Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Because GW established that a GW without new releases is "dead" and people don't cover/post/play dead games
So the moment GW drops it people drop it too and those that stay are similar hard to find than those playing other non-GW games

And its not really GW that went for the whole "no new releases means its dead". This is 100% on the gamers as well. Consider how many were saying that slaanesh was going to be removed from the game for a time.

Quotes from another thread.

This is so ridiculous that I find it unbelievable...

From an honest point of view:
- Game is played, rules/minis perfectly available, new releases from time to time - ALIVE GAME
- Game is played, rules/minis perfectly available, no new releases - ALIVE GAME
- Game is played, rules/minis perfectly available, discontinued by producer - ALIVE GAME
- Game is barely/not played, rules/minis not easily available, obviously discontinued by producer - DEAD GAME
This makes sense

The point of view of "people" (on this forum? by GW? main GW players?):
- Game is played, rules/minis perfectly available, new releases from time to time - ALIVE GAME
- Game is played, rules/minis perfectly available, no new releases - DEAD GAME
- Game is played, rules/minis perfectly available, discontinued by producer - DEAD GAME
- Game is barely/not played, rules/minis not easily available, obviously discontinued by producer - DEAD GAME
Really?

There's a large segment of internet culture that firmly believes that if its not the game they are actively playing its a dead game.

 LunarSol wrote:
There's a large segment of internet culture that firmly believes that if its not the game they are actively playing its a dead game.

Yeah, that very much seem to be the current mentality.

I still break out my Battlefleet Gothic minis every so often. There's a small local community for it too where I live, all hoping it one day gets a reboot.

Personally, I'd consider it a dead game if you can't find anyone online interested in it anymore. I had a guy a couple years back buy my massive collection of the old Wizkids Battletech minis and I haven't known anyone who plays that game in over a decade.

Dead game is meaningless. There are games that you and your friends are interested in and ones that you are not. Sometimes sourcing rules and models might be a bit of a mission, but these days hardly ever impossible if you really want them.

If I have the rules and two forces, a game will never be dead for me!

Once it is not officially supported, that is when it gets interesting to me.

There's obviously at least two axes here

Supported/Unsupported
Played/Not played

And everyone has a threshold on the first axis that will move the game on the second axis.

Getting angry about the semantics of it sounds like just being argumentative for the sake of it.

SU-152 wrote:
The point of view of "people" (on this forum? by GW? main GW players?):
- Game is played, rules/minis perfectly available, new releases from time to time - ALIVE GAME
- Game is played, rules/minis perfectly available, no new releases - DEAD GAME
- Game is played, rules/minis perfectly available, discontinued by producer - DEAD GAME
- Game is barely/not played, rules/minis not easily available, obviously discontinued by producer - DEAD GAME
Really?

Whether or not a game is currently being played, the general definition is that a game is 'dead' if it is not actively supported. And many players are less likely to stick with dead games as they get bored with the lack of new material for it, and for those without a fixed playgroup it becomes progressively more difficult to find people to play it with.

If you're still playing the game, that's great for you... but it doesn't change the fact that the game is not getting anything new added to it, and that's what the definition is based on.


Having said that, it's also not uncommon for people to label a game as 'dead' if nobody is playing it... but that's often based on personal experience rather than any actual objective data.

No game is dead to me that I've enjoyed as every game I've played I've collected at least 2 forces for and keep all rules, army books etc and I occasionally break these out for a game with my family and/or friends. BFG, Dreadfleet even WRG 6th edition for Ancients ( ask your grandparents kids). For me and online presence is irrelevant. If I bought rules and models for a game then whether other people consider it dead is unimportant to me. It's my hobby and I'll play whatever I want.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
There's obviously at least two axes here

Supported/Unsupported
Played/Not played

And everyone has a threshold on the first axis that will move the game on the second axis.

Getting angry about the semantics of it sounds like just being argumentative for the sake of it.

Agreed and I'd add that both of those variables can also vary depending on the context of situation.

