The real problem with this comparison is that the so-called ‘Power Nine’ have a substantial negative impact on the play of the game, while reprints of old classic boardgames has no effect on the play of other games.  Wizards could probably make a good bit of money doing a limited reprint of the Power Nine cards and selling each one for a high price...$25, $50 or more.

Wow, I’d have to totally disagree here.  Reprinting does far more good than harm.  If, as I tend to believe (with no statistics to back it up) our hobby is growing, then there is an increasing number of folks who don’t own or even have access to some of the historically great boardgames.  You’re going to deny them the chance to play Die Macher, Royal Turf or Conquest of the Empire?

Sure there is a time/effort committment to reproducing these games, but that is often on the production side and doesn’t subtract much effort or time from the game designer’s side of things. 

These companies are just filling a demand for product.  It is only a small step removed from reprinting a sold-out run… Should RGG not reprint Caylus?  Should Richard Breese’s titles not be picked up by someone and reprinted in larger production runs?  The demand is there, I say fill it.

In many ways, it is a signal that the hobby is healthy and growing as more people get into it and seek out the “classics” they hear about online.  Of course, a smart company needs to be careful and not reprint more than the demand… just because a couple were sold on Ebay for 100s of dollars doesn’t mean there’s a demand for another several 1,000 copies on the market.  Companies that specialize in reprints will never be as big as ones that create new games, but look at the book industry… there is plenty of room for niche reprinting and it fills a need.

It’s the new _players_ that make or break the industry, not the new games… :) And if new players have access to the better classics, that is a good thing.

<re: Josh>

Another comparison with the power nine would be having four people sit down to play Cosmic Encounter, and only one person would get to play with all the expansions… (Not the best example as CE is pretty darn chaoitc anyway...) Maybe a 3 person game of Carcassonne where one player doesn’t get to use the expansion tiles…

Patrick, I’d be more inclined to agree with you were it not for the enormous number of publishers on the scene right now.  There certainly doesn’t seem to be any shortage of new games being released.  I hear there’s a homeless guy who camps out near the Golden Gate Bridge who’s getting one of his games published.  It’s either about pirates or Sudoku.

The point is, there seems to be many outlets for new games and new talent.  The scenario you paint is a plausible one, but right now, it doesn’t seem to be having any negative effects.  And in the meantime, we get to have cheaper and more readily available versions of some great games.

There may be a few newbie publishers who only do reprints, but most of the companies who’ve been releasing older titles have mixed them in with new ones.  You’ve already mentioned FFG.  Face2Face is another one that features a lot of reprints, but also has published new games like Boomtown and Warriors.  I really can’t think of a company that only does reprints that has released more than one or two of them.  Maybe I’m missing something obvious.

The underlying assumption in this argument is that “reprint” publishers would devote resources to developing new games.  I’m not certain this is a valid assumption.  “Reprint” publishers may simply be looking for easy projects and if there is nothing worth reprinting will move on to something else (co-productions perhaps).

Methinks Patrick is just sorry to see the eBay value of his original copies losing value! :)

We could consider banning classical music because reprints might keep new music out, or banning old backlists of current authors because reprints might keep new books out---but those are pretty extreme fears, though I am quite sure there are people who have them.

For this reason I disagree with Larry in only one thing---the scenario is possible, but not plausible.

Patrick,

I also have to seriously disagree with you.  I am of the view that too many mediocre games are being released.  If I had to choose between 25 mediocre new games coming into the market, or one golden oldie being reprinted, I’d definitely choose the golden oldie.

It does seem as though we are in the midst of a Golden Era of Boardgames and when it’s over, it’ll be the the classics that sustain the hobby until the next one.  Just imagine if Acquire, Risk, or some of the other staples of our hobby were never reprinted and allowed to become quaint footnotes in gaming history.

New games *are* important, I will admit that.  One only has to look no farther than Settlers of Catan to see that.  Look a bit farther into Mayfair’s history, though, and you’ll see that their successful reprint of Cosmic Encounter probably helped pave the way for them to carry Settler’s of Catan.*

I understand that your concern is mostly with the marketing strategy of keeping a reprint-only catalog, but as Larry pointed out, it’s really difficult to come up with too many instances of companies actually doing this.  I just don’t see reprinting as a threat to anything except Ebay value of the original versions of the games being reprinted.

*this is speculation only and should be treated as such!

Reprints are a great thing.  I don’t think they detract from new games being published.  There are plenty of those.
I love that I am able to get many out of print games at reasonable prices due to reprints.  It is great to have access to these games perpetually.  Not too many of these games stay in print for a long time.  That is the problem.

Your magic analogy is way off the mark.

Now use your powers to get Medina reprinted and I’ll be a happy guy.

