Recently I’ve seen and participated in some interesting discussions about eco-friendly components in tabletop games. One of the overarching topics in these conversations is the perception that some eco-friendly components offer a strictly worse user experience than their less environmentally sustainable equivalents.
Perception is inherently critical to the user experience, but before I discuss it, let’s start with some important facts:
Some Important Facts
- There’s nothing environmentally sustainable about mass-manufacturing games (or any product). There’s so much energy, machinery, and waste that goes into producing anything, especially mass production.
- Renewable inputs and biodegradable outputs are the key to publishers minimizing the damage we do (as well as literally making smaller games).
- Publishers understand that when someone buys a game, the goal of that purchase isn’t to save the environment. The goal is to play a great game. We also know that a significant number of people appreciate publisher efforts to do less harm to the environment (over 90% of people, according to our 2022 survey).
- Eco-friendly components cost more to make; plastic is cheap and easy. Eco-friendly components are used far less, and thus they are far more expensive to use (this is economics). This doesn’t mean publishers are increasing the consumer price as a result (I can only speak for Stonemaier Games: When we increase our costs to include eco-friendly components, we do not increase the consumer price.)
- There is a difference between components that are actively used (like fancy miniatures) instead of immediately being thrown away (like shrinkwrap). I still don’t love components sourced from non-renewable resources, though. Also, it’s likely that over many decades, most plastic components will eventually end up in the trash, where they’ll remain for hundreds of years. I don’t know about you, but I don’t have a single game in my collection that is over 40 years old, much less the 500 years it can take plastic to decompose.
Perception and User Experience
At Stonemaier Games we try to provide a great user experience while minimizing our long-term impact on this amazing planet. We’re always juggling both of those goals, whether it’s for a new game or a reprint of an existing game. Sometimes plastic components (miniatures and detailed inserts) are critical to the user experience; sometimes they’re not.
For example, in our upcoming game Wyrmspan, we included 55 wooden dragon eggs (7 different combinations of colors). These are inspired by Wingspan’s bird eggs, which were originally plastic but later changed to wood. If we hadn’t switched to wood for Wingspan, we would not have known that the speckled eggs look MUCH better in wood than plastic (the speckles are larger and more varied).
At the same time, eggs tend to roll around on the table, so we need to give players a way to contain them. We considered using the sugarcane pulp trays found in Wingspan, but they don’t have a lid, so you still need to store the eggs in a plastic bag. Instead, we went with the same type of lidded plastic containers we created for Libertalia: Winds of Galecrest. Easier for setup, storage, cleanup, and gameplay (the lids function as an extra tray during the game).
Here are some eco-friendly examples that are perceived poorly by some consumers:
Wingspan’s sugarcane pulp card tray: The card tray and lid, which were previously plastic, were recreated at significant expense using unbleached sugarcane bagasse, which is the dry pulpy fibrous material that remains after crushing sugarcane or sorghum stalks to extract their juice. The material is recyclable and even more sustainable than pulp from trees; it’s also more expensive to use on an ongoing basis. However, the original colorful plastic card tray and lid were more aesthetically pleasing than the sugarcane version.- Stickers on game boxes: Instead of shrinkwrap, some companies have started using stickers on the exterior of game boxes. But stickers leave residue when removed and don’t protect the box. I loathe shrinkwrap, and I want to stop using it. But exterior shrinkwrap actually does a good job of protecting games for a long time (not just from scratches, but also moisture). There’s also the option to paper-wrap games instead of shrinkwrap, but most manufacturers haven’t invested in a machine that automates this process—if you see paper-wrapped game, most likely a person has wrapped it by hand.
- Biodegradable plastic bags: There are different types of biodegradable plastic bags (typically sourced from corn), and some are even compostable. However, we’ve found that these bags tend to be much less durable and much easier to tear, rendering them useless.
- Wooden dice: The heft of plastic dice is often valued over that of wooden dice, it’s much easier to ensure perfect balance on plastic dice.
