|
Jon Wu
United States
Palo Alto
California
-
Antistone wrote: J.L.Robert wrote: Really, if someone wants to sell a game in anticipation of a reprint, why take money out of that person's hands? Some people might actually NEED that cash for food, rent, etc. because of hard times.
This is just like people bitching about others selling Dominion promos for profit...they've found a market. Why should some non-party try to police the open market? WTF? All the economic theories saying that "open markets" are good things assume that consumers have access to accurate information about goods. Someone who is disseminating accurate information relevant to purchasing decisions is making the market more "open," not less. Selling something at an inflated price to someone who doesn't realize what alternatives are available is a deceitful practice that relies on market failure. And I don't see any particular reason that "taking money out of the hands" of the seller is worse than taking it from the buyer. You don't think that money gets created out of nowhere when you sell at a high price, do you? If you happen to be unlucky in this particular development, then sorry, but grow up. Updating Wikipedia to reflect the forthcoming second edition is a noble deed in the public interest, even if it happens to be inconvenient for you.
thank you!
-
Jason Parks
United States
Illinois
-
Should look into working with hasslefree minitures from the UK. They sculpt stuff all the time that is right up your alley. They would not be painted but I think them being metal would be a nice trade.
-
Dave
Canada
Kinda SW of Hamilton
Ontario
-
Often thought of how this game would add nicely to my slowing expanding collection, now I will have a chance!! And it looks like it will have it's fixes!!! Hope they realize it's fanbase and produce something that is of great quality.
-
-
Antistone wrote: Selling something at an inflated price to someone who doesn't realize what alternatives are available is a deceitful practice that relies on market failure.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it "deceitful" unless the seller is intentionally giving deceptive information.
"Out of print" is true information. "Out of print and never to be seen again" is also technically true, but certainly a more shady way to do it. YMMV on these things, but this is why the phrase "buyer beware" exists. No second edition exists yet. In fact, the second edition might even be sunk before it sees the light of day (hope not!).
The buyer has to own the responsibility there, as in all things. If you're looking to drop 2-4x the cost of something on eBay, it's a wise idea to do a little research first, especially if you're the type to stomp your feet over paying "too much" for something (if it was "too much" why did that person buy it? The seller can't be faulted for the buyer's poor impulse control).
That said, I saw one on eBay as soon as I heard the news (checking to see how many were going to get listed all at once).It was only $30 + $10 for shipping... that one is over $100 now - so even a "fair" seller is likely to be accused of being deceitful just because the buyer didn't perform their due diligence.
I wouldn't call putting the info out there an attack on sellers as much as sharing information & good news (though one must admit the "take that!" part clouds the intention). Odds are if someone didn't do a quick google to begin with, they wouldn't see it on wiki, anyway.
-
-
M 121 wrote: I wouldn't go so far as to call it "deceitful" unless the seller is intentionally giving deceptive information.
I would characterize asking for a price that you don't expect any informed party to accept as intentionally deceptive: it's a calculated move designed to give a false impression of your estimation of the item's value.
If people just happen to bid it up that high, that's another matter.
This is rapidly departing the topic, though.
-
Bosco Rooty
United States
St. Clair Shores
Michigan
-
Quote: All the economic theories saying that "open markets" are good things assume that consumers have access to accurate information about goods. Someone who is disseminating accurate information relevant to purchasing decisions is making the market more "open," not less.
Selling something at an inflated price to someone who doesn't realize what alternatives are available is a deceitful practice that relies on market failure.
I'd say the failure is yours, since an open market also places the responsibility for knowing about those alternatives squarely on the buyer.
There is no mandate in an open market that says a consumer has to be made aware of alternatives. It's up to them to make themselves aware. An informed consumer is a smart consumer, yes, however it's not the sellers job to make them so.
It's the socialist mindeset that assumes consumers are idiots who can't do their homework, therefore needing constant protection. A free market believes just the opposite.
