Until now, I have been able to stop myself from buying games I wasn’t sure about. I always look for information about every game I buy, before I do so, and make sure both me and my girlfriend will enjoy the game. And I don’t care about paying full MSRP, as long as the game is good.

I now have about 200 games, with about 20 unplayed (yes, Essen does that to you, I had 0 unplayed before last Essen) and of all those I have bought the last year, I don’t regret any of them.

Hello, my name is Kevin, and I’m a thrift-store-a-holic.

Hi, Kevin!. 

It’s been two months since I bought a mediocre or duplicate game at a thrift store just to buy it. 

Applause. 

Kidding aside, I’ve really upped the standards for buying games, especially thrift finds.  I just don’t have the space and selling/trading these games usually isn’t worth the effort. 

The biggest obstacle I’ve overcome is the “free shipping” trap.  I no longer use that as an excuse to pile game after game into my shopping cart.  It only becomes a factor if my order is already large enough with games that I really want.  Ironically enough, I save a lot more money by being more discriminating.

I also try to avoid anything on Tanga.  I honestly think that Tanga is a serious problem because it devalues games so much.  Uberplay’s legacy is nothing more than picked-clean skeleton at this point.

Still it’s hard to pass up a great offer.

So did you like Starcraft and how many times have you played it?

Pretty snazzy to hear/read mention of my Cabin Fever math trade on Boardgame News!

I understand a lot of what you’re saying.  Although I own more than 150 games and expansions, I’m not sure my collection will ever be “complete.” I tend to be the guy in my group who gets all the new games, either through trades or thrifts or, less commonly, outright buying.  In fact, more than 50% of my collection (roughly 90 items) were acquired either via trade or thrift.

(In some cases, I’ve traded up, or at least sideways, several times: Diplomacy for $7 at Bookman’s, traded for Warrior Knights, itself traded as part of a package for PitchCar and Diamant.)

Beyond that, I have only ever bought two games online: Shogun and Zooloretto (and then only because I had a ThoughHammer coupon for the former).  I patronize my FLGS (Game Depot) as often as I can.  But before I do much of any buying, you can bet I’ve done a lot of research on the game, or at least know its relative value (in the case of thrifting).

For me, it’s not a question of buying something just because it’s cheap; I’ve passed up quite a few decent games on the Bookman’s shelves simply because I didn’t want them or I knew they wouldn’t trade.  I don’t buy games at Game Depot or Tanga or wherever else either simply because they might be a good deal.

But I sure do acquire a lot of games nonetheless, primarily because I’m such an addict when it comes to getting new stuff.  I suspect it’s some sort of compulsion, but at least it makes my friends happy!

Excellent thoughts, unfortunately I find myself enjoying my exploration of new rules sets, etc… So I tend to accumulate new games and enjoy playing them (at least for awhile).

The costs of shipping on trades is always an issue… even the more expensive games are often barely worth trading since they usually have high shipping costs.

Lee,

I’ve played Starcraft 6 times, and I rate it a 7 (which is a little below average for me).  Given the length of the game, a below average game will not get much table time for me.

Eric,

This is fine for you and how you value your games. However your viewpoint is not universal. Some people actually do play all of those games they got in their $125 order. Some enjoy what is being part of the “cult of the new” and often have a “one and done” relationship with games. They tend to view games as a disposable entertainment, much like going out to dinner. The difference is that once you are finished with a game play the residue is far more attractive than that of a used dinner. It is also more durable.

Neither that approach nor yours are objectively right or wrong. They are just a matter of taste. If you don’t want to accumulate a lot of games because you don’t play them all, that’s fine. To say that others also shouldn’t buy a lot of games because you don’t play all the ones you buy is a little presumptuous.

Personally, I am transitioning from a CotN viewpoint to wanting to play what I have more often. I got tired of playing some decent games once and then putting them on the shelf, not to be touched again. Also, I ran out of storage space. So now I make my buying choices much more carefully and intentionally get games to the table multiple times in a relatively short period of time. I am enjoying exploring games more in depth instead of getting the rush of newness.

Paul,

You might have missed part of the point.  It wasn’t simply that you’ll NEVER play these games, but that buying and buying and buying new games just because they’re cheap is also wasteful, and contributes to a cheap-cheap-cheap mentality where those who try to make quality products which cost a bit more typically lose out.

