A few days ago, Stonemaier Games announced a new title to mixed response. The game will be called Finspan and its design will build on Elizabeth Hargraves Wingspan. This time though the game will feature neither birds, nor dragons, but fish.

After first suggestions that this may have been a leaked April Fool’s post, some people posted guarded positive responses. But responses also included familiar criticism that these games were „cash grabs“. A criticism that has become so familiar, that even their rebuttals sound tired. With an air of smug sophistication people point out that the goal of a publisher is to make money, and they are free to do so any way they choose. Personally, I find these kinds of pro-neoliberal arguments more nauseating than convincing. But I still think that calling these games “cash grabs” misses the point. It seems to me that most players feel disappointed, when a publisher makes an announcement like this one. Accusing publishers of being greedy seems to stem from an inability to articulate this disappointment. “Businesses are greedy” is a familiar argument, but that does not make it the right one to reach for, to express your displeasure.

I asked myself why some game announcements are rejected so openly. Each year hundreds of new games get announced. Most of them barely generate a shrug, if they register at all. Is Finspan that different from other games? Is Stonemaier Games such an outlier in how it handles its game lines? (I am of course aware that there are people whose dislike of this publisher or its CEO make them predisposed to deal out particularly harsh criticism whenever possible. But I don’t plan to focus on those personal animosities here.)

My assumption is that many players are strongly drawn to new experiences. This is admittedly far from a hot take. Whenever a new game does its rounds among critics, a lack of innovation is often commented on. The fourth, fifth or twelfth reprint of a classic game rarely gets the same treatment. Yet we expect newly developed games to be novel, if not extraordinary. It’s these expectations that Finspan has yet to fulfill. There are not enough hints that Finspan is unique enough to justify the attention of (veteran) gamers.

I am reminded of reviews of Wyrmspan. the majority of which emphasised this point. This game isn’t just an uninspired theme swap from nature to fantasy. Many critics explicitly pointed out that Wyrmspan is different enough to stand alongside its big sister.

It would appear that the publisher intended to use the brand recognition of one of its successful titles (Wingspan) as a boost for their new game. Even if it did come at the cost of establishing the game’s own identity.

But it’s worth pointing out that Wingspan wasn’t hailed for its great sense of innovation. Its international success wasn’t impacted by that, though. Which suggests that veteran gamers might put a bigger emphasis on innovation than the majority of players do. What Wingspan excelled at – and I consider it the mark of any great game – was having a distinct character of its own. It was a game with its own identity, that made it easily distinguishable from other games. Its combination of theme, visuals and game flow resulted in a game that was entirely its own thing.

At this point, Finspan lacks distinction. Thematically and graphically the differences to its design siblings appear wholly superficial. It will be down to reviews to work out the finer points of what makes it unique. Finspan reads like a repeat that demands to be given as much attention as a brand new design.

To some extent the announcement is a compromise. The majority of board gamers need brand recognition to pick out Finspan from the glut of this year’s new releases. The narrow circle of veteran gamers on the other hand are disappointed, that this is a game that doesn’t seem to offer a noticeably different experience.

Only the meme lords and ladies are having fun, mocking the game with countless variations of its title. From a marketing perspective this is at least a partial success. People are talking about Finspan, even if the conversation has an aura of ridicule to it. Which – considering the people who put work into making the game a reality – seems unfair.

The degree of professionalism and online visibility of board games has brought opportunities and problems with it. Among them the question of how to announce a new game without the baggage of questionable word-of-mouth. It would appear Stonemaier Games has chosen to announce reviews and videos by prominent content creators to tackle this issue (scheduled to be released on January 17, 2025). I could image Finspan’s distinct identity will get special mention there.