It may not be nice to sell Betrayal at an inflate price, knowing full well that in a year it will come down substantially, but if a buyer is willing to pay that, it's his problem.
The lesson is simple, and as old as the hills: don't buy something expensive unless you're sure it's worth the asking price.
-
Jeff Schultz
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
-
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!
I am so excited to hear this. This will also make my wife's day. She loves this game. I am going to put on my thinking cap and see if I can come up with any haunts.
One of my all time favourites is when everyone has an evil doppelganger enter the house.
-
Dave
Canada
Kinda SW of Hamilton
Ontario
-
Just thought I would post an idea for a haunt for anyone willing to expand and think it through. I haven't had the opportunity to get my hands on BaHotH so I am not sure what haunts exist already. (Maybe someone has even already thought of it.)
But, going along with the idea of having more than one traitor. What about a haunt that is centered around a spreading virus (zombification, insanity sickness or plain virus ala the movie Cabin Fever). So the idea would be that one player gets infected initially and through contact battles with other players you would see if additional players also get infected. In that sense the traitor could gain allies. The other players would be on a quest to find and put a stop to the virus (collecting items) and fend off the other infected players until they do so (even cure other players if they have the right items in battle). I can see the game being very tense as the non-infected players dwindle and it gets down to just a couple heroes.
So just some initial thoughts for anyone who has the mind of a haunt creator and who has more experience with the game.
-
Bruce Glassco
United States
Charlottesville
Virginia
-
super_d wrote:
But, going along with the idea of having more than one traitor. What about a haunt that is centered around a spreading virus (zombification, insanity sickness or plain virus ala the movie Cabin Fever). So the idea would be that one player gets infected initially and through contact battles with other players you would see if additional players also get infected. In that sense the traitor could gain allies. The other players would be on a quest to find and put a stop to the virus (collecting items) and fend off the other infected players until they do so (even cure other players if they have the right items in battle). I can see the game being very tense as the non-infected players dwindle and it gets down to just a couple heroes.
So just some initial thoughts for anyone who has the mind of a haunt creator and who has more experience with the game.
One of my ideas was actually right along these lines. In fact, I had such a Haunt in the pre-AH version of the game, based on the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers (as you may have noticed, my taste in horror fiction tends more towards the black and white end of the spectrum). I'm trying to figure out a good way to update it into the current version. The tricky part is getting the infection to spread secretly, and also to give the players something to do while it's spreading.
My daughter is watching me and wants me to add an icon, so here goes: 
-
Robert Garlinghouse
United States
Lebanon
Oregon
-
" Revised and updated components (the Underground Lake goes underground once more)!"
I feel so Betrayed! 
-
-
boscorooty wrote: Quote: All the economic theories saying that "open markets" are good things assume that consumers have access to accurate information about goods. Someone who is disseminating accurate information relevant to purchasing decisions is making the market more "open," not less.
Selling something at an inflated price to someone who doesn't realize what alternatives are available is a deceitful practice that relies on market failure.
I'd say the failure is yours, since an open market also places the responsibility for knowing about those alternatives squarely on the buyer.
well not exactly. this whole argument started because one person was annoyed at the attempt by another person to spread this news of the upcoming reprint so that prices on the original print might return to "normal" levels. it is deceitful for a seller to try to deny buyers this information. and i think it is a common practice by large companies in the US to try and prohibit consumers knowledge of competing products and prices. i have personal experience with one large company that does this.
-
ackmondual
United States
Virginia
-
BruceGee wrote: super_d wrote:
But, going along with the idea of having more than one traitor. What about a haunt that is centered around a spreading virus (zombification, insanity sickness or plain virus ala the movie Cabin Fever). So the idea would be that one player gets infected initially and through contact battles with other players you would see if additional players also get infected. In that sense the traitor could gain allies. The other players would be on a quest to find and put a stop to the virus (collecting items) and fend off the other infected players until they do so (even cure other players if they have the right items in battle). I can see the game being very tense as the non-infected players dwindle and it gets down to just a couple heroes.
