J.T. Kauffman
United States
Columbus
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I recently submitted a number of games that have been announced by the publisher and are not yet in the database, and upon checking my profile today I found that a few have apparently been rejected (was showing 4 pending a few days back, and now just 1 is pending). I'm just curious why games that the publisher has announced/revealed would not be admitted to the database. Some of the games in question are the Doom Expansion, Runebound: Midnight, and Britannia (2005 version), all of which are in the latest Fantasy Flight Games catalog. There has been information that has become available on all of these, so it isn't even that the info is lacking. Heck, I could give product numbers for all of them. I could understand if someone else submitted them and had it approved before me, but none of them are in the current database.

So, I'm just curious as to why some new games are added, and why some new games aren't. Obviously, the first two will definitely be added at a later date (Britannia may simply be too similar to the original, though apparently it's a situation like Arkham Horror where it got quite an update), so is there really any time to know that the time is right to submit? Perhaps after they send out a press release or something? I'd think the catalogue including them would be enough, but apparently not...

Just curious as to the thoughts of the Admins on the subject.

Thanks,
jt.

P.S. All included all relevant info, including a decent amount of info for the game description box. One or two might have been missing player numbers or something such as that, but I've seen plenty of games approved that are missing small bits of info such as that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Blum
United States
Wilmington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
I'm not anxious to approve Fantasy Flight releases until much closer to their prospective release dates, since they have changed plans in the past (e.g., the original Runebound expansion plans), and last time I looked up an expansion on their website the description turned out to be what the designer said MIGHT be in an as-yet-undesigned expansion.

For Britannia there is the additional reason that I have no information yet on how different it is from the original. If the differences are very minor, it will not warrant a separate entry. If they are larger, it will, but there will be plenty of time to add it later. I don't see the urgency here, I'm afraid.

I note in passing that some other people's submissions for forthcoming games have been rejected because they consisted of nothing but text pasted from Gamewire. Rick's writeups of games are available on Gamewire, they don't need to be here as well, and won't be unless he gives permission to copy them here.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.T. Kauffman
United States
Columbus
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Fair enough. I guess for me the fact that they put it in the catalogue was enough, but I just wanted to get a better idea of what to do or not do in the future.

I guess Doom in particular seemed odd, since it isn't that far off and quite a few details have been released by Kevin Wilson, so I just wanted to get a better idea.

Thanks for the reply.

jt.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alan Kaiser
United States
Aurora
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Another point is that info gets submitted to the database and then the game is released and the previously submitted items are incorrect. This happened with Clash for a Continent. A bunch of pictures were posted and then at the last minute the game was changed. So now there are about a half dozen pictures in the database that are incorrect representations of the game.

One of the problems with this issue is consistency. For example, a lot of P500 type games from GMT, Columbia and others get added to the database many many months prior to being published. An extreame example is Winds of Plunder. this game has been in the database more than a year I think and we'll be lucky to see the game by the end of this year. So at what point is a game allowed to enter the database?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ray
United States
Carpentersville
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tool wrote:
For Britannia there is the additional reason that I have no information yet on how different it is from the original. If the differences are very minor, it will not warrant a separate entry. If they are larger, it will, but there will be plenty of time to add it later. I don't see the urgency here, I'm afraid.

I agree about waiting. That said this is what the designer has posted on his website ( http://pulsiphergames.com/projects.htm ) about Britannia:

Quote:
Britannia Second Edition

First, the traditional four-player game has been tweaked to consolidate the various versions of the rules, and to improve play balance. The artificial difference between raiders and settlers (not in my original) is gone. Boudicca's rebellion, and Roman Roads, have been added. The Saxons can build Burhs, and a Danish claimaint to the throne has been added on turn 16.

This version includes several shorter scenarios for varying numbers of players.

The board has changed slightly.

It will be possible to play the Gibsons or Avalon Hill versions with the set.

If such text holds true my vote would be for a seperate entry.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tony Nardo
United States
Ellicott City
Maryland
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
alkaiser wrote:
One of the problems with this issue is consistency. For example, a lot of P500 type games from GMT, Columbia and others get added to the database many many months prior to being published. [...] So at what point is a game allowed to enter the database?

I'm not a BGG moderator, but I can guess that one issue which crops up for the BGG administrator is that of a publishing company's desires in the matter.

In the case of companies with P500/pledge offerings, the companies you mentioned may have decided that the extra publicity for a currently Unpublished game (a viable BGG publisher selection, BTW) is worth the risk of having to try to correct information on that game at a later date. Other companies may prefer tighter control over pre-publication data, electing to restrict information on the game to their own catalogues and web sites.

