Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
14 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » General Gaming

Subject: The wait for revised version paradox... rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Richard Hutnik
United States
Albany
New York
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Given games being released first edition may end up having issue, get a revised version, and a number of other things that make it prudent to not buy the first edition (like better components), I see this as a paradox. Assume everyone did the prudent thing and waited. End result is that the game get no sales, bomb, and not see a reprint. On top of that, the game wouldn't get even more playtesting by hitting real players, to expose tweaks and input.

So, can it then be said that the madness of got to have it new makes for better gaming for everyone?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rom tos
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
It's not a paradox. It's economics! Game theory, to be precise.

docreason wrote:
So, can it then be said that the madness of got to have it new makes for better gaming for everyone?


If you can provide a 'solution' yourself, it isn't really a paradox, is it?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
p55carroll
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
"And you won't know a thing till you get inside." (Mystery lyrics; name that song.)
badge
"Drizzle, drazzle, drozzle, drome; time for this one to come home."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Early adopters and late adopters--it takes all kinds.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Small
Canada
Kitchener
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
docreason wrote:
Given games being released first edition may end up having issue, get a revised version, and a number of other things that make it prudent to not buy the first edition (like better components)...


And to make the matter more complicated, sometimes it's the first edition that has the better components. Look at how 7 Wonders now comes with cardboard money chits instead of wooden coins.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Hutnik
United States
Albany
New York
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Romtos wrote:
It's not a paradox. It's economics! Game theory, to be precise.

docreason wrote:
So, can it then be said that the madness of got to have it new makes for better gaming for everyone?


If you can provide a 'solution' yourself, it isn't really a paradox, is it?


The solution is not the best solution for oneself. In this case is that the way around the paradox, leads to a paradoxical situation of where one worse off personally makes things better for everyone collectively. If everyone acted under their own self-interest, then no one would benefit. One can say it is similar when it comes to buying games. It ends up best in a gaming group if someone else buys the game, but if everyone does this, no new games are bought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox

A paradox is a statement or group of statements that lead to a contradiction or a situation which (if true) defies logic or reason, similar to circular reasoning. Typically, however, quoted paradoxical statements do not imply a real contradiction and the puzzling results can be rectified by demonstrating that one or more of the premises themselves are not really true, a play on words, faulty and/or cannot all be true together. But many paradoxes, such as Curry's paradox, do not yet have universally accepted resolutions. The word paradox is often used interchangeably with contradiction. The logician Willard V. O. Quine distinguishes between:
Falsidical paradoxes, which are seemingly valid, logical demonstrations of absurdities

Veridical paradoxes, such as the birthday paradox, which are seeming absurdities that are nevertheless true because they are perfectly logical.

Paradoxes in economics tend to be the veridical type, typically counterintuitive outcomes of economic theory, such as Simpson's paradox. In literature a paradox can be any contradictory or obviously untrue statement, which resolves itself upon later inspection.


If your issue is that I am using the term wrong, I don't believe I am.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Hutnik
United States
Albany
New York
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jandks wrote:
docreason wrote:
Given games being released first edition may end up having issue, get a revised version, and a number of other things that make it prudent to not buy the first edition (like better components)...


And to make the matter more complicated, sometimes it's the first edition that has the better components. Look at how 7 Wonders now comes with cardboard money chits instead of wooden coins.


Yeah, they must do that to throw everyone off. There is always the fear the game may NEVER end up in print again, so you feel compelled to have to get it to and miss a gem. Of course, as a rule, any good game in demand, that sold some, will end up usually getting reprinted.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
p55carroll
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
"And you won't know a thing till you get inside." (Mystery lyrics; name that song.)
badge
"Drizzle, drazzle, drozzle, drome; time for this one to come home."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
docreason wrote:
The ... way around the paradox, leads to a paradoxical situation of where one worse off personally makes things better for everyone collectively. If everyone acted under their own self-interest, then no one would benefit.

How do you figure that?

Early adopters like getting a new game hot off the press, and by acting according to that self-interest, they up sales so that, if it proves to be a popular game, it gets reprinted. Late adopters, acting in their self-interest and waiting, up sales further and get to enjoy any improvements made up to that point.

Either of those people can lose, though; it's a gamble. Early adopters might get lower-grade components or rules that need editing. Late adopters might be left out if the game doesn't get reprinted.

As far as I can see, the market is self-regulating as long as most people continue acting according to their own individual interests.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rom tos
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
docreason wrote:
If your issue is that I am using the term wrong, I don't believe I am.


I don't think so either. The definition is quite broad, to say the least.