So just some initial thoughts for anyone who has the mind of a haunt creator and who has more experience with the game.
One of my ideas was actually right along these lines. In fact, I had such a Haunt in the pre-AH version of the game, based on the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers (as you may have noticed, my taste in horror fiction tends more towards the black and white end of the spectrum). I'm trying to figure out a good way to update it into the current version. The tricky part is getting the infection to spread secretly, and also to give the players something to do while it's spreading. My daughter is watching me and wants me to add an icon, so here goes:
Yeah, just saying "zombies" has given me some ideas as well. Ditto with "movies". Some variants in the lines of the Resident Evil series (movies or the games), Aliens, Alien Vs Predator (you win if both of them are killed, but need to influence it such that one doesn't get too strong and kill the other; or have 1 player play as each), the Borg from Star Trek..... they're relatively lame, but if something works, I'd say expand on it.
mayfield703 wrote: boscorooty wrote: Quote: All the economic theories saying that "open markets" are good things assume that consumers have access to accurate information about goods. Someone who is disseminating accurate information relevant to purchasing decisions is making the market more "open," not less.
Selling something at an inflated price to someone who doesn't realize what alternatives are available is a deceitful practice that relies on market failure.
I'd say the failure is yours, since an open market also places the responsibility for knowing about those alternatives squarely on the buyer. well not exactly. this whole argument started because one person was annoyed at the attempt by another person to spread this news of the upcoming reprint so that prices on the original print might return to "normal" levels. it is deceitful for a seller to try to deny buyers this information. and i think it is a common practice by large companies in the US to try and prohibit consumers knowledge of competing products and prices. i have personal experience with one large company that does this.
-
Dave
Canada
Kinda SW of Hamilton
Ontario
-
BruceGee wrote: super_d wrote:
But, going along with the idea of having more than one traitor. What about a haunt that is centered around a spreading virus (zombification, insanity sickness or plain virus ala the movie Cabin Fever). So the idea would be that one player gets infected initially and through contact battles with other players you would see if additional players also get infected. In that sense the traitor could gain allies. The other players would be on a quest to find and put a stop to the virus (collecting items) and fend off the other infected players until they do so (even cure other players if they have the right items in battle). I can see the game being very tense as the non-infected players dwindle and it gets down to just a couple heroes.
So just some initial thoughts for anyone who has the mind of a haunt creator and who has more experience with the game.
One of my ideas was actually right along these lines. In fact, I had such a Haunt in the pre-AH version of the game, based on the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers (as you may have noticed, my taste in horror fiction tends more towards the black and white end of the spectrum). I'm trying to figure out a good way to update it into the current version. The tricky part is getting the infection to spread secretly, and also to give the players something to do while it's spreading. My daughter is watching me and wants me to add an icon, so here goes:
Having the infection spread secretly does seem quite tricky. My initial thoughts were around an infection that is very much in plain sight so that players would know who is infected and may be actively trying to avoid the first infected. Once the infection hits I can picture players racing to find components of a cure. Once all components were found the goal would be to cure the infected (win condition for heroes) or be consumed by the virus themselves (win condition for the traitor). Heroes may need to coordinate and meet to combine found antidote components, if they get infected in the meantime maybe they drop their component in the room in which they were infected.
If you find a mechanism to spread the virus secretly maybe the other players can be searching in the meantime to find information/materials/"the source" to end the "alien" threat that is spreading through the house.
Or maybe they can be trying to secure the house so the infection cannot reach the outer world, victory could be finally igniting the house and burning the infected trapped inside. Tragic end but at least the world will be safe. lol.
I find the "who can you trust" idea intriguing.
-
-
BruceGee wrote: The tricky part is getting the infection to spread secretly, and also to give the players something to do while it's spreading.