Inserts
Inserts are one of the most nuanced components in terms of plastic use, as each game has different needs. On one end of the spectrum are the beautiful, detailed, inserts from Game Trayz (like in Euphoria) that use a lot of plastic–they aid significantly with setup and cleanup. On the other end are simple cardboard inserts like in Earthborne Rangers–it does the job of sorting the hundreds of cards included in the game without any further frills.
There are also many games that don’t provide any insert at all. This leaves more space in the box for expansions, and there’s nothing extra for players to throw away. Plus, there are plenty of gamers who will seek out a third-party insert whether or not the publisher has included an insert in the game. There was a huge market for third-party Wingspan inserts well before we switched to the sugarcane pulp card tray. Tapestry comes with a detailed plastic insert, yet people sometimes still buy third-party inserts for it instead (including one we officially released with Folded Space after the expansions were complete).
There’s no insert in Wyrmspan, just the 2 lidded plastic containers. But there are detailed plastic inserts and trays in Expeditions and Apiary, as I considered them integral to the user experience (i.e., sorting the different tile types in Apiary and protecting the mechs in Expeditions). We make these decisions on a per-game basis.
I’d like to get more creative with the solutions we offer players to sort, store, and display components. Deckboxes for cards, trays with sleeves, and boxes-within-boxes (either with lids or tall enough that a lid isn’t necessary) are all options I’ve seen in games like Obsession, Trailblazers, and others.
Eco-Friendly Choices Publishers Can Make That Improve (or Don’t Impact) the User Experience
Despite the ongoing puzzle of reconciling a great user experience with environmental sustainability, there are some eco-friendly options publishers have at their disposal that have either a positive or neutral impact on the user experience. These are all options offered by our manufacturer, Panda.
- Paper-wrapped decks: Instead of shrink-wrapping decks of cards, wrap them in thin paper. This is often easier to open than shrinkwrap.
- Use wood and cardboard components from FSC-certified sources: Forest Stewardship Council is an organization that examines the management practices of the world’s forests, ensuring that they are harvested in such a way that they grow back.
Don’t add bags: If your game has wooden tokens, most likely they will be sorted into a plastic bag before being transferred to the assembly line. In that way, the game includes plastic bags even if you don’t see them on the component list.- Cardboard box options: Most game and expansion boxes have microplastics in the protective coating—they are not recyclable. You can request that this coating not be used, which I think is an easy choice to make for expansion boxes that are highly likely to be recycled. There’s also the option to package expansions in recycled corrugated cardboard, as we did for the Tapestry revised civ pack. This even reduces the consumer price, as a shipping label can be applied directly to the box.
I recommend looking at HABA, Earthborne Games, Weird City Games, CMYK, CGE, and Devir as a few companies that have made bold choices regarding sustainably sourced (and recycled) wood and cardboard components, the removal of shrinkwrap, and/or smaller boxes (less material used).
I also recommend this article from The Generations Games.
***
I would love to hear your constructive thoughts and examples of eco-friendly game components/production that also provide a great user experience for you.
If you’d like to read our other articles on environmental sustainability in the game industry, please visit here.
If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.
59 Comments on “Eco-Friendly Components and a Great User Experience: Are Both Possible?”
Leave a Comment
If you ask a question about a specific card or ability, please type the exact text in your comment to help facilitate a speedy and precise answer.
Your comment may take a few minutes to publish. Antagonistic, rude, or degrading comments will be removed. Thank you.
I like the look and feel re-wood components used in Kutna Hora (terrific game btw!). https://blog.czechgames.com/2023/09/18/re-wood-a-new-material-for-board-game-components/
Thanks to having a multigenerational cottage, I’ve have or have had some pretty old games.
Nearly every board game I’ve bought I still own, so 40 years doesn’t seem very long – games should be built to last – so no cardboard tokens, and anything cardboard (including inserts) have to be high quality.
