gets good reviews then I'll buy it. 15, 25, 40....it really doesn't make a huge difference. Basically my perception of value for games is I'm willing to pay more for longer/more complex/better games. Fillers should be cheaper, IMO. I expect quality components in all my games.

Thread: Re: Concern about the price

Gamer_Dog — 2008-11-01T03:38:43+00:00

adreeve wrote:
You also ignore the fact that their policy doesn't increase their revenue by a penny unless MORE compies of the game sell because of it.

The method of distribution makes a significant difference in revenue. As I don't personally buy from FRED for retail sale, I will only comment on how such pricing generally works. Think of it this way, by giving price protection, we essentially have made a deal --I'll eliminate some of your low-price competition, and in return, you'll give me a higher margin when buying my product. That's how such policies work.

Thread: Re: First look at Roll Through the Ages

Numskull — 2008-10-31T03:45:20+00:00

After the success of Through the Ages it is inevitable that the license would expand. Being a big fan of TTA I was hoping for an Age IV card expansion or something similar to draw the game out a bit. No such luck.

Roll through the Ages (RTA) is a game supposedly predating TTA by letting the player build through the bronze age. At least that's the official line, the game doesn't support that as you can both build the obelisk wonder and the great wall wonder.

I think you're attaching too much significance to this game's title. The general consensus is that Matt Leacock probably showed the game to FRED with a different title (or no title at all), and FRED came up with "Roll Through the Ages" to create an artificial and ultimately meaningless link to TTA.

I'm glad you posted this, though. I've been very eager for more details on this game; it looks like a great (if expensive) filler.

Thread: Re: Concern about the price

brafman — 2008-10-29T05:02:32+00:00

Fact is, not only do most people in the US think of Hasbro games as what a board game is, but they also think that Toys R Us/Hasbro pricing is what a board game should cost. It was bad enough a few years ago to wrap my head around paying $20-30 from online stores for a boardgame, but between recent significant inflation and then game distributors that forbid discounting, growing the hobby has got to be nearly impossible. What percentage of people in the US would ever consider paying $60 for a boardgame? The answer has got to be a very small population.

Thread: Re: Concern about the price

adreeve — 2008-10-29T04:14:23+00:00

Gamer_Dog wrote:
adreeve wrote:

I'd be curious as to how it's been concluded that 'most' people don't like FRED's business model.....FRED is ensuring that retailers get a full 50% markup on games

I believe you answered your own question. Who wants to see higher prices locked in by the publisher? There have been MANY threads on this subject, all very negative.

Yes, on here where you've got a bunch of people all trying to save a few bucks on a game, but in the grand scheme of things most people don't care. If they like the product and think it's worth it then they'll pay the price.

Gamer_Dog wrote:
adreeve wrote:

I genuinely believe that FRED, Mayfair, ...etc are trying to revive the FLGS as a viable business with their 'evil' price fixing.

I think you're incorrect. These are businesses that are making decisions on how to best distribute, and more importantly, maximize revenue. It's no different a decision than all sorts of other companies that are dealing with retail brick & mortar vs discounter vs internet distribution. I can tell you from experience that while the vast majority of people in the designer game market are passionate hobbyists, the ones putting their money into it for the long haul also want to survive and profit.

I actually think FRED's model is bad for the hobby in some sense, in that a premium pricing model makes games less accessible. We can agree to disagree though, and I don't begrudge anyone in the hobby trying to make a decent living, or even a lavish one for that matter.

You've taken one sentence of mine out of context. I started by saying that and then my last sentence said that their goal was to increase sales which isn't going to happen unless there are more people (aka FLGS) selling their products. You also ignore the fact that their policy doesn't increase their revenue by a penny unless MORE compies of the game sell because of it. Another online etailer selling stuff at 40% off isn't going to grow their business so what is? Someone here introducing a game to a neighbor? Maybe. Or a new local game store? I tend to think the latter is more important.

In any event, time will tell what works and what doesn't.