This is an interesting idea, and I like it, but my concern is thus: I don't know how much consultation is supposed to be going on, but the heroes in my group's games always discuss everything as they go along. It would be pretty obvious if one person suddenly changed their objectives, unless the objectives would be similar enough that everyone wouldn't notice?
One thing my group has always looked for is a haunt with more than one starting traitor. It makes logical sense that two people could betray four others (or even three!), and adjusting requirements for winning might not be too bad. The team of traitors would have to do more, in the same way the heroes have to do more or less depending on the number of them playing. My friends and I always liked this idea because while the point of the game is "betraying" (and I'm adding this disclaimer even though someone will probably quote me out of context anyways), the one versus five is less fun for the one than it is for the five. Giving the traitor a person to consult with might add an interesting aspect to some haunts. Just a thought 
-
-
Having 2 starting traitors might do odd things to a 3-player game. Not that 3-player games work tremendously well as-is, but if the game claims to support 3 players, you have to consider it in the design.
Also, I disagree about 1v5 being more fun for the five. People in my games usually prefer playing the traitor.
I can imagine several possible mechanics for someone being "infected" without even that player knowing it. You could have the traitor secretly keep track of the fact that the rolls that player makes "don't count", for example. Or you could publicly keep track of infections for all possible initial carriers (use a different token type for each player, place a token by each character who would be infected if that player was the original carrier), then discover at the end (or mid-way through) which one of them is "real."
However, as long as all of the players are acting like they're on the same team, you run the risk of the mechanics being very easy to manipulate; for example, enforcing a quarantine by making sure no 2 players are ever in the same room, or guarding against a compromised player by making sure that at least 2 players make each required roll. You'd somehow have to set up the scenario so that the players can't just "solve" the game systematically, but you also don't want it to come down to pure luck/guessing, and that balance may be difficult to achieve.
-
Ben Taylor
United States
Camino
California
-
I would also like to be able to play the game with more players. I've had times where there were 8 or more people who wanted to play. More character selection and either plastic monsters or pictures on the cardboard pieces would also be nice.
If you made expansions for this game I would buy them.
-
Eddie the Cranky Monkey
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
-
ixian wrote: It's a bit of a joke that a company like Hasbro make no mention/forecast that a product may or may not be reprinted until it happens.
You seem to be defining the acceptable window for timing an announcement solely in how it relates to your purchasing decision on eBay.
Stop that. It's silly.
-
Brian
United States
California
-
apotheos wrote: ixian wrote: It's a bit of a joke that a company like Hasbro make no mention/forecast that a product may or may not be reprinted until it happens. You seem to be defining the acceptable window for timing an announcement solely in how it relates to your purchasing decision on eBay. Stop that. It's silly.
The actual announcement happened about 1 year before the actual reprinting...
Or maybe the complaint was that people who owned a sealed copy of the original weren't given advanced notice of the re-printing... not that that could actually happen in the real world...
-
Ryan Morgan
United States
Sanger
California
-
This is great news and I will happily buy a copy to go with my old one.
Also our group really liked the sphinx haunt from the group of custom haunts that came out a while back.
and
The underground lake is a top floor tile. the characters are looking into a whole in the floor.
-
-
Antistone wrote: J.L.Robert wrote: Really, if someone wants to sell a game in anticipation of a reprint, why take money out of that person's hands? Some people might actually NEED that cash for food, rent, etc. because of hard times.
This is just like people bitching about others selling Dominion promos for profit...they've found a market. Why should some non-party try to police the open market? WTF? All the economic theories saying that "open markets" are good things assume that consumers have access to accurate information about goods. Someone who is disseminating accurate information relevant to purchasing decisions is making the market more "open," not less. Selling something at an inflated price to someone who doesn't realize what alternatives are available is a deceitful practice that relies on market failure. And I don't see any particular reason that "taking money out of the hands" of the seller is worse than taking it from the buyer. You don't think that money gets created out of nowhere when you sell at a high price, do you? If you happen to be unlucky in this particular development, then sorry, but grow up. Updating Wikipedia to reflect the forthcoming second edition is a noble deed in the public interest, even if it happens to be inconvenient for you.
