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.

A good example of a game that just refuses to die would be Star Fleet Battles. I myself own the game and most of the expansion modules for it, but nobody else within 30 miles of me plays it that I know of. There's still a community for it on Facebook and the company that makes it (Amarillo Design Bureau) still sells it on their webstore and even occasionally puts out a new module for the game, but for most it's considered a relic of a bygone era. Shame really, it's a great game, at least if you don't mind a very "crunchy" rule set. I'd say it's definitely not dead, but it isn't exactly thriving at the moment either (I worry for its future when its creator, a man who's now in his 90s, passes on; hopefully they've already got provision for that).

 lord_blackfang wrote:

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

This.

Most people use dead game to mean a game that is no longer supported by the publisher. It is what it is, deal with it. Your big brain arguments to the contrary aren't goingbto change prevailing thought. Your belief that dead must mean the game is literally dead and buried with precisely zero players on the entire planet is an unrealistic and highly pedantic standard.

I disagree. Practically any board game is dead on arrival by that definition, even if it is the most trendy one at the moment. Which is obviously contradictory.

I suppose this name comes from multiplayer video games which indeed can become "dead" with empty servers and the developer deciding to close them.

This hardly translates to TT games, though. Even if you consider a local community playing publicly as the game's "server", players who play like that usually undrestimate the number of players who buy games to play them solely within their closed gaming group and may well be a majority of all players of a game (as is the case with board games even more than miniature wargames).

But the term isn't used in the discussion of board games, it's used in the discussion of miniatures war games. The only thing contradictory there is trying to evaluate the validity of the term by applying it to a context in which it isn't used.

No, the OP doesn't mention it being solely about miniature wargames at all. You may check.

Anyway, there are numerous miniature wargames that are aimed at exactly the same consummer behaviour as board games. They do not have local communities, they do not get expansions or new models (are often miniature agnostic anyway). They are supposed to be bought once and played to a heart's content by a closed group of friends or family. Are things like Reign In Hell or Mork Borg never even alive? Because they are dead by this definition even when they are brand new and at a peak of their sales.

 Jammer87 wrote:
That seems more complicated then it’s worth.

It seems to work for Historical players well enough!

I guess do not knock it until you've tried it.


Edit: The whole dead thing seems to be more of a GW/Modern wargaming echo chamber thing than wargaming in general.

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?

If a game is supported (with new material and/or at least reprints/FAQs), it's not a dead game.

If it's not played but available and supported its just a FLOP.
If it's not widely available but played and supported it's probably in supply chain hell as a SOLD OUT game.
If it's neither played nor widely available but supported it's a true INDIE.
If it's popular, available, and supported, it's probably a HIT game.

A game that's played and still available but completely unsupported by the publisher is probably either an evergreen CLASSIC. For minis games, if the game still sells, it's very unlikely that nobody is making material for it. Even WFB, an intentionally killed game, didn't stay dead. It was played and bought and sold, especially used and third party.

If a game is available but unplayed and unsupported it's probably on CLEARANCE. It's not dead, but nobody cares if it dies.

If a game is played, but unavailable and unsupported, it's Out Of Production (OOP) and probably a collectors item. Think WFB after old stock dwindled, or rare boardgames.

Once a game is unplayed, unavailable, and unsupported, it's DEAD. Games that are on CLEARANCE will be dead sooner rather than later as stock dwindles. FLOPs are also likely to die. INDIE games are basically hobbies for the publisher, and can die as soon as they lose interest.

I do think that games are like legends: they only die when nobody remembers them. Even games that nobody has ever played like Sinnabar are touchstones for people. Even if a game is just a guy in his basement writing rules and posting them on a blog, that game is very technically not dead.

It's very clear that "Dead game" is a term that isn't a fixed meaning and its very contextual and might even be a term that a person uses to describe a game in a purely situation context


Eg "Warmachine is a dead game" within the context of their own play area.

So yes its hard to find a game that is fully dead with no one playing; no one engaging or anything on any level.

That said its very easy to find games that are "dead" at a local level; "Dead" in terms of having no new product support; "Dead" in terms of having no product support at all etc...


There are no hard-fast rules as its just a casual term used in a casual manner. It's not a scientific term bound to very exact and specific conditions.

Star Wars Armada and X-Wing are now unsupported, but seeing they have a strong IP and were once very successful I can see their player base holding up for years to come. 3D printing will help probably. So right now they're obviously not dead.