Thread: Re: Concern about the price

Gamer_Dog — 2008-10-29T03:01:35+00:00

adreeve wrote:

I'd be curious as to how it's been concluded that 'most' people don't like FRED's business model.....FRED is ensuring that retailers get a full 50% markup on games

I believe you answered your own question. Who wants to see higher prices locked in by the publisher? There have been MANY threads on this subject, all very negative.

adreeve wrote:

I genuinely believe that FRED, Mayfair, ...etc are trying to revive the FLGS as a viable business with their 'evil' price fixing.

I think you're incorrect. These are businesses that are making decisions on how to best distribute, and more importantly, maximize revenue. It's no different a decision than all sorts of other companies that are dealing with retail brick & mortar vs discounter vs internet distribution. I can tell you from experience that while the vast majority of people in the designer game market are passionate hobbyists, the ones putting their money into it for the long haul also want to survive and profit.

I actually think FRED's model is bad for the hobby in some sense, in that a premium pricing model makes games less accessible. We can agree to disagree though, and I don't begrudge anyone in the hobby trying to make a decent living, or even a lavish one for that matter.

Image

filwi — 2008-10-28T19:16:26+00:00

My only image of the player pad, production prototype Essen 08

Image

filwi — 2008-10-28T19:15:35+00:00

Full compliment of die sices, production prototype at Essen 08

Thread: Re: First look at Roll Through the Ages

r3gamer — 2008-10-26T17:01:31+00:00

Thread: Re: First look at Roll Through the Ages

filwi — 2008-10-26T16:41:10+00:00

RaDiKal wrote:
The game adds more interaction when you have more players. Barter of excess goods between players and the implication of how badly you need something and what the other player will do with what you offer adds an additional level of interest that playing with just two players doesn't provide.
That would probably make it better. With two players it was just a matter of rolling better than your opponent. We didn't even get to use the improvements that much. Perhaps the game would be better labeled as a 3-5?

Thread: Re: First look at Roll Through the Ages

RaDiKal — 2008-10-26T15:44:18+00:00

The game adds more interaction when you have more players. Barter of excess goods between players and the implication of how badly you need something and what the other player will do with what you offer adds an additional level of interest that playing with just two players doesn't provide.

Thread: Re: The Bronze Age?

RaDiKal — 2008-10-26T15:40:51+00:00

Having played the prototype a number of times last April, I think it fits the right niche it was aimed at. The game is light with a push your luck aspect as well as encouraging barter among players. I definately had a sense of Civ-lite (perhaps Civ-very-lite). For this reason, I expect people will play it multiple times in one sitting rather than seek out a longer, more complex, game.

Thread: First look at Roll Through the Ages

filwi — 2008-10-26T13:14:19+00:00

]]>
Disclaimer: This is a first look based on one play of the final production prototype at Essen 08.

After the success of Through the Ages it is inevitable that the license would expand. Being a big fan of TTA I was hoping for an Age IV card expansion or something similar to draw the game out a bit. No such luck.

Roll through the Ages (RTA) is a game supposedly predating TTA by letting the player build through the bronze age. At least that's the official line, the game doesn't support that as you can both build the obelisk wonder and the great wall wonder.

On the surface RTA is Yatzee with different symbols. Unfortunately that's the feeling I got after the first play through – you re-roll your dice three times, just like in Yatzee.
]]>Dice

You roll as many dice as you've got cities. These can come up with population, which lets you build more cities and wonders, food which lets you feed your cites, coins which lets you buy advancements and goods which lets you save up money for later turns (you can't save coins). There's also a two-goods-and-skull side letting you collect two goods but also incur the possibility of a disaster.

Goods are saved from the bottom of the scoring track up, the higher you go the more each good is worth so you've got an incentive to collect more of them in a single turn. You can also save food from turn to turn and you'll need as much food as you've got cities or you loose one point per unfed city.
]]>Resource board

As each food dice only gives you two food, this means you've got to roll at least half (rounded) of your dice as food. That's where advancements come into play, get agriculture and you get one more food per rolled food result.

