Board Game Arena

Ninjaparakeet wrote: ↑12 June 2026, 20:15 If a premium member invites free players to their table, are the free players still limited to the 6 starter factions?

Yes, this is my understanding for the policy decided by BGA and FFG.

Still a good deal, thank you!

We could also hope, though it is looking a ways into the future, that maybe once the game has been out for a while, the expansion factions will be for premium members, and some more factions become free.

LuksmGame wrote: ↑09 June 2026, 13:44 Self respect : definition : Self-respect is a noun defined as a proper regard for one's own dignity, character, and worth as a human being. It involves valuing yourself enough to set boundaries, act with integrity, and expect to be treated fairly by others.

You're unusually brief this time. Not feeling inspired?

LibrarianFury wrote: ↑01 June 2026, 14:19 Correct me if I am wrong, GTSchemer does not make the monetization decision. They either were hired or volunteered for the job. The owner of the license of the game makes the monetization decision, or maybe BGA; maybe that's the same entity, or maybe they made it together. I am staying out of the should they / shouldn't they argument, but I think it is important that GTSchemer gets credit for doing the work or porting the game, not the monetization decisions.

My criticism was not directed at GTSchemer, who has done an extraordinary job! With my post, I wanted to raise the issue that BGA, since becoming the property of Asmodee, has turned into a business-oriented website. The original spirit of BGA, however, was that of a non-profit community open to everyone, where each participant could contribute according to their means.

Limiting non-paying players to only six basic factions creates an inherent disadvantage for that category of users, which I consider unfair. The message from the owners seems to be: if you want to become competitive, you have to pay.

I consider the owners' decision to allow free players to participate in TI4 while restricting their faction choices to be hypocritical. It appears to be an attempt to shield themselves from criticism that would have arisen had they decided to reserve TI4 exclusively for paying members—a decision that would have gone against the very nature of BGA.

I find it very sad that even BGA has adopted a mindset focused solely on profit. You have completely distorted the original spirit of BGA. When I heard that Asmodee had acquired BGA, I knew this was how things would eventually turn out.

How disappointing. Even here, the only principle that seems to matter is money. What a letdown..

You both persist to say the same utter non sens : you want to be able to use the work of others, freely, as much as you want, without never contributing to anything. THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE ON THE LONG RUN. And on the short run, it has a name it's called ABUSE !!!

You are critisizing a capitalist economical loop here from asmodeee without even considering the fact that your mindset is actually more predatory behavior.

Please start properly looking at the idea you are defending before forcing us to read your whining. You are blaming yourselves here. You are just unable to even notice it

If you want a fair model (egalitarian and equitable), then it's quite simple and demonstrated both in economy and sociology since decades : it requires a small CONTRIBUTION from the most of people. And you two clearly state you are refusing to contribute to anything but complain

It's a known triptych. Equity, egality and independance. If you want equity and independance (your current positioning) you can't have egality. If you want egality and equity (your asking) then you will have to stop being independant and start working your ass too.

You're disgusted? You think some people here are hypocritical? I concur. How disappointing, indeed.

And you're right : Even here, the only principle that seems to matter is money. To you at least. You can play BGA for free all year long in a system that don't REQUIRE your money but is ASKING for your contribution. You have the freedom to refuse. You actually DO refuse. Yet you still ask for more and more, based on your selfish desire and nothing more.
Isn't that the exact definition of the neoliberalism in capitalism? The unlimited seek of profits? Aren't you asking for more personal profits, here?

What a letdown, indeed again..

You two place yourselves ON PURPOSE outside of the own philosiphical model you say you're fighting for, hoping for. You adopt ON PURPOSE the predatorian mindset of what you claim to despise. And after all that shit, you dare blame OTHERS for that.... IN PUBLIC !!

My first answer to that shitload here is still the same : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundament ... tion_error

Esteban74 wrote: ↑15 June 2026, 23:28 Limiting non-paying players to only six basic factions creates an inherent disadvantage for that category of users, which I consider unfair. The message from the owners seems to be: if you want to become competitive, you have to pay.

Actually the restriction appears not very well thought out, but would need a little bit of extra info to know for sure. If someone has access to the Alpha version, do you pick your race before a game launches or after it has launched in some random (or set?) order?

Because if a race is picked without any other information players are limited to win rate stats over all games for their decision. I assume a player's objective is winning, not anything else. If the race is picked before the game launch a non-paying player (and even paying ones) can make sure they get one of the highest win rate races or they choose not to play in that game. From that perspective, as a non-payer you are okay because you can make sure you get Sol (the most advantageous pick) or Jol-Nar or choose not to play. Payers have Clan of Saar in addition to those two or choose not to play.

What I am afraid happens with the restriction is devolution, everyone behaving similarly in the above fashion. What would be needed in minimum is the Milty Draft variant, and then the restrictions in some other form.

People need to calm down and just be stoked that one of the best games on the planet is coming to BGA Very happy!!

Esteban74 wrote: ↑15 June 2026, 23:28

LibrarianFury wrote: ↑01 June 2026, 14:19 Correct me if I am wrong, GTSchemer does not make the monetization decision. They either were hired or volunteered for the job. The owner of the license of the game makes the monetization decision, or maybe BGA; maybe that's the same entity, or maybe they made it together. I am staying out of the should they / shouldn't they argument, but I think it is important that GTSchemer gets credit for doing the work or porting the game, not the monetization decisions.

My criticism was not directed at GTSchemer, who has done an extraordinary job! With my post, I wanted to raise the issue that BGA, since becoming the property of Asmodee, has turned into a business-oriented website. The original spirit of BGA, however, was that of a non-profit community open to everyone, where each participant could contribute according to their means.

Limiting non-paying players to only six basic factions creates an inherent disadvantage for that category of users, which I consider unfair. The message from the owners seems to be: if you want to become competitive, you have to pay.

I consider the owners' decision to allow free players to participate in TI4 while restricting their faction choices to be hypocritical. It appears to be an attempt to shield themselves from criticism that would have arisen had they decided to reserve TI4 exclusively for paying members—a decision that would have gone against the very nature of BGA.

I find it very sad that even BGA has adopted a mindset focused solely on profit. You have completely distorted the original spirit of BGA. When I heard that Asmodee had acquired BGA, I knew this was how things would eventually turn out.

How disappointing. Even here, the only principle that seems to matter is money. What a letdown..

This is such a wild take - BGA and the community is frankly lucky it wasn't hit with myriad cease and desist letters - figuring out the licensing and pay structure to let a majority of people play where none of them own a physical copy of the game - for free - that's a gift to the hobby. Whining (yes...whining) that you can only play with a subset of components for a $150 game where none of the players will have paid that...I'm reminded of the days of Napster "but...it's on the internet - it should be freeeeeee"

Again, I am staying out of the argument about the exact monetization argument. But I will say this. Somewhere down the line there is likely a game designer, game artist, or game creator that deserves to receive some compensation for their work. Buying the game or paying for a BGA membership (and then playing TI4) likely leads to someone involved in the creation of the game receiving some money. Nothing comes free. The serves this site sits on costs money, the staff BGA hires costs money, the royalties paid to the creators costs money. Some amount of monetization is needed, else the whole enterprise shuts down. Again, is this the "right" way to monetize? IDK, but that's not for me to decide, its up to the entity that owns the IP to TI4.