Consider how much effort goes into a single game - from concept, design, playtesting, materials, shipping - you’re paying for all of that with your purchase.  If your expectation purchasing value of a game is $15, how can you justify that $15 paying for all of these processes?  But by buying these cheap games in bulk, you’re giving the same amount of profit to the publishers of the game who have used ever-cheaper methods to produce the game to bring the price down to the level “expected.” If they sell more copies with this, and the publisher who used quality methods of production but had a higher price-point sells less, the former company grows while the other does not.  Eventually, the company using the cheaper method will be bigger than the company using quality, and it will contribute to the idea of the further lowering of the “expected” price of a game, which is a downward cycle which can end in nothing good.

By breaking out of this cycle, we can possibly restore quality components and methods instead of making more great games that are poorly produced (in the midst of thousands of mediocre games that have been poorly produced).  If we simply continue buying whatever crap we happen to be viewing at a given time (and studies DO show that people are more likely to buy something they see in front of them, even if they would otherwise have no desire for such a thing - and especially if they believe they are missing out on a good deal otherwise), the results described above will be the result.

Eric,

I think that your wories are misplaced. There will always be closeouts and remaindered games. Their existence doesn’t “lower the value” of other games any more than the Bargain Books shelves lower the value of hardcover books (or even softcovers- I just saw the new copy of Pillars of the Earth that had a $24.95 MSRP- that’s the paperback book, not the game.)

As to discounting in general, the publisher makes just as much from a copy sold at a discounter as it does one sold for full MSRP at a B&M store. Making the end customer pay more does not put more money in the publishers’ hands, and in fact could put less if the customer buys fewer games. Giving mroe money to retailers does not give the publisher more to invest in higher quality components.

In the end the discounters’ market and that of the B&M stores are different. This seems to be missed by some B&M retailers who seem to think they have a right to the purchases made from online discounters.

The market will have the final say. Ending discounting will not necessarily result in more expensive components if the market will not bear the additional costs. If there is a demand for games in the $35 range then the market will supply them.

Some people like cycling through a lot of games and are satisfied with the level of quality they are getting. Just because you would like to pay more for fewer games with fancier bits doesn’t mean that these others will be as happy if you get your way. Your preference is not the objectively “right way” things should be.

I think you should reconsider how you values games for a trade.  If it is an unwanted game, then it’s value is essentially zero to you and the money you spent is wasted at this time. 

If later, you are able to trade that game + $10 for shipping to get a game that you so want, then consider it paying $10 to get a new game.  Of course, this argument breaks down if you buy the games as “trade fodder”.

Personally, I think a lot of the problem is with targeting. From most publisher’s copy text, it’s really hard to figure out whether I’m going to like a game or not. Smaller publishers, like GMT or Z-Man, are particular offenders here. I used to pick something up if I thought I would like it; now I have to be reasonably convinced. But I find, with some frustration, that I frequently just can’t find the information. Copy text is uninformative, information on BGG is hard to distill, good reviews are hard to find, and so on, so it’s hard to make an informed judgement. Game publishers could help a lot by trying to give us more of a sense of the game itself rather than its subject matter or category.

Also, I think it’s important to remember that a few duds are the cost of doing business. To find the gems you need to play some lousy games. So before saying the $35-$50 spent on a game you found to be lousy was wasted, I like to try to think of it as $35-$50 spent on the road to finding that Modern Art, Lord of the Rings, Beowulf, Race for the Galaxy, or whatever works for you. It’s the way of all creative things. We sample music, books, and movies that we end up disliking or feeling like we wasted our time and money on in the quest to eventually find something we really like, and in the context of the larger goal it works out OK. And we just like trying new stuff. Games are no different. And just like music and movies, you don’t have to play things endlessly for it to have been worth giving it a try.

Now, I’ll agree with you that people who buy lots of games and never play them are not doing themselves (or us!) any favors. I kick myself when I buy stuff I never end up playing; games are, after all, meant to be played, even lousy ones. Also, it seems to be getting harder to liquidate unwanted games in my collection, which doesn’t help. But I don’t know how big a problem this is in general.