Though what I described isn't really a counterintuitive outcome. Rather, it's about conflicting incentives, with possible perverse outcomes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Hutnik
United States
Albany
New York
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Patrick Carroll wrote:
docreason wrote:
The ... way around the paradox, leads to a paradoxical situation of where one worse off personally makes things better for everyone collectively. If everyone acted under their own self-interest, then no one would benefit.

How do you figure that?

Early adopters like getting a new game hot off the press, and by acting according to that self-interest, they up sales so that, if it proves to be a popular game, it gets reprinted. Late adopters, acting in their self-interest and waiting, up sales further and get to enjoy any improvements made up to that point.

Either of those people can lose, though; it's a gamble. Early adopters might get lower-grade components or rules that need editing. Late adopters might be left out if the game doesn't get reprinted.

As far as I can see, the market is self-regulating as long as most people continue acting according to their own individual interests.


If you look at the fuming over the issues of "A Few Acres of Snow" and people saying, "I didn't sign up for playtesting" in that you get a game that may not be the best for of it, or the ultimate form. So, the game is based upon early adopters willing to sacrifice in order to have the system work. One has to ask if it is rational. What if early adopters thought about things and decided they weren't going to be trailblazers and really act out of their own self-interest. Wouldn't the system break down?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Hutnik
United States
Albany
New York
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Romtos wrote:
docreason wrote:
If your issue is that I am using the term wrong, I don't believe I am.


I don't think so either. The definition is quite broad, to say the least.

Though what I described isn't really a counterintuitive outcome. Rather, it's about conflicting incentives, with possible perverse outcomes.


When one begins to look at the incentive side, the question is why be an early adopter based upon known possible outcomes? That would seem to be at a heart of why it would be a paradox. What drives the "Cult of the New"? I have an interest in this as a game designer who has like next to no funds, so I am not able to jump on everything new that came out. I have been forced to step back and wonder about things. Reality limits my ability to be an early adopter now, but my designer side ponder the side about a need for new designs.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
p55carroll
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
"And you won't know a thing till you get inside." (Mystery lyrics; name that song.)
badge
"Drizzle, drazzle, drozzle, drome; time for this one to come home."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
docreason wrote:
If you look at the fuming over the issues of "A Few Acres of Snow" and people saying, "I didn't sign up for playtesting" in that you get a game that may not be the best for of it, or the ultimate form. So, the game is based upon early adopters willing to sacrifice in order to have the system work. One has to ask if it is rational. What if early adopters thought about things and decided they weren't going to be trailblazers and really act out of their own self-interest. Wouldn't the system break down?

I don't think so. There probably are some who bought AFAoS and felt they got burned, and they may be reluctant to buy a new game next time, especially from the same company or the same designer. If enough people do that, the company and the designer will likely be more careful in the future. Once they become more careful and prove they're producing high-quality, well-tested games again, they'll win back some fans.

But if enough early adopters continue to grab new games and don't complain too loudly about defects, publishers will continue to pump out games that may need to be improved upon reprint.

We all vote with our dollars and buying behavior. Publishers have to go by our "votes," or they'll go out of business. Hence, as I said, the market ends up being self-regulating.

Loosely speaking, a predominance of early adopters increases quantity (sometimes at the expense of quality); a predominance of late adopters increases quality (sometimes at the expense of quantity). Quality problems tend to turn early adopters into late adopters; quantity problems tend to turn late adopters into early adopters.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rom tos
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
docreason wrote:
Romtos wrote:
docreason wrote:
If your issue is that I am using the term wrong, I don't believe I am.


I don't think so either. The definition is quite broad, to say the least.

Though what I described isn't really a counterintuitive outcome. Rather, it's about conflicting incentives, with possible perverse outcomes.


When one begins to look at the incentive side, the question is why be an early adopter based upon known possible outcomes? That would seem to be at a heart of why it would be a paradox. What drives the "Cult of the New"? I have an interest in this as a game designer who has like next to no funds, so I am not able to jump on everything new that came out. I have been forced to step back and wonder about things. Reality limits my ability to be an early adopter now, but my designer side ponder the side about a need for new designs.


I think the incentives to 'wait and see' concerning a second edition are generally weaker than several other forces at work. For example that every new is shiny (a psychological drive). Or perhaps the uncertainty of there being a second edition (a score of games doesn't ever get one).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Riddle
United States
Oxford
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
its not a paradox, its microsoft debugging scheme
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Hutnik
United States
Albany
New York
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
riddlen wrote:
its not a paradox, its microsoft debugging scheme


And who said that couldn't be a paradox either?



 
 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.