Here’s what I’ve got:
1920s: cribbage board
1930s:
Sorry,
Finance (a pre-cursor to Monopoly) – unfortunately, my mother threw this one out in a purge one year I was away. I’ve never seen another copy.
Monopoly – the rules back then allowed the player to take Chance as an option if they rolled 3.
L:ate 1940s/early 50s:
Risk – wooden tokens in plastic tuck boxes – my favourite edition.
Scrabble
1950s:
Pit
Late 1960s: Battleship
1975: Billionaire.
1981: Trivial Pursuit
1982: True Dough Mania (both Trudeaus have made for spendthrift PMs, so the objective of the game was to lose all your money)
1983: Poleconomy (Canadian edition, not Australian) – hard to believe this game has turned 40 already!
This is fantastically informative.
Tokens: I always prefer wooden tokens, over cardboard plastic or resin, even if it means using more (of my) imagination. I can see exceptions where it’s too integral to the game: e.g. the mechs of Scythe or the landmarks of Tapestry.
But cardboard tokens are basically total waste – feel is part of the pleasure of playing a physical game, so I always replace or substitute wooden tokens for cardboard. I recognize that market pressure to constrain retail prices may necessitate the use of cardboard tokens, but I will always grumble.
As for inserts, it’s been at least 30 years since I’ve seen one in a new game I’ve liked. I don’t understand the industry’s move from cardboard inserts to plastic.
What I really don’t care for is the idea that I’m going to spend time opening, filling/emptying and closing 5 to 50 ziploc bags. And then putting those bags within hollows of a plastic insert, which is designed around those ziploc bags, and doesn’t itself help with containment if you eschew the ziploc bags. This is just bad all around.
So forget about it – I simply refuse. Upon buying a game, I invariably either add tuck boxes, a plastic token tray with a lid, or a 3rd party insert. For inserts, I prefer wood over MDF or foam, and I’m happy to trade setup/teardown time with ziplocs in favour of staining, painting and clearcoating plywood. I recognize I’m in a minority.
Yes, I did mention plastic token tray is better than the default plastic insert. – because it actually contains, and I can put a lid on 24 items at once, not use 24 ziploc bags.
So my message is: get rid of ziploc bags. Design the box innards for containment and speed of setup/teardown.
I loathe, loathe, loathe boxes “sealed” with stickers. The main offender I can think of is the Disney Villainous series. You can slice the stickers ok, but leave behind unattached scraps, or you can try to super carefully peel them off, either leaving a residue behind, or either tearing the box, or in our case, peeling the outermost printed layer of the box, leaving behind a bit of a bubble. Super obnoxious.
If a game is coming straight from a publisher or manufacturer, I think a paper wrap/sleeve is fine, as long as the shipping box is well managed. But if I buy a game from Amazon or a FLGS, I want it wrapped in plastic, so I know no water, dust, or other people have gotten into it.
I have one game that’s more than 40 years old: Monopoly, with the metal pieces. My copies of Risk and Axis and Allies are coming up on 30 years, both with plastic pieces.
I expect there to be a lively discussion about which child inherits my parent’s wooden Skittles board (already passed down once).
I do seek out 3D Printing projects for my most played games. I upgraded the Terraforming Mars mats from flat paperboard to something laminated and with ridges to contain the tokens. Games that have multiple card decks will usually get a deck holder that keeps them separate. Unfortunately, my waste service isn’t able to compost the biodegradable-ish plastic I use (yet).
The indefatigable Phil Walker-Harding’s own game company, Joey Games has three games in its stable to date. They’re all great, and the only plastic that I see in them is the little stickers to hold the lids shut.
Scribbly Gum in particular is a gem. This is what they say about their environmental commitment.
“PLANET
We integrate care for the planet into all our decision making: game design, manufacturing and supply chain partnerships. We are taking every step possible to reduce our negative impact on the environment
Our games are manufactured using 100% renewable electricity.
