yes, absolutely. And I think you are right on to highlight accurate and helpful criticism as part of those growing pains. It’s hard to know where to go to find useful critiques. By now I know the bloggers and sites I trust, but how would someone new to the hobby know? BGG is not intuitive for a newcomer.

I would certainly agree with that–there’s no way board games will ever be as big as entertainment sources with lower costs. My main concern with this article in particular is that board games certainly do look like they’re getting big enough to hit “growing pain” thresholds that we’ve seen negatively effect video game culture, for example.

My comment is about your description of the future of the industry. Contrasting boardgames to videogames and movies makes sense because they are all entertainment and I agree boardgaming won’t follow their trajectory. I think there’s a limit to their appeal because of inherent limitations of the tactile experience of playing and because of what boardgames demand of their players.

There are far fewer people who enjoy board games than people who enjoy movies or videogames. The reason? Because boardgaming requires more participation to make it enjoyable. You have to engage your imagination and intellect (to varying degrees depending on game complexity) to have an enjoyable experience. Otherwise it is just paper, cardboard, and wooden or plastic bits. Movies and videogames as a medium of entertainment/artistic expression are designed to lower that bar of engagement as low as possible to create the largest possible market for the product. Just sit down and be entertained.

We could say that designers are attempting to do the same thing by increasing the production quality of games and flashy theme – or we could say it’s simply the board game industry growing up and creating better games. It’s probably a bit of both, but I think the lasting effect will NOT be boardgaming breaking into a new zone of societal appeal and brand new market.

While the boardgame industry is booming, there may be a hard cap on its growth because it is counter-culture. The experience of playing a boardgame is largely free of technology (not counting iOS ports which cease to be board games), requires in-person interaction, and requires a long-ish attention span and appreciation for strategic thinking. Call me a pessimist, but I see society as a whole moving away from those characteristics. As a hobby boardgaming could collect the ‘cast-offs’ from the mainstream culture and continue to grow in that way.

I’m not wholly convinced of what I’m saying here, it’s more just a thought exercise, but I’m thinking boardgames are going to remain a wallflower at the party, even though our social skills have improved and we don’t live in our parents’ basement anymore. More people want to hang out with us but we’re still slightly out-of-step with the mainstream and I don’t see that changing.

The advent of board game cafes are amazing. It’s so fresh and actually does something to change the conversation and perception of people who play boardgames. It removes some of the nerd-stigma which the hobby will always have to live with to some degree. Cafes are the best avenue for the hobby to grow along with if normal cafes, libraries, colleges, and places people already gather start carrying boardgames.

The limitation to growth isn’t some previously undiscovered combination of mechanics, theme, and packaging. It’s the perception of the hobby (which we can change) and the ‘bars of entry’ required to play a game (which we can’t).

Good point–I would agree with that. Almost by definition, a good game is one that is still rewarding after multiple plays, so it would be very difficult to know that after a limited number of plays. You could guess at it, which is something I do with my first impressions, but it would be very hard to tell for sure.

I do disagree somewhat with the notion that a single playthrough can be enough for a full review – I really appreciate that you and some other reviewers, such as Tom Heath (slickerdrips) and the guys at Meeple Leaf distinguish between ‘First Impressions’ and a full review. I think a single play is enough when a game has big problems that you can see easily – you don’t have to play it over and over again to be clear that it doesn’t work for you.

My disagreement comes on the other side – on a positive review based on a single playthrough. I think it’s almost impossible to tell if a game has legs based on one play. You probably won’t catch balance issues, or whether the game rewards multiple strategies or simply gets samey for you over time. If a reviewer doesn’t say how many times they’ve played it, I’ll take it with a grain of salt, and assume it’s a ‘First Impressions’ sort of review.