Cross-media adaptation

[SckizoBoy]

I'm having an argument in another forum about this, so I seek a general gaming community's input on this.

Would you be interested in or do you believe there is a market for a high fidelity adaptation of any skirmish-style tabletop game to the video game medium? Almost purely 1v1 multiplayer, this would replace all models with obvious 3d skins with animations to suit their various in-game actions, the UI would have widget options (for measuring, movement, monitoring HP and status effects etc.), fade effect for terrain, options for flags/control capture plus other features and freeview camera but all gameplay mechanics would otherwise come from the parent tabletop game.

 

[laggyteabag]

From a consumer perspective, sure, why not?

I've always been a big fan of Warhammer, but finding someone to play it with has always been a challenge - not to mention the cost of entry. Im sure a lot of people also feel the same way.

You can already play something like this in Tabletop Simulator, but a fully polished game would be nice to see.

Also, 3D chess has always been a guilty pleasure of mine.

 

[wings012]

I think there would be interest depending on the tabletop game of origin, but I don't see why the owners of the original tabletop game would allow for a digital competitor to their product.

I do have friends who are interested in various tabletop games, not necessarily skirmish style games but are constrained by distance and time to people they would want to play with. Which is why they all got Tabletop Simulator and through mods would play some of these games together. Tabletop Simulator does have its limits however having to deal with the somewhat dogshit controls to manually do a lot of things.

I definitely have a few friends that would be very happy to have lets say, a videogame adaptation of 40k Kill team. Games Workshop however makes their money from their expensive model sales and I don't see why they'd want to fund a cheaper alternative to the hobby and it'd make more sense for them to fund other types of videogames to promote the IP. I don't think a digital adaptation of the full 40k experience is a particularly practical endeavour due to how volatile the game can be in terms of rules changes, new model releases and whatnot. Though I suppose a digital 40k Kill Team could function as a sorta gateway game to get people into the larger hobby perhaps?

With the whole lockdown virus situation as well, I think there will be demand for digital versions of tabletop games due to the inability for people to meet up and actually play it.

Would people want such things? I'm gonna say yes, but I think there will be challenges in getting to develop such things and I'm not sure how profitable the endeavour will be.

There has been some successful MTG videogames, granted a TCG isn't quite the same. I think MTG:A is fairly successful? I think a hypothetical digital 40k could use a similar monetization system, selling digital models and whatnot.

 

[SupahEwok]

Would you be interested in or do you believe there is a market for a high fidelity adaptation of any skirmish-style tabletop game to the video game medium? Almost purely 1v1 multiplayer, this would replace all models with obvious 3d skins with animations to suit their various in-game actions, the UI would have widget options (for measuring, movement, monitoring HP and status effects etc.), fade effect for terrain, options for flags/control capture plus other features and freeview camera but all gameplay mechanics would otherwise come from the parent tabletop game.

Is high fidelity the important part? The graphics arms race has hit a point where anybody with the will and an aesthetic sense can make a gorgeous game, so I wouldn't say "high fidelity" is anything of a barrier to a niche product these days.

Is it the tabletop game part that's the hold up here? Well, it would depend on the monetization model. Do you just sell the game once for $60 and that's your revenue, or do you try to sell unit packs and cosmetic DLC like is the current practice for these kinds of games? Could you get away with, say, Game Workshops' model in a virtual space?

I don't see any mechanical obstacle to making such a game, but I get the feeling that the reason why it hasn't happened for a big IP is that the IP holders don't want to rock the boat with their current business plan. They probably couldn't get away with the current prices of models in a virtual space, they'd have to go cheaper, which would encourage people to abandon the physical model market, which could collapse their business.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

There's already tons of digital board games and they're great with regards to doing all the "housekeeping" aspects board games have. The #1 board game, Gloomhaven, has a full-on video game with 3D character models, animations, etc. I have Sentinels of the Multiverse, Through the Ages, Terraforming Mars, Lords of Waterdeep, Baseball Highlights 2045, and Tigris and Euphrates on my phone. I have Scythe on my Steam wishlist looking for a real good sale.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Is high fidelity the important part? The graphics arms race has hit a point where anybody with the will and an aesthetic sense can make a gorgeous game, so I wouldn't say "high fidelity" is anything of a barrier to a niche product these days.

Is it the tabletop game part that's the hold up here? Well, it would depend on the monetization model. Do you just sell the game once for $60 and that's your revenue, or do you try to sell unit packs and cosmetic DLC like is the current practice for these kinds of games? Could you get away with, say, Game Workshops' model in a virtual space?

I don't see any mechanical obstacle to making such a game, but I get the feeling that the reason why it hasn't happened for a big IP is that the IP holders don't want to rock the boat with their current business plan. They probably couldn't get away with the current prices of models in a virtual space, they'd have to go cheaper, which would encourage people to abandon the physical model market, which could collapse their business.

While my arguments (I'm not in favour, incidentally) tend toward consumer uptake, monetisation and impression from the traditional skirmish tabletop gaming community, I do agree that from a publisher stand point, having a cheaper digital alternative completely tanks their business model.

However, re: high fidelity, this is a reference to the rules, tabletop gameplay mechanics and adherence to 2d space (line of sight, melee ranges, charge threats, RNG for spell/melee/missile attacks etc.), if you've got anything add to this(?)

 

[SckizoBoy]

There's already tons of digital board games and they're great with regards to doing all the "housekeeping" aspects board games have. The #1 board game, Gloomhaven, has a full-on video game with 3D character models, animations, etc. I have Sentinels of the Multiverse, Through the Ages, Terraforming Mars, Lords of Waterdeep, Baseball Highlights 2045, and Tigris and Euphrates on my phone. I have Scythe on my Steam wishlist looking for a real good sale.