You score points for monuments you build (mostly for being the first player to build a certain monument). Building monuments, as building cities, is a matter of rolling enough manpower on your dice and supposedly you've got a contest element here but with two players it pretty much fell through.

That's about it for the game; roll, rinse, repeat. While RTA might make a semi-decent filler for children's families there isn't much for the serious gamer here, nor much similarities with TTA.

On the up side the game has a decent amount of heft; if you like your games solid this is it. It's also short and it's got nice graphics on the box. For me that wasn't enough to make it a buy. Perhaps I played the game wrong or expected too much out of it. Even so I don't think I'll be easy to convince to try it again.

Image

filwi — 2008-10-26T12:23:29+00:00

Dice, alternate view, production prototype at Essen 08

Image

filwi — 2008-10-26T12:22:09+00:00

Resource board, production prototype at Essen 08

Image

filwi — 2008-10-26T12:18:19+00:00

Dice closeup, production prototype at Essen 08

Thread: Re: Concern about the price

adreeve — 2008-10-23T06:54:04+00:00

Gamer_Dog wrote:
I personally share most peoples opinion of his business model, but he's entitled to work the market as he sees fit; and if he succeeds with a type of premium model (pays more to designers, but also retails on the high side), then more power to him.

I'd be curious as to how it's been concluded that 'most' people don't like FRED's business model although I do appreciate the fact that you're not off the deep end and will buy a good game if it's a good game regardless of the publisher. Is that 'most' people... 'most' BGGers based on some survey... ?

Maybe I shouldn't say this, but my understanding is (and treat this as rumor) that RTtA is supposed to have a really nice wood board.

Anyhow, regarding business... let's see... FRED is ensuring that retailers get a full 50% markup on games which at the same time giving larger royalties to designers (I don't know that for a fact... only that it was stated that Keith said that on this forum). Thus I'm failing to see how FRED is greedy when they aren't getting the 'gold'?

I think people here understand that the FLGS is a dieing breed. What I don't think people understand is that that REALLY hurts game sales. I've stated this elsewhere, but I'd bet Mayfair's sales are really, really down because people aren't being introduced to Catan in an FLGS environment as they used to be. I know I got into this hobby because of seeing games like Puerto Rico in WotC's own Game Keeper stores before they went under. And quite frankly if it wasn't for the FLGS I don't think I'd be a part of this hobby... in other words, I don't think I would have "stumbled across" Puerto Rico on the Internet and I'd probably be in the crowd that wonders where some of these goofy games like Catan on XBox Live Arcade come from.

I genuinely believe that FRED, Mayfair, ...etc are trying to revive the FLGS as a viable business with their 'evil' price fixing. The fact is that short term they get no benefit out of it (and perhaps even lose out as Internet customers get upset), but they're hoping to help out the hobby over the long term which is where they'll see their increased profits.

I'm really tired of seeing these companies demonized (and Gamer_Dog, I fully realize you DID NOT demonize them as others have) when I think their sincere goal is to grow the hobby I love with their policies. (And yes, that sincere goal of growing the hobby comes from wanting to grow their sales)

Thread: Re: Concern about the price

Gamer_Dog — 2008-10-20T03:44:28+00:00

Unfortunately, I was a buyer of the infamous "Curling Cards" Through the Ages. Because of that, I will wait to see who produces it. If FRED did the production, I'll hold off a bit to hear about the quality. Also, if it's a borderline purchase I will probably pass.

However, despite my caution, I'm a game whore, and will buy it if it's a game I really like. I personally share most peoples opinion of his business model, but he's entitled to work the market as he sees fit; and if he succeeds with a type of premium model (pays more to designers, but also retails on the high side), then more power to him.