During the years before the Hobbit (and after that as well) some people considered lotr a Dead game, the player base was indeed shrinking and GW didn't do anything but renewing the licence. However, even before the current Edition that hyped the game for a wider audience, there was a dedicated Player base in germany that kept the game alive and even gave it new air. They organized tournaments, did a couple of Youtube Videos, had very welcoming help for every newbie. I think it was around 2014 when they started, at a point where it really didn't look good from a point of support from GW. Now the game from my impression has one of the largest followings in germany, and as such was even recognized by GW, seeing they decided to do translations again.
What I'm getting at is that yes, company support can be a decisive factor in killing a game, but with a dedicated Player group it's definitely possible to keep every game alive, even get in new people.

I totally agree with Polonius and Easy E. As long as someone plays a game it's not dead.
Many historical periods can go for a long time with no releases but they're not dead they've often got a decent following. This view of games being dead only seems to come from players of GW games and their ilk.
Wargaming as a hobby existed for a long time before GW. Many historical periods are widely played but often not known about by GW players as this company wants people to think this is only GW hobby but they are only a part of the whole hobby of wargaming.
I enjoy playing Warhammer games BUT it's only a part of my hobby. I play from biblical through greek period wars all the way through all the ancient sub periods to medieval. Then on through the horse and musket periods all the way up to WW2 and ultra modern in a variety of scales and it's only ever on GW type forums that I hear of dead games. If it's played by anyone it's still going. Stop fixating on games being dead and get your toys on the table, play and have fun. If you've got rules, homebrew or otherwise and at least enough models to play who cares if no new stuff is coming, you'll have enough to play and enjoy yourself.

Cyel wrote:
No, the OP doesn't mention it being solely about miniature wargames at all.

They opened a discussion about a term that relates to miniature wargames on a forum devoted to discussing miniature wargames. Pointing out that this was specifically related to miniature wargames would seem to be somewhat redundant.

Anyway, there are numerous miniature wargames that are aimed at exactly the same consummer behaviour as board games. They do not have local communities, they do not get expansions or new models (are often miniature agnostic anyway). They are supposed to be bought once and played to a heart's content by a closed group of friends or family. Are things like Reign In Hell or Mork Borg never even alive? Because they are dead by this definition even when they are brand new and at a peak of their sales.

By the definition commonly used, yes, a ruleset that is released and then receives no follow-up support and has no wide spread player base would generally be considered a dead game.

If it's still being played by your gaming group, that's great... but if people don't see a game getting support, and don't see it being played, they're going to assume that it doesn't get support, and isn't being played. If it's a self-contained game, that isn't necessarily a problem, however. Being a 'dead' game is only really an issue if you're trying to grow a community around it, as it can make it harder to find players.

Dwindling support or play, or an apparent lack of either, certainly bolster the claim that a game is dying, which is probably what people generally mean.

If anything, the if the phrase “dead game” has any universal meaning, it would be that the community, availability, and support for the game are far lower than at the games peak, or perhaps whatever the initial expectations were. Under that definition, the following are all dead games: x wing, warmachine, guild ball, mordheim, confrontation, etc.

I propose using the term “extinct” for a game that has truly gone dark.

Game state needs more granularity. Just 'alive/dead' won't cut it.

 Polonius 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?

If a game is supported (with new material and/or at least reprints/FAQs), it's not a dead game.

If it's not played but available and supported its just a FLOP.
If it's not widely available but played and supported it's probably in supply chain hell as a SOLD OUT game.
If it's neither played nor widely available but supported it's a true INDIE.
If it's popular, available, and supported, it's probably a HIT game.

A game that's played and still available but completely unsupported by the publisher is probably either an evergreen CLASSIC. For minis games, if the game still sells, it's very unlikely that nobody is making material for it. Even WFB, an intentionally killed game, didn't stay dead. It was played and bought and sold, especially used and third party.

If a game is available but unplayed and unsupported it's probably on CLEARANCE. It's not dead, but nobody cares if it dies.

If a game is played, but unavailable and unsupported, it's Out Of Production (OOP) and probably a collectors item. Think WFB after old stock dwindled, or rare boardgames.

Once a game is unplayed, unavailable, and unsupported, it's DEAD. Games that are on CLEARANCE will be dead sooner rather than later as stock dwindles. FLOPs are also likely to die. INDIE games are basically hobbies for the publisher, and can die as soon as they lose interest.

I do think that games are like legends: they only die when nobody remembers them. Even games that nobody has ever played like Sinnabar are touchstones for people. Even if a game is just a guy in his basement writing rules and posting them on a blog, that game is very technically not dead.

This is a good post on the matter.

According to many people on this thread, as soon as any Osprey Wargaming Series book hits the shelves, it is a dead game. That obviously makes no sense.

There's a difference between a ruleset ala osprey and a "game" as a lifestyle product with continuous flow of supporting releases ala gw, warmachine, etc. One exists as a standalone product, the other as a living ecosystem. It's the latter that one is speaking of when a game is described as dead.