We use sustainably managed materials – FSc certified paper, cardboard and wood for all game components and packaging.
We do not use plastic shrink wrap on our boxes or cards to avoid unnecessary packaging waste.
Our sea freight emissions are calculated and offset via Climate Active, and our other shipping emissions via EcoCart.
We avoid unnecessary game components, offer replacement parts and provide additional content to print at home. We also help customers swap their used games through our online community. All of this prolongs the life of each product and reduces waste.
We are part of 1% For The Planet, donating 1% of our profits to support climate action in Australia through Seed Mob.
During 2022-2024 we will measure our carbon footprint and waste in order to set science-based climate and waste reduction goals.”
I love that! I’m particularly impressed that they found a manufacturer that uses 100% renewable electricity. Panda uses a decent amount of solar power, but not 100%.
People who enjoyed Wingspan might enjoy Busy Beaks, a game of Australian birds and which I’m trying to get my head around its engine construction and deconstruction mechanic.
Sorry for the double up reply, I thought I’d lost my first one.
Hi Jamey,
Thanks for this post and for opening this discussion.
It is one of my pet peeves as you probably know ;-)
I have been an advocate for this for a while and, to have this out of the way, I am biased too because I now work for the printer AGR in Spain. It is a company I actually stumbled across when trying to find a way to produce the games of the US companies I work for in a more economical way, sustainable way and with a smaller carbon footprint for our partners.
Think about it; the world is huge and the larger publishers, like yourself, can luckily provide language versions to their fans all over the world. But does it make sense to produce sustainable to then ship it halfway across the globe from China to Europe?
All change for the better is good, don’t get me wrong, but the thing I have been advocating for a while now is “print where you live.”
It leads to shorter and faster shipping times. Shipping is a huge part of the carbon footprint. So work smarter and co-produce where possible.
And I definitely agree, replacing existing products with sustainable ones are adding to the problem. But making conscious decisions about any purchase moving forward helps. This goes for every product, not just games.
Whenever I want to purchase something I need to think about where it will find a home in my house, will it get used, is it worth the cost per use? If there is no home for it and not enough expected use, it is a “no buy.”
Back to “print where you live” or co-produce between continents in the smartest way possible.
Instead of shipping containers full of goods all over the ocean, ship a few pallets with plastic components maybe? And produce and assemble the rest closer to the end user? If even that? The company I work for can produce everything. And in a sustainable way. (And, by being in Spain we run the factory on solar for a big part of the year :-) how cool/hot is that? )
We also think and struggle with the same things you mention here. The look, the feel, the expectations of the end user; the gamers.
Right now we are experimenting with recycled material to have that have the same feel as non recycled. For any component.
We also offer the sticker options if a publisher chooses this. Also the stickers and the glue are part of an ongoing development. At the moment we can use a coating for the boxes that will not damage them when placed on top of each other. So no damaged boxes, no shrink wrap, no damages from using recycled stickers. These “small” changes make me excited for the future, where we can keep producing kick ass quality games but in a sustainable way.
But it is not just the publisher and the printer who need to work on these changes. Also the end consumer needs to change their mindset.
On the amount of goods they want to purchase. And on sometimes allowing a product to cost a bit more in order to have a livable planet for future generations.
I appreciate your passion and information for reducing freight shipping. My biggest concern for multiple manufacturers is consistency. How do you work to ensure that every component, every card corner and size, every ink color, and every diecut is exactly the same?
I think the best way to do this is to do research up front. Find a supplier in China (you have; Panda) and ask for quotes and samples from suppliers in Europe. Figure out which parts make more sense to produce in China (On average most of the plastics because of mold costs for example) and which parts can be printed and assembled in Europe. Find a great European partner to work with (I can recommend one ;-) ) Then, moving forward, instead of one printer you now have two that can work together.
Have printers not be competitors but colleagues.