What I was so disappointed with was how customers (myself included) were treated after the many problems were discovered with TtA. On the plus side, it made me more appreciative of the many other companies which will go out of their way to follow-up and make things right. Just one more reason to support the people you appreciate.

Thread: Re: Who will demo this on Spiel in Essen?

Great Dane — 2008-10-16T09:37:14+00:00

I assume the game will be available on stand 9-112, which is FRED Distribution, Inc.
- as they are ones who published Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization.

Thread: Who will demo this on Spiel in Essen?

henk.rolleman — 2008-10-15T15:28:54+00:00

Who will demo this on Spiel in Essen?
What will be the standnumber in Essen?

Thread: Re: Concern about the price

Numskull — 2008-09-24T20:24:59+00:00

I'm sure word will start to leak out about this soon enough.

Sorry, Larry, but it looks like you were wrong about this. The month in which this game is supposed to come out begins in just a few days, yet we still have almost no information about the game.

Yes, the price is a concern, but I find FRED's ultra-tight lips even more annoying. (I'm going on the assumption that Matt Leacock would be happy to provide us with more details about the gameplay, but the publisher doesn't want him to.)

Thread: Re: Concern about the price

fnord23 — 2008-09-24T08:30:30+00:00

Jonathan Degann wrote:

Matt, I've got a couple of questions for you regarding this - which obviously, you're free to not answer.

1) Do you believe that this pricing policy will cost you a meaningful volume of sales?

2) Did FRED offer you a greater royalty to compensate for the lost sales?

3) If the answer to #1 is "yes" and the answer to #2 is "no", why did you go with FRED?

*crickets*

I'm sure we're all surprised you didn't get an answer.

Keith Blume has said elsewhere that FRED does pay higher royalties than is typical.

Is it enough to offset the lower sales that FRED titles (for a number of reasons) probably experience? Maybe, considered on a strict dollar basis.

Is it enough to offset the lower penetration and interest FRED games are likely to be getting in general? Maybe, but less likely.

Given that no one involved is getting rich (even with a higher royalty), and given the customer service, quality, and market-related issues FRED has faced and faces, I'd think they would be a publisher of last resort for anyone who actually wants to get their game (and name) out there.

Why link your name and game to a company with a record like FRED's when you don't have to?

Unless they are paying a significant advance, it would seem to be short-sighted. Even with a "significant" advance (which is likely to still be pretty small), it may well be penny wise and pound foolish.

FWIW, I *was* fairly interested in this game. Until I found out FRED was producing it. Given that FRED *still* hasn't made the TtA debacle right, their price-fixing policy, their dodging of the ownership question, and a few other issues, I'm pretty much done with them.

Now, rather than auto-buy, it's try first, and *if* I really like it, I'd likely be picking up a used copy. Or some other gray-marketish solution...

Thread: Re: What is the relation to "Through the Ages"?

DaviddesJ — 2008-09-16T10:48:43+00:00

Great Dane wrote:
You mean like Kanaloa and Kanaloa?
Go Fish! and Go Fish?
Shark and Shark?

Yes, that's just what I meant. ("Descriptive" probably wasn't the best word for it.) If you use a name that already exists, rather than inventing a new name, then, obviously, it's hard to gain significant protection for your trademark.

"Kanaloa" and "Shark" are names of actual things that existed long before any of these games. And "Go Fish" named a game already in the public domain, to which no one has any rights. So, someone choosing one of these names for their game would be in a much weaker position if they wanted to keep someone else from using the same name, than someone who adopted a phrase like "Through the Ages".

It's all moot, if the designer actually is happy with the adaptation of the name, as you assert.

Thread: Re: What is the relation to "Through the Ages"?

Great Dane — 2008-09-16T10:22:36+00:00

DaviddesJ wrote:
BGG is full of different games bearing identical titles.
This is true, but they tend to be highly descriptive.

You mean like Kanaloa and Kanaloa?
Go Fish! and Go Fish?
Shark and Shark?

to name but a few

Thread: Re: What is the relation to "Through the Ages"?