There are a lot of products made in the gaming space that seem to have no customer base I can see, yet get supported and produced by publishers. I'm sure at least some are passion projects that can afford to lose money, but they can't all be. Clearly there are markets for games that are either not played openly often, or aren't played at all. Maybe they sell well in other areas, or maybe people just buy to collect.

Every time I do a deep dive of Reaper's website or their booth at a Con, I'm staggered by how much product they have for the Warlord game they make. They still make all the minis, but their own forums haven't had a post about the game in months. Is it dead? I mean, probably right? But who knows. Maybe there is a gaming group right now playing a four month campaign of Warlord!

As a player of alot of dead games, I'm fine with "Dead Game" being a term where the definition varies based on the situation.

I realize that folks like to say that "as long as someone is playing it, it isn't dead" and in the age of PDF's, a game can be dead-but-available forever. However, once the producer stops developing the game for a sustained period of time, most folks will call that dead.

I'm also ok with the use of "dead" to describe the local scene for a game. "The scene is dead" is a usage that applies to a variety of music, art, sports, activity communities where activity has died away.

chaos0xomega wrote:
There's a difference between a ruleset ala osprey and a "game" as a lifestyle product with continuous flow of supporting releases ala gw, warmachine, etc. One exists as a standalone product, the other as a living ecosystem. It's the latter that one is speaking of when a game is described as dead.

Awww, so we are limiting the discussion to lifestyle games.

That is helpful.

Well, chaos is trying to, but the OP made no mention of it, so...

OP doesn't need to. Context is context. Debating the validity of a term in a context in which it isn't used is pointless. Nobody says monopoly or risk or chess are dead games, because that's a contextually inappropriate statement and accusation to make about those games. On the other hand Babylon 5 Wars and Star Wars Armada are dead games because support for them has been ended by their publishers - those were games built around the idea of continuous expansion and development.

chaos0xomega wrote:
OP doesn't need to. Context is context. Debating the validity of a term in a context in which it isn't used is pointless. Nobody says monopoly or risk or chess are dead games, because that's a contextually inappropriate statement and accusation to make about those games. On the other hand Babylon 5 Wars and Star Wars Armada are dead games because support for them has been ended by their publishers - those were games built around the idea of continuous expansion and development.

Monopoly and Risk and Chess are definitely still supported though. I can go into any bookstore and find about 30 pointless cosmetic variants of Monopoly where they replaced the street names with ones from some local town or cheeses or something. Clearly the game is supported, even if the rules are not being expanded or updated.

On the other hand, there are plenty of old boardgames that are no longer sold and confined to attics if they still survive that no one plays. I think calling them dead is entirely reasonable.

That's not what supported means. Monopoly and chess are standalone games. You buy it once, and that's the extent of it. There are no expansions, no new units to buy, no meta to chase, etc. The variants are just cosmetic reskins of the same game, not expansions or reworks that a monopoly player must purchase to remain current with a living ruleset.

Referring to a game as being "dead" was never about whether or not anyone still plays it, it's always been about the status of a game in terms of official support from it's publishers, specifically with regards to games that rely on continuing support to develop and evolve the meta.

I assume everyone posting in this thread actually understands that quite clearly, but chooses to post obtuse takes out of refusal to partake in a good faith discussion due to personal opposition to games being labeled "dead" for whatever reason.

No. I 100% honestly would never call a game "dead" if it is still widely played. Its status in its producer's release schedule is irrelevant or even if the producer still exists.

chaos0xomega wrote:
That's not what supported means. Monopoly and chess are standalone games. You buy it once, and that's the extent of it. There are no expansions, no new units to buy, no meta to chase, etc. The variants are just cosmetic reskins of the same game, not expansions or reworks that a monopoly player must purchase to remain current with a living ruleset.

Monopoly maybe, but Chess well there rules changes/updates, there is a meta to chase, different supplements and rules added over time etc.

yes, no new units to buy, but a game that is focused in that part we are back to more or less the GW side of things (no historical game adds new units to the setting)

chaos0xomega wrote:
That's not what supported means.

Citation needed.

Monopoly and chess are standalone games. You buy it once, and that's the extent of it. There are no expansions, no new units to buy, no meta to chase, etc. The variants are just cosmetic reskins of the same game, not expansions or reworks that a monopoly player must purchase to remain current with a living ruleset.

That is a narrow definition of supported.

If, for some reason, I brought myself to use a Monopoly set to the point it wore out, I could buy a new box easily and readily. The product is in active production. If I have an issue with that Monopoly set, say a piece is missing, I can talk to Hasbro/the distributor to resolve the issue. I.e. Hasbro support the product. Clearly that isn't the case for, say, the Landlord Game...

