New Game Submissions

[flophawkjones]

I know there is a pinned post with a link to BGG for proposed games. I am happy to see Stalk Exchange on here, but noticed that it only had 5 votes on that list, compared to other games I love like Everdell which has over 1,400 votes.

As a new BGA user, my question is- How is it decided what games end up making the cut to be added to BGA?

Thanks for reading and happy gaming!

[Meeplelowda]

I know there is a pinned post with a link to BGG for proposed games. I am happy to see Stalk Exchange on here, but noticed that it only had 5 votes on that list, compared to other games I love like Everdell which has over 1,400 votes.

As a new BGA user, my question is- How is it decided what games end up making the cut to be added to BGA?

Thanks for reading and happy gaming!

One could say that list basically has no effect and, like the Suggested games thread, is just there to make people feel like they are doing something useful without cluttering the rest of the forums, as if a game like "Cascadia" is some obscure niche title that no one has heard of.

What determines what gets developed is 1) whether the rights holder has given permission (so no, BGA is not getting Monopoly, like, ever, unless Hasbro acquires Asmodee) and 2) whether someone is going to pay for development (rare) or a volunteer developer wants to take on the project. Maybe Asmodee has its thumb on the scale in terms of what's prioritized. I can't, for example, say whether we'd have Botanicus if it weren't an Asmodee title. But at the end of the day the games don't develop themselves and most of them are produced by volunteers. One of the devs can expand on this, but frequently it is actually the volunteer developer with a personal passion for a particular game that drives the attempt to acquire permission in the first place. So even if BGA wants a particular game, if no volunteer dev wants to put the time in and no one wants to pony up money to pay someone to do it, it won't get developed. Of course, when and what gets a paid developer is an internal BGA business decision, anyone who isn't involved in those deals is just speculating about how that's decided.

[flophawkjones]

That all makes sense. Thanks for the info!

[BananaHarambe]

RE: the development cost system, develops for premium games generally get paid for their work, but at a lower rate than working their regular job.

Premium games pay royalties to the publisher based on how much their game is played by premium users, details are unknown. So therefore there is the means for a publisher to compensate someone to develop their game for BGA. A premium game should at least pay for itself with moderate popularity.

[Meeplelowda]

RE: the development cost system, develops for premium games generally get paid for their work, but at a lower rate than working their regular job.

Premium games pay royalties to the publisher based on how much their game is played by premium users, details are unknown. So therefore there is the means for a publisher to compensate someone to develop their game for BGA. A premium game should at least pay for itself with moderate popularity.

100% of premium games have paid devs? Where has this been confirmed?

[Tisaac]

RE: the development cost system, develops for premium games generally get paid for their work, but at a lower rate than working their regular job.

Premium games pay royalties to the publisher based on how much their game is played by premium users, details are unknown. So therefore there is the means for a publisher to compensate someone to develop their game for BGA. A premium game should at least pay for itself with moderate popularity.

100% of premium games have paid devs? Where has this been confirmed?

100% of premium games generate money so all the developpements involve some kind of money :
- either it's a paid contract, which is the most common
- either it's some part of the royalties during the first year (basically the dev take the risk in this case instead of bga/publisher)
- for less known games where royalties might be too low to be a reasonnable "risk", volonteer devs can be rewarded with a bunch of board games instead

[Meeplelowda]

100% of premium games generate money so all the developpements involve some kind of money :
- either it's a paid contract, which is the most common
- either it's some part of the royalties during the first year (basically the dev take the risk in this case instead of bga/publisher)
- for less known games where royalties might be too low to be a reasonnable "risk", volonteer devs can be rewarded with a bunch of board games instead

Thanks. I'm not sure how I'd feel about being paid in games, but I guess it's better than nothing.

Without disclosing anything you're not supposed to, is there room for the dev to negotiate payment?

[Tisaac]

100% of premium games generate money so all the developpements involve some kind of money :
- either it's a paid contract, which is the most common
- either it's some part of the royalties during the first year (basically the dev take the risk in this case instead of bga/publisher)
- for less known games where royalties might be too low to be a reasonnable "risk", volonteer devs can be rewarded with a bunch of board games instead

Thanks. I'm not sure how I'd feel about being paid in games, but I guess it's better than nothing.

Without disclosing anything you're not supposed to, is there room for the dev to negotiate payment?

Well most of the time, being paid in games for small amounts can be a win-win situations : the developpers is usually a board games enthusiast so he can just buy item on his wish list which is close to getting real money without having to make a bunch of paperwork, and BGA buys games through philibert most of the time, which is also owned by Asmodée.

As for negotiating payments, developping games is not really different from other projects (except that the amounts involved are usually smaller) : the developper make a quote for the game that might be approved/refused/discussed with whoever is paying for it.