Are you talking about local, national or internet?



A game can be dead online because there are no (or very very few) posts made on forums; inactive or absent specific social groups; no parent firm making news or other content. However it might be very alive in local gaming groups.


Context is everything in this kind of chatter because what is "dead" can vary ever so much.




I'd also note that there's another layer which is basically if a game is thriving, surviving or dwindling. When choosing to invest into a game and model line there's an upfront cost in time and money. Money in buying models and rules and game materials; time in putting the models together (at the very least) and painting them.
For some games with free rules, simple D6 mechanics and few models this upfront cost is pretty low.
Other games might have a steeper entry point and/or grow too a steeper point. Eg you can start 40K with a cheap Killteam box; but if you're eager for the wargame side chances are you're looking at a 2K army at the very least.

A game might not be dead, but if its dwindling; if all the focus online and locally is about the game dwindling; people moving onto playing other games; less and less official new content and so forth. Then that can create a "dead" game for some. Old World is a prime example of where this happened - even with GW supporting it the playerbase was dwindling considerably. With a high investment game (1.5K to get to where the game worked well at the very least) that can make some avoid it. They see the reduced profitability and the higher and higher chance of the game being abandoned.

Heck for GW the same thing happens with armies - how many people were buying SoB models before the big update? Or gave up buying into Dark Eldar when they had their 2 edition gap on rules in the past.


Wargamers are an enigma in modern consumer culture. Modern consumer culture focuses on the instant "in the now"; whilst wargamers are thinking "will this game be around and supported in 5-10 years time" because it might take them 2-3 years to really get into the game and get their army to a point they are happy with.

 insaniak wrote:

SU-152 wrote:
The point of view of "people" (on this forum? by GW? main GW players?):
- Game is played, rules/minis perfectly available, new releases from time to time - ALIVE GAME
- Game is played, rules/minis perfectly available, no new releases - DEAD GAME
- Game is played, rules/minis perfectly available, discontinued by producer - DEAD GAME
- Game is barely/not played, rules/minis not easily available, obviously discontinued by producer - DEAD GAME
Really?

Whether or not a game is currently being played, the general definition is that a game is 'dead' if it is not actively supported. And many players are less likely to stick with dead games as they get bored with the lack of new material for it, and for those without a fixed playgroup it becomes progressively more difficult to find people to play it with.

If you're still playing the game, that's great for you... but it doesn't change the fact that the game is not getting anything new added to it, and that's what the definition is based on.


Having said that, it's also not uncommon for people to label a game as 'dead' if nobody is playing it... but that's often based on personal experience rather than any actual objective data.

I think you are talking about this point specifically:

- Game is played, rules/minis perfectly available, no new releases - DEAD GAME

Which is the most controversial.

So it is played, rules/minis available, BUT it is dead just because there are no news? it is so ridiculous, seriously....

Yeah, this is absurd. Do these people also not play evergreen old board games like Agricola or Puerto Rico or even Scrabble, because there have been no expansions for those for decades (or never)?

A good playable game is a good playable game the date of print on the box notwithstanding.

For me personally, a game becomes "dead to me" if it changes too much (cough modern 40k cough). In fact, I'd like to argue that when a game stops receiving further support, it finally becomes "complete", and only future generations will know if it will stand the test of time. Yall have such tiny timescale POVs on this matter, its not about you.. Are games such as chess / mill / monopoly "dead"?

On the internet, nothing is really dead; I stumbled onto a massive REDACTED the other day, which contained thousands of lil games and homebrews, many of them familiar to me from my visits to the LGS around the late 80s/early 90s.. all beautifully preserved in digital form for future generations. Edgy classics like Macho Women With Guns etc.. No game ever dies until no-one plays it again ever

What internet considers about anything is something I've never lost sleep over, and never will. Always chasing for the next new thing, always restless.. never content with anything ever.. Opinions are like gakholes, a bigger pile of gak aint no better than a smaller one

Monopoly at least is definitely a game that should die... Terrible terrible game. Especially the junior edition...