The reason open markets are successful is because people can make their own products and compete with others and let market forces directly influence the sale of goods and services. Lying about the quality of a product simply means that, when you are found out, people will no longer buy products from you. This means your business will eventually be ruined. It's that simple.
Selling something to someone without revealing their true price does not reflect a failure of the market, but a failure of the consumer to check for scams and competition. Having accurate information doesn't mean a thing. If someone purchases the product for $200, then person A no longer has that money to spend, but person B does. They'll put that money back into the economy in whatever method they desire, and the economy itself will actually be better off. Why? Well, because in order to ship that item to Person A, Person A has to pay shipping charges, Person B has to buy the box and tape and such. This means money for whatever company ships the product. The more this takes place, the more workers get hired, and so on and so forth ;p
However, odds are, the people who are willing to shell otu the cash to get the game are either A)Too wealthy to worry about it, B) Too impatient or C)Too foolish to look at wikipedia anyway.
-
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
-
Cactusgod wrote: Lying about the quality of a product simply means that, when you are found out, people will no longer buy products from you. This means your business will eventually be ruined. It's that simple.
Precisely why Bose and Monster Cable went out of business all those years ago. 
Oh wait.
-
Ron Laufer
United States
Millington
New Jersey
-
Another "Woohoo! That's awesome, and congrats!" from me.
And another "Please, some expansions too!" from me.
And another "What's the big deal about the Underground Lake?" (It's a freaking haunted house. There's a mystic elevator, the walls drip with blood, rooms move around, and monsters roam the halls. An underground lake in the attic is where you lose your suspension of disbelief? You go through a door off the balcony, and end up in an underground lake. It's creepy! what's the problem?)
-
Eric Ruhland
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
-
I am so stoked! It was all I could do to resist paying $150 for a nearly mint copy at my local game store. Sure glad I didn't. I can wait a year for this. I think. Can I? Maybe I'll go try and talk them down in price in light of this new information.
Congratulations and thanks for the heads up. Can't wait to get me a new copy. Also; expansions, expansions, expansions.
-
Brian Smith
United States
Perry Hall
Maryland
-
my thoughts:
1. if we cannot have painted miniatures, unpainted would be a good substitute; or simple colored pawns would be fine. I personally dislike cardboard standees, as they tend to get creased and destroyed in the moving of the box. Hasbro most likely has many games with generic colored pawns, so cost would be less of an issue.
2. I also agree that the sliders on the edge of the cards was gimmicky and difficult to use; they easily tore up the edges of the cards; some other form of tracking would be better.
3. I personally felt that there were far too many cardboard chits in the first edition; most of the tokens had no information on them, simply a name. (rat. skeleton, shadow, etc.) the great number of these made finding what you wanted difficult. this is the one issue that keeps me from playing the game more often. Some new scheme of these tokens would be a good change; if fewer counters were included, that would save on cost as well as making each haunt easier to set up. Maybe tokens that are marked with generic titles; artifact, monster, goal, etc. the haunt books could describe what the tokens are in that particular haunt; you need to consult these books for the capabilities anyway, so the additional bookkeeping is minimal.
these are minor issues with the components, however; there are many ways to resolve these. the basic game system works well, and little needs to be changed in the game play. The simple alterations to the rules already mentioned help a lot. with the changes you have already said, this game can be a real favorite. the game is simple and atmospheric enough to be popular with many people; everyone I have ever played this with has had a great time.
-
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
-
I think that would seriously hurt the game, not help it.
"Hey _player_, do you have an _item_ so that we can kill the _monster_? Remember last game, where you found an _item_, when we actually needed an _item_ Wasn't that fun?  "
I'd like to see them go the other way, no more generic text on items, use photos or drawings instead. Rats should look like rats, slime should look like slime, etc.
-
|
|
|
Posted Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:02 pm