DaviddesJ — 2008-09-16T10:04:42+00:00

Great Dane wrote:
Unless the title is trademaked, it can be used by anyone.

The name of a game is a trademark. In the US, you don't have to register your trademark to have rights in it.

BGG is full of different games bearing identical titles.

This is true, but they tend to be highly descriptive. Good luck restricting other people from using "Battle of the Bulge". This name is pretty different.

And in this case does the reuse of the title make sense, both for the publisher and the two designers

I guess the question to me would be whether those parties agree with you. If they do, then obviously there is no issue.

Thread: Re: What is the relation to "Through the Ages"?

Great Dane — 2008-09-16T09:48:43+00:00

GamesOnTheBrain wrote:
I guess that makes things a whole lot more interesting.

Not really. Unless the title is trademaked, it can be used by anyone. BGG is full of different games bearing identical titles.

And in this case does the reuse of the title make sense, both for the publisher and the two designers: the two games share a similar theme, but are very different. By re-using the name is the chance of potential additional sales increase, spored by an original interest in one of the games, greater.

The two games complements each other very well.

Thread: Re: What is the relation to "Through the Ages"?

GamesOnTheBrain — 2008-09-15T23:17:36+00:00

DaviddesJ wrote:
GamesOnTheBrain wrote:
Publishers come up with titles all the time. Note, I'm not saying the designer didn't. I'm simply saying there's a reasonable chance he didn't.

In this case, the publisher (Czech Board Games) is/was an association of several people including the designer (Vlaada Chvátil).

My bad. You're right. I forgot about that. I was thinking only of the US edition published by FRED.

I guess that makes things a whole lot more interesting.

Thread: Re: What is the relation to "Through the Ages"?

DaviddesJ — 2008-09-15T20:48:10+00:00

GamesOnTheBrain wrote:
Publishers come up with titles all the time. Note, I'm not saying the designer didn't. I'm simply saying there's a reasonable chance he didn't.

In this case, the publisher (Czech Board Games) is/was an association of several people including the designer (Vlaada Chvátil).

Thread: Re: What is the relation to "Through the Ages"?

GamesOnTheBrain — 2008-09-15T19:58:17+00:00

DaviddesJ wrote:
GamesOnTheBrain wrote:
It's highly unlikely that the designer owns the title. In fact, it's fairly unlikely that the designer even came up with the title.

Huh? Are we talking about the same thing? You don't think the name "Through the Ages" was chosen by the designer? Who else, then?

Publishers come up with titles all the time. Note, I'm not saying the designer didn't. I'm simply saying there's a reasonable chance he didn't.

Thread: Re: What is the relation to "Through the Ages"?

DaviddesJ — 2008-09-15T18:06:13+00:00

GamesOnTheBrain wrote:
It's highly unlikely that the designer owns the title. In fact, it's fairly unlikely that the designer even came up with the title.

Huh? Are we talking about the same thing? You don't think the name "Through the Ages" was chosen by the designer? Who else, then?

Thread: Re: What is the relation to "Through the Ages"?

RDewsbery — 2008-09-15T14:58:33+00:00

Great Dane wrote:
DaviddesJ wrote:
But does FRED own the original title, or does the designer own the title? I would think the latter, which means that FRED would have to license it just like anyone else.
I am convinced that the publisher has cleared it with the owner wheoever it may be

It wouldn't be the first time in living memory that this isn't remotely the case. Some publishers are getting remarkably lax with who owns what, and just look at the $$$ signs.

Thread: Re: What is the relation to "Through the Ages"?

GamesOnTheBrain — 2008-09-15T14:39:56+00:00

lukassimicek wrote:
Vlada Chvatil, who designed TtA, claims there is actually NO RELATION and NO CONTACT between him and the other guy/company. He didn't know about its existence until recently. This could be interesting.
I highly doubt it. What would happen? Would FRED sue FRED?