Referring to a game as being "dead" was never about whether or not anyone still plays it, it's always been about the status of a game in terms of official support from it's publishers, specifically with regards to games that rely on continuing support to develop and evolve the meta.

I assume everyone posting in this thread actually understands that quite clearly, but chooses to post obtuse takes out of refusal to partake in a good faith discussion due to personal opposition to games being labeled "dead" for whatever reason.

It is so clear that the thread is full of people disputing that definition... Or, maybe, there is a difference of opinion for a term without a formal, universally-agreed definition...?

There are plenty of people here that consider the "life" of a game to factor in how much it is played, either on a local or global scale (depending on context).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cyel wrote:
No. I 100% honestly would never call a game "dead" if it is still widely played. Its status in its producer's release schedule is irrelevant or even if the producer still exists.

Necromunda is probably a good example. By the definition of "is the game supported" it was dead for several years, but there was an active community playing and iterating the game throughout the unsupported period, well demonstrated by YakTribe.

Necromunda was a dead game, it was commonly referred to as such - because the people who use that term understand it to mean "this is a game with no further support from the publisher and a stagnant official meta, regardless of whether the game still has a player base or fan community".

What you think "dead" means and what dead actually means when used colloquially are two entirely different things. The sooner you can wrap your head around that the better off you will be.

Obviously words can have multiple meanings, so maybe lets not act shocked that people use terms casually and not precisely.

A game like, say, Mordheim, is "Dead" in a very different way than, say, Starship Troopers.

OTOH... if a game requires community, and the community is providing the support with new rules, FAQs, scenarios, etc, than it's functionally still being supported, just not by the publisher. Ford hasn't built a Model T in 100 years, but there was support from third party manufacturers for another decade or more, and you can still buy parts for them.

We have a perfectly good term for a game that's out of production, and it's out of production. I think calling an OOP game a "dead" game is an understandable rhetorical device, but it's a little silly.

I also think that people say "dead" due to modern hot take culture. Star Wars Armada is a great example. the publisher isn't going to support it, but the fans will. they aren't making the ships, but they're pretty widely available, at least the basic stuff. More people are going to play Star Wars Armada int he next year than will play a game like Dropfleet Commander, which is being actively supported, yet somehow Armada is "dead" while DZC is alive and kicking?

Is Armada "dead" in the sense that a new player should be very careful about buying in? Absolutely. So the term has some value. If a player was 100% new to miniature wargaming, I wouldn't recommend Mordheim as the game to jump in with, unless they have a strong group immediately available.

I do think that from context we can tell whether a person means "dead" to mean "un supported and unplayed" or "dead" to mean "not a hot game to buy into"

chaos0xomega wrote:
Necromunda was a dead game, it was commonly referred to as such - because the people who use that term understand it to mean "this is a game with no further support from the publisher and a stagnant official meta, regardless of whether the game still has a player base or fan community".

What you think "dead" means and what dead actually means when used colloquially are two entirely different things. The sooner you can wrap your head around that the better off you will be.

that is the main problem with Dead Games

A GW game is a Dead Game once GW drops it, everyone will referred to it as such and no one is going to play it, there is still a community but they play a community version of the game, the original one is dead

But for non GW games, it is something different as rules are usually done and don't need ongoing releases or support from the publisher outside a re-print of the corrected version (aka put the Errata into the book instead of leaving that out)
they are "dead" the moment they are released because they will never see the things that keeps a GW game alive, and they don't need that as they stay alive for different reasons

so basically a term used by the "Warhammer Hobby" is used for everything no matter if it makes sense or not

A non-GW, non-licensed hobby game that has an ongoing community will also generally find a new publisher. I"m sure there are some examples, but most games that have a player base wont' die, simply because somebody will try to make money selling more stuff to them.

It's only with IP (and GW is it's own IP) that you can't just sell a game off to a garage shop publisher.

And that is one thing that makes Armada more dead than say, Warmachine right now, in at least one aspect. Armada has virtually zero chance of being resurrected, while Warmachine can, and has been.

Would disagree here, as Aramda rules are working, they are out there and because everything was digital anyway they won't disappear like printed only material

and in addition, because it is a game for a popular IP, you can get models for it one way or the other

we have seen space battle games in lack of official models using Revell or AMG scale models to be played (Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek)

there are enough Star Wars ships models out there that there is no need for official models to that game, even if it is just papercraft (and people play the game because of the game and not just to collect models for the shelf)

Warmachine on the other hand, if the game is gone you hardly find any models for it unless another company takes it over and makes them
and even than, no guarantee that the new company releases the same models and game again
(best example the Spartan Games IPs and their re-release from Warcradle)

so in that case, much easier to find models for Armada and play that game than for the original Spartan Games games