 Overread wrote:
Wargamers are an enigma in modern consumer culture. Modern consumer culture focuses on the instant "in the now"; whilst wargamers are thinking "will this game be around and supported in 5-10 years time" because it might take them 2-3 years to really get into the game and get their army to a point they are happy with.

A good observation. In part this is also down to the slow rate at which wargames are "consumed" - even when your army is done, probably at a rate of 1 game or less per week. If you need a year or two to really get going with an army and then play realistically 30 times a year (split amongst all games you play!) a game being "dead" in 5 years and you not getting your desired number of plays for your money is a serious concern, even if probably a subconscious one, and the market (over)saturation isn't helping as folks around you might jump ship several times over before you're ready to play the "new" game.

SU-152 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

SU-152 wrote:
The point of view of "people" (on this forum? by GW? main GW players?):
- Game is played, rules/minis perfectly available, new releases from time to time - ALIVE GAME
- Game is played, rules/minis perfectly available, no new releases - DEAD GAME
- Game is played, rules/minis perfectly available, discontinued by producer - DEAD GAME
- Game is barely/not played, rules/minis not easily available, obviously discontinued by producer - DEAD GAME
Really?

Whether or not a game is currently being played, the general definition is that a game is 'dead' if it is not actively supported. And many players are less likely to stick with dead games as they get bored with the lack of new material for it, and for those without a fixed playgroup it becomes progressively more difficult to find people to play it with.

If you're still playing the game, that's great for you... but it doesn't change the fact that the game is not getting anything new added to it, and that's what the definition is based on.


Having said that, it's also not uncommon for people to label a game as 'dead' if nobody is playing it... but that's often based on personal experience rather than any actual objective data.

I think you are talking about this point specifically:

- Game is played, rules/minis perfectly available, no new releases - DEAD GAME

Which is the most controversial.

So it is played, rules/minis available, BUT it is dead just because there are no news? it is so ridiculous, seriously....

I take the term “supported” to also include FAQs, rules updates, content creators generating buzz about the game(likely sponsored), and tournaments. Making new product to sell is one thing, but if the parent company isn’t trying to generate interest in THEIR game then why should you be trying to find it in a bargain bin.

The argument that if I have two forces it’s not dead to me. What if two buddies want to play a three force season or tournament with you? Are you just hot swapping armies then?

 Jammer87 wrote:


The argument that if I have two forces it’s not dead to me. What if two buddies want to play a three force season or tournament with you? Are you just hot swapping armies then?

No silly. You set-up two generals and a GameMaster for the game. More people? You break command into teams. One side has 3 generals and the other has 2, and then you can also have a GM.

This is all pretty standard practice in the non-GW space for games.

That seems more complicated then it’s worth.

SU-152 wrote:

I think you are talking about this point specifically:

- Game is played, rules/minis perfectly available, no new releases - DEAD GAME

Not really. Games that don't have any new releases or other support tend to become progressively more difficult to buy for, because if the game isn't being actively supported it's generally not making enough money for the company that owns it to keep selling it indefinitely. And as the game becomes more difficult to buy, the player base dries up as well.

If it's a good game, there will still be people playing it at home, but your chances of pick up games or organised play become increasingly slim.

There are exceptions when a game has a committed enough fanbase to keep things rolling, but for the most part, a game that is unsupported eventually just fades away.

On the subject of stock keep in mind that many 3rd party stores buy their stock from distributors and distributors heavily favour new product lines.

It's an issue games firms can have keeping existing models in stock for armies. I recall it being a running issue for Warmachine even during its height of popularity of 2nd edition.

So if a game stops getting new models, but is still in active production; it might well be that the manufacturer will have issues getting distributors to take on the "old stock" to sell to 3rd party stores and distribute when there are no new things coming along as well.

So this can feed into a "dying game" effect whereby the manufacturer isn't trying to kill it, and where people are still playing; but the trade layers between them are discouraging its easy distribution.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

There are exceptions when a game has a committed enough fanbase to keep things rolling, but for the most part, a game that is unsupported eventually just fades away.