This is nothing like the Bohrer/Wallace controversy, where two competing companies had two, virtually identical products, planned for release at about the same time, with the exact same name.

Move along... nothing to see here.

Thread: Re: What is the relation to "Through the Ages"?

GamesOnTheBrain — 2008-09-15T14:36:28+00:00

DaviddesJ wrote:
Great Dane wrote:
So even though the two have nothing but the theme in common is it a very clever name, which only is possible because of the ownership of the original title.

But does FRED own the original title, or does the designer own the title? I would think the latter, which means that FRED would have to license it just like anyone else.

It's highly unlikely that the designer owns the title. In fact, it's fairly unlikely that the designer even came up with the title.

Thread: Re: What is the relation to "Through the Ages"?

lukassimicek — 2008-09-15T13:13:56+00:00

Vlada Chvatil, who designed TtA, claims there is actually NO RELATION and NO CONTACT between him and the other guy/company. He didn't know about its existence until recently. This could be interesting.

Thread: Re: What is the relation to "Through the Ages"?

Great Dane — 2008-09-08T10:36:24+00:00

DaviddesJ wrote:
But does FRED own the original title, or does the designer own the title? I would think the latter, which means that FRED would have to license it just like anyone else.
I am convinced that the publisher has cleared it with the owner wheoever it may be

Thread: Re: What is the relation to "Through the Ages"?

DaviddesJ — 2008-09-08T03:11:42+00:00

Great Dane wrote:
So even though the two have nothing but the theme in common is it a very clever name, which only is possible because of the ownership of the original title.

But does FRED own the original title, or does the designer own the title? I would think the latter, which means that FRED would have to license it just like anyone else.

Thread: Re: What is the relation to "Through the Ages"?

Great Dane — 2008-09-07T07:53:37+00:00

The game is a very clever dice game that actually manage to carry the Civilization theme very well. No matter what the title was going to be would it almost invariably lean towards existing titles. So even though the two have nothing but the theme in common is it a very clever name, which only is possible because of the ownership of the original title.

Thread: Re: What is the relation to "Through the Ages"?

Numskull — 2008-09-03T05:48:28+00:00

But once FRED became the publisher, giving it that title and box art must have been in an effort to increase potential sales by associating it with that highly rated game.

My thoughts exactly. I'd put money on this.

Thread: Re: What is the relation to "Through the Ages"?

Trump — 2008-09-03T01:50:33+00:00

I'll be watching the game's progress with interest. It seems to be in vogue to create dice games branded to existing boardgames. And all of these games have been bad. Let's hope this one fares a bit better...

Thread: Re: Concern about the price

habermanm — 2008-09-03T00:41:55+00:00

Bankler wrote:

3) FRED is trying to support FLGS against the internet discounters. In the long term, they believe that game stores are good for them and discounters are bad. (I haven't seen anyone at FRED espouse that position, but I've seen credible people say it).

Or maybe some reasons I missed.

My FLGS actually said they won't carry FRED games because of the connection to Funagain. It seems to me that the price fixing benefits Funagain more than any FLGS.

Now, Mayfair may have a legitimate argument of supporting FLGS, but it seems to me like FRED is more concerned with profit for themselves than anything. (not that there is anything wrong with that, but I won't buy from them because of it. Not so much the price, which I wouldn't mind if they did a good job with the components, but the value they offer)

Thread: Re: Concern about the price

le_el — 2008-09-02T22:31:46+00:00

Bankler wrote:

1) FRED has the right to sign enforceable contracts and FRED can basically say "If you want to resell, this is the price you resell at." (Normally these contracts have a clause that you can drop the price after X amount of time, but I don't know if FRED has that right).

I personally think that the right to enter into contracts is one of the fundamental rights (as an extension of freedom of assembly and property rights), which is why I mention it.
There is an article from The Wall Street Journal in Mindfully.org (from Boardgamenews)
about price-fixing (and very clearly against it) stating that the legal ruling is all but definitive. Quoting: "For the better part of a century, punishing retailers for selling at cut-rate prices was an automatic violation of antitrust law" but since last year "individual price-setting agreements should be examined on a case-by-case basis [...] to be sure they're not anticompetitive".