At the moment we (publishers/consumers) are looking into this, and the cost of things too of course. It makes sense. But prepare now for a future where (for sure I think) there will be a big eco tax on goods that are being produced “too far from home.” We already see that on a few things. This will only grow.
So by finding two suppliers on two continents who can deliver the quality you want, it is just a matter of working with two instead of one.
The printer I work for has been known for color matching cards perfectly for example. And we can do tons more as well.
The point is, it starts with investigating now to find possible solutions for a better future.
Everything towards this (and you are already doing a lot and I can only assume this will be an ongoing search and improvement) can only make things better for everyone in the future.
Thanks for this great post, Jeremy. Particularly appreciated your acknowledgement here:
“There’s nothing environmentally sustainable about mass-manufacturing games (or any product)”
I’ve always been aggravated by individuals that choose to replace already purchased products with so called eco-friendly versions, failing to account for the fact that all products come at an environmental cost and, as far as I can tell, really just looking for the fashion statement of using a more moral looking product.
How do you feel about movements to introduce carbon footprint labelling on products, and would you be interested in seeing that in the board game industry?
I hear what you’re saying, but if someone is actually backing up words with actions, I try not to dismiss it as optics or a fashion statement and instead look at the good they’re actually doing. As I mention in the post, this is about decreasing damage, and if we all did a better job of doing that, it might actually make a significant impact on the world.
As for carbon footprint labeling, I think it’s tricky if they’re tied to the ability to purchase carbon offsets instead of the company improving things they have control over.
My game collection includes Pit, Totopoly, Careers and a six player Buccaneer set all of which belonged to my father and his siblings. They are all well over 60 years old, possibly 70. The Pit cards are a bit worn though. We also have a 59 year old “Whot” deck, the Monopoly set is about that age (but I don’t think it likely that will be played again) Exploration and Blast Off are 57 years old, The Business Game was second hand when I bought it 53 years ago. In fact the vast majority of my collection are over well over 20 years old!
One possible alternative to shrink on the box is to use a sleeve – not the fancy, spot UV sprayed and probably non-recyclable ones – but simple heavy enough cardboard that can be recycled readily. Look at the “hidden” game as part of the unboxing moment!
For cards and their decks: (once the ridiculous shrink is off I use Terracycle to take care of that), why not simply put them in tuck boxes? Regular playing card decks are and shrunk as well but those decks are the front facing item whereas a game has a box that has the cards inside.
Few box inserts survive with me. I tried Folded Space once which was annoying enough but then I had maybe 20% sprue space left from the punch outs. What do I do with that? While FS is mostly recycle material, I feel like I’m at the end of the line…with disposal.
I use some tuck boxes but generally use plastic (I know) boxes that Drive Thru sells to hold cards – they lock and the cards do not get damaged. Tuck boxes seem on the side of flimsy and perhaps your bio-plastic could be formed for that purpose. I would certainly try them.
Not your wheelhouse, but my 18xx publishers could simply decide not to provide paper money (not a recycle use but a resource use) in a game. Provide a way to buy as an add-on.
Jim: The recyclable sleeve is something we’re currently exploring! I don’t have my hopes up about if it’ll work, but we’re testing it just in case.
Deckboxes are nice in that you can continue to use them. They are significantly more expensive than think wrapping paper, though, and they need to be assembled before cards are placed inside (their printing/assembly is separate from card printing, hence why most cards that come in deckboxes are in shrinkwrap).
Thank you for writing this. Very interesting to read!
Another great alternative to sugar cane pulp for trays is kelp and agar plasticity seaweed products. You can’t get them wet though. https://seaweedpackaging.com/
Thanks for sharing this!
I have Daybreak and really like the fact that it is eco friendly. My only concern is the cards are not plastic coated so I am worried about them getting ruined. Other than that it is a well done game. I assume they use eco friendly inks since the colors are not as vibrant as a regular game as well but I can live with that too.