My impression is that any hobby or interest requires key people to maintain production; advertising; interest; awareness and drum up hype all in a bid to not only keep the ball rolling but also keep most people engaged with it. Sure you get die-hard fans in there who will never give it up; but for the large majority a hobby is an interest, but not something they live-and-breath. Furthermore even a portion of die-hard fans require some level of engagement/social interaction/support in order to keep going at the same level.

Ergo they require energy to maintain. If there's a firm behind them then the firm provides a good portion of that energy and drive. It's self serving because the firm wants to make money and making money helps justify spending hours working on things. Take that away and you need fans who are not only die-hard but who also have skills and resources to keep the energy and drive going.

That can happen, indeed for model work with 3D printing now a thing its possible for fans to keep quite a significant level of drive behind things; but it requires drive and coordination and unity over large geographical and social spreads. For every Bloodbowl that manages to survive there's many many more ManOWar that simply dwindle to nothing.

Battletech would have to be the biggest example of a game that only refused to die because of the efforts of a very dedicated fanbase. It's very much an outlier, though.

 insaniak wrote:
Battletech would have to be the biggest example of a game that may refused to die because of the efforts of a very dedicated fanbase. It's very much an outlier, though.

Yeah Battletech has a crazy history of issues over the years. It's thriving right now, but yeah for a long while it was in various kinds of life-support.

I also get the impression its bigger in the USA than the UK region in terms of that support.



I agree, games that survive in such a situation are the exception rather than the norm. I think even with 3D printing that will remain. You still need skilled sculptors to create stuff and still need energy, drive and coordination at some level (local/regional/national) to keep the game alive in some kind of form.

Another thought that comes to me is generations. Any game can get locked into a few generations and end up with a population that's very much isolated within the gamer world. Older games with less active or no active firm marketing behind them can easily double-down on this because everyone into it is X-Generation and thus tend to attract those of a similar generation with less draw for those outside. Again, unless you've some very energetic people pushing and marketing on their own to get new people in.
So a game might be "dead" for everyone under 20 but could be "alive and well" for people over 50.

It will be interesting to see how you will feel about these issues once AI and 3D printing tech/ondemand manufacturing capabilities advance to a state where anyone can replicate any game in existence, or create entirely new games from scratch in minutes. These maetrial concerns will all become moot

It's entirely concievable that if we ever get GP AI, it would have no problems creating interesting games of any complexity, for any conceivable topic

AI has a LONG LONG way to go yet.

Even with 2D art a lot of it requires extensive work if you want any of the fine details to actually stand up to any view.

You can view it at a distance and it looks ok, but get in close and you can spot the issues. At which point fixing them takes as long (if sometimes longer) than actually just doing the art from scratch; if you know how.



But yeah if AI gets to a point where you can just say "Hey Computer design and print for me a prepainted BloodAngels Battlefleet Gothic army based on the 2000 era BFG rules system by Games Workshop" and BAMO you get a 3D printed army, rules, dice and everything spat out of the replicator.

It's possible we can achieve that one day - but we are very far from that yet.

Do we need AI to replicate/resurrect games right now? I feel like if a game was popular enough people could easily 3D print stuff, fix/find some rules, and put it on a board. AI doing that independently could possibly generate interest in a cool new concept. I don't think we need AI to resurrect games at this point.

The game is dead because no one plays it, no one is adversing for it, no one is trying to sell it, and no one is organizing tournaments for it. Once AI can run a miniatures company by itself and produce, market, sell, and support games then I think we'll have a problem.