If such is the case, that would explain part of the apparent inconsistency in entering data on upcoming games.

I am not convinced that imposing a lowest common denominator for the sake of consistency benefits the gaming community. Companies that welcome pre-publication discussion by game players of their upcoming products should not be penalized by those companies that desire greater restraint; nor should companies that desire such restraint be required to relinquish editorial control over a product that is not yet in published form.

That said, I wouldn't mind seeing BGG have a flag for "pre-publication" status on a game entry. When a game goes to published status, it would be desirable for that transition to automatically launch a process to archive the files, pictures, links, and forum entries to a specially-marked "Pre-publication" area for the game. (The actual mechanics and basic game description are already subject to correction by anyone in the BGG community, pending review by the moderators.) Post-publication links, files, etc. would need to be resubmitted. It's not perfect, but the mechanism would at least clean up some of the outdated information that can be associated with a game in pre-published form.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Personally, I'd like to see all games not yet on the street be rejected. A number of games that are announced never actually see the light of day and it's just wrong to have a game in the database that has never been offered for sale.

Here's a recent example:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/18696

Nothing is known about this game. Zip. Nada. At least not that I can find. Google doesn't even know it exists. It's a CSG in the same vein as PotsM that has been announced by White Wolf and Arthaus. But even using the search engine on their site brings up nothing.

The Geek that entered the game merely retyped the copy blab from the most recent issue of Game Trade magazine, which also tells us nothing at all about the game.

Will Racer Knights of Falconus ever be produced? Beats me. I just think that until it is offered to the public for sale it ought not be in the DB.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tony Nardo
United States
Ellicott City
Maryland
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
Personally, I'd like to see all games not yet on the street be rejected. A number of games that are announced never actually see the light of day and it's just wrong to have a game in the database that has never been offered for sale.

I understand your intent. But IIRC, Jati was a publication-quality prototype never offered for sale by 3M. By a strict "never offered for sale" filter, that entry should vanish. Yet somehow I doubt that BGG would be positively enhanced by such a move.

"Offered for sale" also begs the questions as to whether that means, "for sale to the general public", "for sale in quantities greater than X [and just where to set X]", etc.

There's also the issue of any web-published game not offered for sale. Exclude it? It's certainly on the street. (Of course, the whole issue of games that only exist in electronic form until you print them out, whether offered for sale or not, is a separate hot-button issue for some people entirely...)

Again, I understand your goal. But sometimes pursuing a neat and simple solution to a perceived problem imply taking actions that are neither desirable nor correct.


BTW try http://www.racerknights.com for Racer Knights of Falconus. I'll agree that it's not a terribly informative page, but I *did* find it via Google.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Quote:
BTW try http://www.racerknights.com for Racer Knights of Falconus. I'll agree that it's not a terribly informative page, but I *did* find it via Google.


Me too... but only after reading your comment and trying several different ways. As usual, I need all the help I can get.

Well, as I understand it the DB is intended to include games that at least were available. Limited release items such as UATWMF, while sold in small quantities were still available. I see what you mean about games with historic interest. But realistically, if, for example, this Racer Knights doesn't receive sufficient orders to justify the cost then BGG will have an entry for a game that effectively was never released.

It's a minor issue for sure, but one that I find annoying enough to comment on. I can't see where anything is gained by entering a publishers "planned" releases far in advance of the actual product becoming available. As for games that are sold in downloadable format only, I'd agree that they belong on BGG. I wouldn't split hairs on the game being free or for pay. But I would suggest that eventually the DB might become burdonsome with electronic games that are not significant or really worthy of being here. But that's just my opinion.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tony Nardo
United States
Ellicott City
Maryland
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
Well, as I understand it the DB is intended to include games that at least were available.

Again, I understand your view regarding games that simply exist in the form of one or two box illustrations and a few notes in a publisher's file folders. Some companies are better than others at limiting their announcements to games that are genuinely in the production chain.

The P500/pledge entries form an awkward middle ground. In a sense, they are being offered for sale. The rules are generally close to final form. (Yes, I know, the rules for some games in a pre-order state aren't as polished as they should be, but there are some games that hit print without going through a pre-order stage that have similar defects.) They can appear at conventions, and can even have people want to share session reports about them. However, these titles are slaved to the pre-order process, and thus can theoretically sit for multiple years before enough orders come in to get the presses to run.

Quote:
It's a minor issue for sure, but one that I find annoying enough to comment on. I can't see where anything is gained by entering a publishers "planned" releases far in advance of the actual product becoming available.

I suspect there are a few people who are looking towards the reprint of Reef Encounter who might argue this point, especially when the alternative is springing for a ~$200 copy on eBay...