Well, lots of good points here - which was the intent of this article in the first place.  I’ve seen the ‘hooray for reprints’ mantra repeated time after time and thought it might be interesting to examine the flipside.  A few specific things worth commenting on:

Josh, if you think of gaming as a metagame, then the P9 analogy is more apt than you make it out to be.  But you’re right, it’s a stretch.  Hey, the lengths I’ll go to find a hook for my columm!

Matt, I’m no ogre.  I never said people shouldn’t get to play older classic games just because they have the misfortune to have arrived on the hobby scene of late.  Keep in mind, my argument is based on the fundamental assumption that the current state of the hobby cannot last.  Nothing expands forever (well, except government debt), which means that it’s logical to assume that one day, someday, the industry will lose steam and contract.  Hey, it happened to the wargamers already, right?  So, sure, reprint away and cater to the masses of folks discovering how fun it can be to game in the analog medium - just be aware that it can’t last forever.  It’s a fact of life that the well’s gotta run dry sometime.

Larry, as you say the industry is vibrant right now.  As mentioned above, I’m thinking longer-term, when things start to slow down.
Also, the fact that you can’t think of a reprint company that has done more than one or two games sort of proves my point, no?  It’s not a viable business case to do only reprints - the demand just isn’t as high as eBay might make it seem.

Ava, your point is debatable because the scales are different.  There is a near-endless supply of ‘new blood’ getting into music and books, but a much more limited supply of ‘new gamers’.  So while it’s silly to imagine everyone in the world who wants it having a copy of Handel’s Water Music, I could easily see a time where 95% of gamers who want a copy of Roads & Boats have it.  Would there be much value in reprinting it again at that point?  I doubt it.

Overall, I don’t deny that reprints have their place in the hobby.  I’m just happier when I see a company take a risk on a game like Caylus and end up with a ‘modern classic’ then I am watching someone try to make a fast buck repackaging the old.  They both have merit, but I see the overall interests of the industry better served by the former.

pk

The market could contract tomorrow, that is certainly possible.  It could also grow much larger consistently for many years to come.  I’m not sure which way it will go, but I optomistically expect it will continue to grow for a number of years.  But I believe that without the reprints that will not happen.  Stop the reprints and the market will slow and contract much sooner.

I also think you do a company a disservice when you think they are trying to make a fast buck repackaging the old.  I don’t see that anywhere.  There is still plenty of work that goes into a rerelease, especially when changes are made.

I hope to see many reprints and many new gamers in the hobby.  I also hope there are many new ‘modern classics’.  But if I had to choose between reprints and missing Caylus (although they are not mutually exclusive) I would be okay to never have met the provost if I get a chance at El Grande again or if I can continue to give Cartagena, Bohnanza, and Mamma Mia! as gifts.

Wow, I’d never go that far, Brent.  I don’t suppose anyone thinks this is an either/or thing, but if you told me I’d have to either do with only older games or new ones, I’d go with the new every time.  I continue to enjoy the games I currently have, but it’s the constant influx of new and innovative titles that gives the hobby that special sparkle to me.

Speaking as a relative newbie to the hobby (< 2 years), reprints are just as exciting to me as ‘new’ games. 

I’m The Boss and Winner’s Circle are just as new to me as Cleopatra or Elasund. 

I anticipate Ave Caesar and Tempus equally.

Sometimes, it is all about your perspective.

Just 2 cents from a noob.  Back to lurking now…

Patrick,

Yes, the scales are different, but given the size of the boardgame industry’s output and the number of new games coming out, I’d argue that the ratio is nothing to worry about, even though the general output is much smaller.

Put this way: the ratio of new games to reprints is such that if the industry collapses, it’s certainly not the fault of the reprints crowding out the new games.

I like new games as well, and it’s definitely not either/or with me; however, I remember my time as a new gamer, when there were all these old games around that I’d never gotten to play and, without a good job and a quick eBay trigger finger, never would get to play.

Perhaps it’s the case that those new to the hobby should just get over not having easy access to older games, but I think that’s rather detrimental.  After all, what does get reprinted tends to be better than its older competition, having gone through the thinning process already.

And game history is best experienced, rather than merely read about.

I think you make a good point about the industry possibly losing steam and contracting.  That may happen, and is probably inevitable.  I can only hope the expansion lasts long enough for the contraction to end up in an industry at least as vibrant as our current one.

However, I agree with some of the previous posters, reprints do not seem to be at the heart of any possible backlash.  True, a reprint company is in more danger of “going under” in a market contraction, but I guess I’m figuring that companies will keep that in mind and the better game-producing companies will not overextend themselves with reprints.

Perhaps the danger is that some reprints will no longer be reprinted if the market contracts and those companies go under?