Why do you think players are generating conversation about TOW? People could have easily found the rules, miniatures, and likely other people to play. Is it because GW is promoting the game, updating the rules, and releasing new miniatures that its coming back from being dead?

looking at one of the local historical groups here, who play with the very same game they have developed in their own (as there was nothing else available) in the 70ies, lack of support or official releases should not be an issue

the same way there are a lot of historical rules out there that never get any supplements, or even a 2nd Edition simply because those are a "finished" model agnostic game by release and don't need anything else outside a re-print once in a while


that said, the point were a game being "dead" as in "nobody play it any more" if there is no official support or new releases is linked to the quality of the game
because if people only like to play it because it is the current lifestyle game from the one company and everyone stops playing it once said company replaces it with something new, simply means that it was a bad game and hardly anyone played it because they liked playing it (otherwise no reason to drop it)

best example is 8th Edition Warhammer Fantasy and The Old World, everybody could have just kept playing 8th after GW killed it, but the game was already "dead" by that point as the people only played it because it was the Fantasy game made by GW and not because it was a good game

on the other side there are people who still play 6th Edition Fantasy, and never switched to 7th, and are still happy
same way there is a local group still playing 5th Edition 40k

unless you've some very energetic people pushing and marketing on their own to get new people in.

Very much this- A game can be fantastic and no longer be supported because the parent company went out of business or can no longer make enough profit on the IP to fund it. What we do have is a very active local community who still play what we like and invite new players to join us.

classic battle tech has been in and out of this for decades now but in my local area the only current edition games i play are

.heavy gear
.MCP
.castles in the sky
.battle tactics WWII (forces of valor toys)
.classic battle tech/aero tech
.monpoc

Everything else we play are older editions of current games that had far superior rules in the past or fantastic games no longer in production (but still available thanks to things like 3d printing).
for older editions-
On the GW side
.BFG
.5th ed 40K
.4th/5th ed kill teams
.6th ed WHFB
.epic 40k

Others-
.infinity N2
.warmachine MK III (no themed lists or steamroller)
.victory at sea (mongoose rules)

Games where the parent company ceased production/is no longer in business-
.babylon 5 wars
.DUST 1947

 Overread wrote:
That can happen, indeed for model work with 3D printing now a thing its possible for fans to keep quite a significant level of drive behind things; but it requires drive and coordination and unity over large geographical and social spreads. For every Bloodbowl that manages to survive there's many many more ManOWar that simply dwindle to nothing.

Problem with ManOWar specifically is that it's insanely heavy on mandatory cardboard components that make it not as trivially accessible as most small games. Even so, there is a modest following and most models have been resculpted for printing.

 Haighus wrote:
Monopoly at least is definitely a game that should die... Terrible terrible game. Especially the junior edition...

Oh, yeah, absolutely. Actually every TTgaming genre has a game like that, badly outdated, theoretically obsolete in comparison to what is on the market, but still alive and dominating through sheer inertia, market penetration (to the point that for many the game IS the entire genre) and people's status quo bias. Monopoly in board games, D&D in RPGs, MTG in card games and WH40K in miniature wargames...

 Jammer87 wrote:

Why do you think players are generating conversation about TOW? People could have easily found the rules, miniatures, and likely other people to play. Is it because GW is promoting the game, updating the rules, and releasing new miniatures that its coming back from being dead?

Dead?

When GW discontinued WHFB people kept playing 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and fan versions. Miniatures were perfectly available at alternative manufacturers, 3D printing, and second hand.

Yet they call that dead. I guess the way to understand it is discontinued=dead.

Edit: talking so far exclusively about GW games, given how people tend to believe in "dead" games.

When LI launched, Epic: Armageddon was played more, miniatures had better availability, rulebook free to dowload, but hey, E:A was the dead game and LI was the alive one...

Well, it’s gonna depend.

Dead dead would be something like Celtos. A dimly remembered Celtic Fantasy Wargame.

Dead would be something like BFG. No official rule or model support. But being a GW game, could return in some format at any point, and it still has an ongoing player base.

Locally Dead? I’d have to say Warmachine, as of the FLGS in my area (three or so) none carry the line at all, and whilst I’m not exactly investigative journalist on it, I’ve not seen anyone playing it either. But, the game is very much still going in the wider world.