I think most inks commonly used today are eco-friendly soy-based inks, so Daybreak may just have a muted palate unrelated to the ink. As for the cards, that’s interesting–I’m not aware of any of our cards having a plastic coating, and they’re quite durable, but that could be ignorance on my part.
The first time I opened paper-wrapped cards (sorry, can’t remember which game), I was so angry at literally every game I’ve played in the past twelve years. Paper wrapped is sooooo much easier to open and looks better too. For something that is intended to be disposable, I’m shocked this isn’t the standard. As an aside, I’m not a big fan of cardboard tuck boxes, like those used in Daybreak – cards always get stuck on their way into the box.
In any case, thank you for keeping an eye on sustainability and doing what you can to improve the environmental impact of your products!
Isn’t paper wrapping awesome?! I love it. And that’s a good point about tuckboxes.
A little “trick” on tucboxes I have used on regualr playing cards ever since I was a kid.
1) I put one card against the inside of the box where the lid on the other side comes in, covering the little flap with it. Then add the rest.
2) If the box is fairly tight I do it on both sides, make some sort of V shape with two cards (touching at the bottom on the short sides)
This creates some sort of funnel and the rest of the cards then slide in easily and push the first two cards to their respective walls.
Maybe this helps?
I think it’s great that you continue to bring up and wrestle with this issue. I was just thinking about it myself as I set up Expeditions last night and ripped one of those silly plastic bags right in half just trying to open it. I really hate those things, both in looks and functionality (they’re mostly opaque, which is also not ideal for finding what you need) and they seem to me to be the only subpar part of Stonemaier’s otherwise incredible production values. But then I was thinking, if I’m getting upset about such a ridiculously small sacrifice on my end as a consumer, do I really care about protecting the planet as much as I would say I do? But then also, if I just replace all those bags immediately with regular plastic bags, does that defeat the purpose? Or is it a net positive since I already have dozens of leftovers from other games? Anyway, good stuff to think about, and thanks for starting the conversation!
I appreciate you questioning these things, Ben!
You mentioned Obsession, and I think they are on to something with the boxes. I really like the small lidded boxes for each house you can play because they keep a player’s starting cards, workers, and any additional items granted by the house’s power together. The bigger boxes could have benefited from some sort of organizational diagram on the outside of the box, like Wingspan, to know what to put in each, as well as dividers or something of that sort to organize the various differently shaped cards. But the concept largely works, and some of the boxes aid in set up.
Your point on all plastic outliving the game is well taken, but on a much shorter horizon, I see value in reusable components (like several other posters have mentioned and how you reuse coins in Sythe / Expeditions). The GameCrafter ran a contest a while back to showcase a new spiral bound book format. The restrictions were to make a game that used two pages of that book and a standardized set of components (to be used with all the games contained in the book — https://www.thegamecrafter.com/contests/community-anthology-challenge — ) This sort of design concept could be expanded to a broad range of games: A standard component set with minimal additions per unique game. Think of “18 card games”, the 52 card deck, the checker/chess board, etc. There is a lot of potential in staying within specific limits but creating a memorable gaming experience. Once the player has the ‘core’ set of components, new games might just be the publication of a rule set and a few unique components depending on the pricing model, the margins for the creator might actually be higher – not sure… It would be an interesting challenge, don’t you think?
Perhaps! The metal coins are a good example, as are the fancy resources that Top Shelf Gamer makes–they can be used in a variety of games.
Could you share some thoughts on the magnetic-lid box that comes in Charterstone? How eco-friendly are such things? How much more expensive are they than the player tuckboxes? I assume it’s not economically feasible to use these in more games.
They are quite a bit more expensive than not using magnets. Given that magnets are made from non-renewable resources, I don’t think they’re particularly eco-friendly.
I have often wondered whether certain components could be used over multiple games. I now have all the eggs from the base game of Wingspan, the expansions, the speckled eggs and the gold eggs… Do I need more eggs? Probably not.