I believe it's not about the right to sign contracts in general, but about preventing abuses.

Bankler wrote:

3) FRED is trying to support FLGS against the internet discounters. In the long term, they believe that game stores are good for them and discounters are bad. (I haven't seen anyone at FRED espouse that position, but I've seen credible people say it).
I've heard around here in BGG is that the price-fixing policy could be in Funagain's interest, to ensure that competitor's prices can't be lower than theirs...

Thread: Re: Concern about the price

Bankler — 2008-09-02T21:07:50+00:00

Micquebec wrote:

What I don't get in this is why oh why can't a store sell for less if they want to cut on the margin a bit or if it so happened that the game is crap and stay on the shelves?

There are two easy answers to this.

1) FRED has the right to sign enforceable contracts and FRED can basically say "If you want to resell, this is the price you resell at." (Normally these contracts have a clause that you can drop the price after X amount of time, but I don't know if FRED has that right).

I personally think that the right to enter into contracts is one of the fundamental rights (as an extension of freedom of assembly and property rights), which is why I mention it.

I suspect Micquebec didn't mean "Why can they do this?" but "Why do they do this?" but I just wanted to point that out.

The next few items are supposition, but seem reasonable:

2) FRED is trying to promote itself as an upscale brand. There has been real research (see Cialdini's "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion") that people sometimes use price to gage value, instead of judging value and then looking at the price. [By reading this, you are in the minority, but you probably do it on non-game items]. If RTTA cost $10, it would be stocked at the cash register next to such great games as "Cheater." Similarly, I don't think BMW allows anyone to discount their cars, etc etc.

3) FRED is trying to support FLGS against the internet discounters. In the long term, they believe that game stores are good for them and discounters are bad. (I haven't seen anyone at FRED espouse that position, but I've seen credible people say it).

Or maybe some reasons I missed.

Thread: Re: Concern about the price

habermanm — 2008-09-02T20:39:45+00:00

I agree with everything Larry says, and say that I've had exactly the same questions, which I would love to see answered.

I'll just add, that you pay a premium for what has historically been poorer components and shoddy development. I would hope that they are paying a much higher royalty to the designers.

Thread: Re: What is the relation to "Through the Ages"?

sos1 — 2008-09-02T19:59:50+00:00

I've played the prototype and there is no game mechanic relationship at all with TTA. I suspect that David has hit it on the head: the relationship is totally in the fact that FRED distributes both games. Sort of like the relationship between Titan and Titan: The Arena.

Thread: Re: What is the relation to "Through the Ages"?

sefton — 2008-09-02T19:52:20+00:00

I'm guessing there was originally no relation to Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization other than theme. But once FRED became the publisher, giving it that title and box art must have been in an effort to increase potential sales by associating it with that highly rated game. Or maybe that was part of the plan when the designer decided to go with FRED. I'm guessing he had options after the success of Pandemic.

I don't mean that as a criticism, per se, because I am certainly looking forward to this game. But it doesn't seem to be much more than a marketing tactic.

Bear in mind, I don't really know what I am talking about, so I could be way off. I never played the prototype, I never met the designer, and I have no idea what type of development happened to the game after FRED picked it up. So maybe it has more to do with Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization now than it might have at one point. But when I first heard about it, the game didn't have a publisher. It was a quick civilization game played with dice.

Sounds good to me and it is high on my wishlist.

Thread: What is the relation to "Through the Ages"?

marqzen — 2008-09-02T17:24:15+00:00

I see it's another designer, but it's Gryphon Games (a line from Eagle Games/FRED who also distribute "Through the Ages").

Does anyone know how the puzzle fits together?

Image

adreeve — 2008-07-22T23:16:56+00:00

Box Art (from FRED web site)