And while Galaxy: the Dark Ages wasn't in the BGG database, it was the knowledge of the game as an Avalon Hill "might have been" (Galaxy: the Arena) that spurred my wife & I to see who ended up with the rights to it and to sign on as playtesters. An entry for Galaxy in a BBG-style repository would have been a much easier way to pursue this than the route we took, which basically involved us happening to mention the game to the right person at the only Origins convention we've attended.

Quote:
As for games that are sold in downloadable format only, I'd agree that they belong on BGG. I wouldn't split hairs on the game being free or for pay. But I would suggest that eventually the DB might become burdonsome with electronic games that are not significant or really worthy of being here. But that's just my opinion.

I think the weight of dozens of images showing multiple angles of each playing piece will make the DB more burdensome faster than the downloadable or pre-publication entries.

Still, I wouldn't mind being able to filter either pre-pubs or downloadable games from a search result.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.T. Kauffman
United States
Columbus
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I personally am all for games being in the database before they are released, mainly because it gives us a chance to talk about a game before it is released. Let's switch the example to something different: Axis & Allies Miniatures. Street date is mid-September. But so far, the game has been shown at one con, there are rules available, and enough previews have been released that you could piece together a few armies and actually try the game out. The game will also be featured at GenCon before its release date, which I'm sure will lead to advance session reports and/or reviews. But the public won't get its hands on the game for a full month after GenCon, which currently is over a month away. Plenty of stuff to talk about before the game comes out. Plus, with these kinds of advance showings of the game (previews, con appearances, etc.), gamers can get a feeling for whether they should bother buying the game in the first place.

I can think of a number of other games where this has been the case - lots of con/gather appearances, previews, and whatnot that have helped me know on day 1 whether I should get the game (Shadows over Camelot comes immediately to mind, and Wings of War: Burning Drachens is another good example of a non-released game that I've already made my mind up on). Adding the game on the day it was released simply doesn't make sense to me (unless it's a situation like RoboRally/Britannia, where the game may or may not be that different).

Plus, with some of these games you really have to look at the lead time for production - Racer Knights is likely wrapping up production now and being put on the slow boat from China in order to hit the Aug/Sep release date that it is solicited for. I see no reason for it to not come out - final production would definitely have been started a while ago.

Now, I will agree that I think a "Pre-Publication", "Upcoming Release", or something similar would be a very good addition. Would be nice to be able to filter games that way too, come to think of it, see what is on the horizon and all...

Anyway, just my two cents.

jt.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Malme
United Kingdom
Peterborough
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I can think of times where it would be valid to add a game to the Geek before it being published - for example, if the person adding the game had actually had a chance to play the game, either at a show, or as a beta-tester. (The latter case only with the permission of the games designer/publisher, of course).

Adding a game based purely on what can be gleaned from the pre-publicity or the manufacturer's own site is a bit feeble, in my opinion. I think you should have at least seen and handled the game, and formed an opinion, to have earned the GP for a new game addition.

Chris
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tony Nardo
United States
Ellicott City
Maryland
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Adding a game based purely on what can be gleaned from the pre-publicity or the manufacturer's own site is a bit feeble, in my opinion. I think you should have at least seen and handled the game, and formed an opinion, to have earned the GP for a new game addition.

In theory, the game entry is supposed to be devoid of opinion. Still, I agree with your sentiment that someone shouldn't be rewarded with 3 GG for simply transcribing a press release.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael @mgouker
United States
Pembroke Pines
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For me all that is important is that I can find information about a game that I am interested in quickly and easily. Often the game is not yet in print (in the case of Winds of Plunder, for example), but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to see impressions of playtesters posted. Winds of Plunder is an example of a P500 game that absolutely must be seen by BGGers. Nobody who plays strictly euros would ever go over to the gmt games site to look at what is available on the P500 list. And without interest of euro gamers, a great game like this wouldn't get to the necessary 500 orders. Maybe once GMT has a history of doing successful euros this will no longer be true, but now euro gamers will more likely check out RGG or Mayfair or Fantasy Flight and miss out. The problem is if they miss out we all miss out.

In any case, succinctly, if the game exists on BGG, it becomes a place where people can talk about it easily. There are other forums for this, but I like the fact that we can share impressions here as well.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
Personally, I'd like to see all games not yet on the street be rejected. A number of games that are announced never actually see the light of day and it's just wrong to have a game in the database that has never been offered for sale.


I couldn't disagree more. Often, I hear about an upcoming game, and I want to find out what is known about it. Why shouldn't I look here? Or, I'm interested in finding out what is coming in the future, so I search for games (including upcoming games) by designer or publisher. The details can always be changed, if new information becomes available. But why have no information at all??
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.