I know Garphill Games re-uses a lot of components in their series like the West Kingdom series. They could be more intentional in creating a way to re-use these components across different games, similar to their approach with the metal coins: If you want the metal coins, you can use them in all the three games in the series, similar to how the metal coins from Scythe are used in Expeditions as well.
I think particulary in series – but maybe across all games from a publisher – you can be more intentional to re-use the same metal coins, or other components across different games. (The coins could even be part of the publisher’s branding and have a SM logo on them)
If certain components are standardized – this means versions of games (and certainly expansions) can be sold that do not need to include all the common components and extra care can be given to the ones that make the game unique.
Having said that – I love a lot of components that SM produces, such as the buildings in Tapestry. I have to say I was a bit disappointed that the last expansion did not include more buildings. But one of my favourite games from last year was Forest Shuffle, which included beautiful art but was produced fully eco-friendly.
Great article, I am hoping to use the envelope idea for Cat Power (Steam Power expansion)
That’s great!
Cool to see the plain cardboard box you did for the Tapestry expansion. I offered a similar recyclable box for the B-Movie Expansion to Roll Camera, and it was really well received. It was just a cardboard carton with the SKU and legal info on it, and a sheet of paper on top (held by the shrink wrap) that had the cover art, and on the back, a diagram for how to put all the expansion stuff in the base game. But I’d never seen it anywhere else before now!
I liked doing that enough that I think I’ll always do it in the future, at least for any expansion where the components fit in the base box. Seems like a no brainer!
That’s great! We’re doing the same (we started with Tapestry Fantasies & Futures earlier in 2023).
I appreciated your comment about the bio-degradable bags. Literally this morning my father and I destroyed 3 of them trying to get out pieces to Scythe. It’s not that I’m against the use of eco-friendly components (because I support them!) but it certainly is the one complaint that I have. Otherwise, I have loved the intentionality behind each product!!
I don’t mind receiving these – I have hundreds of spare baggies from other games, so I just replace them as needed.
I really appreciate ecofriendly components becoming more of a thing. I also appreciate the honest statement that producing something is pretty much never environmentally friendly. Overall an important discussion and I am curious to see how this shapes the boardgame industry in the upcoming years!
Interesting article! In my opinion the first priority should be to eliminate the single use plastic components – stuff you immediately throw away – shrink wrap, unnecessary bags, filler for empty spaces etc. With enough pressure from customers like you, your suppliers will make the necessary investments and find sustainable solutions (eg paper wrapping of boxes, paper-based padding and space fillers etc). I like that you experimented with compostable bags, but I was one of those who had issues with them (split seams). Have you investigated kraft paper envelopes / bags instead? They have plenty of strength and are recyclable. In Europe (I think not in the US yet) Amazon has switched entirely to Kraft paper bags instead of plastic bags. The paper can also be lightly coated for moisture barrier and still be recyclable.
You also make a good distinction between packaging for base games and expansions, which are most likely to be combined with the base game and thrown away. Also I’m not sure what share of expansions are sold online (where shelf appeal of the box is irrelevant) vs in brick and mortar retail where you need to make the product look attractive.
For me, the rest of the components are less critical – at least in my case they will be kept and reused for many years. Here, for me it is more important that they are functional and appealing with nice haptics.
I’m curious about the paper bags. Can they be sealed?
I’d agree that the “throwaway” plastic used in manufacturing is a key challenge to move past. When I got Floorplan, by Deep Water Games, and Canopy, by Weird City Games, I appreciated the paper bands they used around cards. The boxes are such that they don’t need much further organization that can’t be done by included card stock dividers. Both also had stickers to seal the boxes, and the kind they used left no residue. (This wouldn’t help with the problem of shippers sticking a postage label right on the main base game box, but it worked out in my case.) Lego is also mid-switch into using tearable paper bags for the pieces in their sets rather than the plastic ones they’ve used for years—again, just packaging and not something you keep. I am curious if there has been any ground made on coming up with a better shrink wrap that is biodegradable. It wouldn’t have to be super durable, but it would need to be clearer than the opaque bags.