And this is why I specified 'skirmish' which are a different beast almost entirely. While average play time runs about the same (2hrs for a typical game in tournament conditions), there tends to be a very substantial barrier of entry to these games, in assumed knowledge, without someone familiar with it guiding you through. Most board games you can muddle through thanks to a rules pamphlet which is a few pages to a couple dozen pages long at most. Skirmish/battalion games run up 200 pages worth of rules (and if you've seen anything GW put out, stripping out the lore/fluff, 200 might be underselling it), excluding faction and model specific rules or abilities. Further, the digital versions of most board games are not that different in cost from the physical copies, while for skirmish games, just ask any hobbyist how much they've spent on a single system (better yet, ask WH40K players how much they spend on the game, EXCLUDING the minis, bearing in mind, it's the minis that go on and are seen on the table). It's for this reason (and others, obviously), I consider this a divisive topic and most skirmish/battalion game publishers don't touch it with a barge pole while very obviously ignoring the online alternatives of Tabletop Simulator, Vassal, WarTable or what have you.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

And this is why I specified 'skirmish' which are a different beast almost entirely. While average play time runs about the same (2hrs for a typical game in tournament conditions), there tends to be a very substantial barrier of entry to these games, in assumed knowledge, without someone familiar with it guiding you through. Most board games you can muddle through thanks to a rules pamphlet which is a few pages to a couple dozen pages long at most. Skirmish/battalion games run up 200 pages worth of rules (and if you've seen anything GW put out, stripping out the lore/fluff, 200 might be underselling it), excluding faction and model specific rules or abilities. Further, the digital versions of most board games are not that different in cost from the physical copies, while for skirmish games, just ask any hobbyist how much they've spent on a single system (better yet, ask WH40K players how much they spend on the game, EXCLUDING the minis, bearing in mind, it's the minis that go on and are seen on the table). It's for this reason (and others, obviously), I consider this a divisive topic and most skirmish/battalion game publishers don't touch it with a barge pole while very obviously ignoring the online alternatives of Tabletop Simulator, Vassal, WarTable or what have you.

I'd think they'd do it if they felt there was a big enough market for it. I would think the highest fidelity you could do is an isometric quality game. Getting more people into anything should net more total revenue. I don't think just because there's a digital version would make those people stop buying minis (+ other things like stuff for the maps) as wouldn't that be happening to other board games then?

 

[SckizoBoy]

I'd think they'd do it if they felt there was a big enough market for it. I would think the highest fidelity you could do is an isometric quality game. Getting more people into anything should net more total revenue. I don't think just because there's a digital version would make those people stop buying minis (+ other things like stuff for the maps) as wouldn't that be happening to other board games then?

Fidelity is to do with the rules and mechanics of the parent game, not the appearance and since most ranges are conducted on a model base to model base basis, isometric is probably not the way it'd need to be done (or anything tile based, IMO, hex being the closest).

Because of the cost difference as noted, the boardgame publisher still has substantial revenue from the IP licence. The miniatures game publisher doesn't have that luxury because IP licence is a drop in the water (mild hyperbole, but the disparity is still there) compared to miniatures sales.

Anyway, this aside, that was the point of the thread: "I'd think they'd do it if they felt there was a big enough market for it." Do you think there is a big enough market for it to happen, if so why, and if not why not?

 

[SupahEwok]

However, re: high fidelity, this is a reference to the rules, tabletop gameplay mechanics and adherence to 2d space (line of sight, melee ranges, charge threats, RNG for spell/melee/missile attacks etc.), if you've got anything add to this(?)

In that case I'm a little more puzzled. I don't know much about skirmish games, but for something like 40k, where I know you measure out inches for distances and stuff, I don't see anything that couldn't be adapted to a virtual tabletop. What are the elements you believe would be problematic?

 

[SckizoBoy]

In that case I'm a little more puzzled. I don't know much about skirmish games, but for something like 40k, where I know you measure out inches for distances and stuff, I don't see anything that couldn't be adapted to a virtual tabletop. What are the elements you believe would be problematic?

The mechanics of the adaptation isn't the problem, it's the market for this adaptation (i.e. consumer uptake), the effect on the miniatures market and its profitability. Though it seems you already addressed both parts of this (misreading on my part earlier).

I don't see any mechanical obstacle to making such a game, but I get the feeling that the reason why it hasn't happened for a big IP is that the IP holders don't want to rock the boat with their current business plan. They probably couldn't get away with the current prices of models in a virtual space, they'd have to go cheaper, which would encourage people to abandon the physical model market, which could collapse their business.

 

[wings012]

For smaller skirmish games/IPs, I feel like there might not be enough demand to justify the cost of development. Though I get the feeling the same game engine might work for multiple games, so maybe if the game could be a bunch of games... but then multiple IPs = legal logistics nightmare. But it might be a way to put a new lease on life on smaller games no longer in production.

 

[SckizoBoy]

For smaller skirmish games/IPs, I feel like there might not be enough demand to justify the cost of development. Though I get the feeling the same game engine might work for multiple games, so maybe if the game could be a bunch of games... but then multiple IPs = legal logistics nightmare. But it might be a way to put a new lease on life on smaller games no longer in production.

Funny you say that, not sure if you're into tabletop skirmish games, but RIP GuildBall (end of support announced earlier today). They really could've done with an adaptation of some sort to keep enthusiasm for the game going.

That is a good point that a single engine could manage multiple games. A surprising number of games have a 'front-end' similarity, now I think on it.