Thanks for sharing those examples, Julie! I like the paper bands too. We’ve used them a bit, though their downside is that they can rub against the sides of cards–that’s why I’m really excited about the fully wrapped decks that Panda can now make.
One publisher I just thought of is Peaceable Kingdom, which makes children’s games. Several of their games are advertised as “100% Green”—“We print with soy-based inks on FSC Certified paper and include parts made with corn-based plastic.” The ones we own have held up well, though the envelope in one game looks a bit worn now. It closes with a slit you stick a tab through.
That’s great! I think most inks used by publishers are soy-based (at least, that’s what Panda uses). I’m intrigued by the corn-based plastic, though!
What do you think of the possibility of designing your game boxes around “universal” component trays (e.g. the ones in wymspan)? One of my favorite things about using gametrayz, or similar containers, is that if/when I decide to sell a game, I can reuse those same inserts on my new game instead of tossing them.
It is nice when we can reuse moulds for containers, like using Libertalia’s container mould in a different color in Libertalia. I think it varies game to game, but it’s certainly something we try to do when possible.
Also, is it possible to sell those trays on your webstore? I tried going directly to Panda but they said they only make products for full print runs of games.
It’s possible, but a huge logistical challenge. So no, the only ala carte trays and containers we offer on our webstore are those we currently sell there.
Hello Jamey! Is there any way I can acquire those wyrmspan trays for my wingspan? Wingspan’s sugarcane pulp trays are quite inefficient, I would have preferred if they didn’t put them in the box and lower the price of the game
Just as adding the trays did not increase the cost of the game, removing them would not decrease the price of the game.
You can buy plastic containers on our webstore: https://store.stonemaiergames.com/products/5-plastic-resource-containers?_pos=1&_sid=e28fc9dd9&_ss=r
And here: https://store.stonemaiergames.com/products/plastic-containers-for-candy-eggs?_pos=6&_sid=e28fc9dd9&_ss=r
Thanks Jamey! There is no way to buy the plastic card tray of wingspan older versions?
Not by itself, but one comes in Wingspan European, and another in the Nesting Box.
The wingspan European comes with a plastic card tray? I go right now to the store to buy it
Oh, sorry, I should clarify: Wingspan European now comes with the sugarcane pulp tray, but older versions of it (some of which are still in circulation) have the plastic tray. It’s only the Nesting Box that only has plastic trays.
Stonemaier sells clear plastic trays which might provide the functionality you’re looking for: https://store.stonemaiergames.com/products/5-plastic-resource-containers
I think shrink wrap on the box is a necessary evil and I’d rather have it than nothing… the cost of people requiring replacement boxes due to shipping damage should be taken into account. Long-term, automated paper wrap would be nice.
I loathe plastic-wrapped cards, though, and if they could be wrapped in anything else that’s easier to open and not as harmful to the environment then that’s a win all around – for user experience and the Earth
It’s a balancing act, for sure, and I love that the industry is trying new things and getting more data on what works and what doesn’t. Not everything is going to be a home run, and that’s OK.
The sugarcane pulp trays may be “recyclable” (and I think biodegradable?), but not everything that is recyclable actually will get recycled. Cold cup lids for example have the recyclable symbol but I found out my city advises to throw them in the waste anyway. I assume there is a worker at the recycling facility and a lot of what we toss into the blue bin ends up in the dump anyway. I think the term is called “wishcycling” and I am sure I have been guilty of it. Individual cities could innovate and step up their recycling programs and use the latest technology, but that requires higher taxes.
So what happens to board games that reach the end of their life? I’d love to hear from real people who have thrown away board games, perhaps a survey? I am guessing not too many people go through the components and sort them into trash, recycling, and composting; and if they do, are they actually getting it right? If I am throwing away a cardboard box it goes into the blue bin — whether it has microplastics in the lid or not (how would I know)?