Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok, so I see people all the time throwing "this won't get made if we don't fund it" as their reason for funding a KS. However, when it comes to board games or miniatures, I personally don't think that is true. If Davinci hopped on KS and asked for money to fund his painting of the Mona Lisa, that would be giving money to see a project bring something to fruition. Another example: a project asking for money to buy coats for Dickensian era matchstick girls to keep them warm during English winters. You'd send money so that someone could purchase coats, so in essence you're donating money for a feeling of helping someone else.

A business, whether Mantic, or CMON or Hawk Wargames, isn't a "you're helping us get something made that wouldn't otherwise happen" example though. KS is a risk free avenue of raising capital, releasing them from going through the effort of making a business plan and seeking a loan which requires them to pay interest. I see a lot of people saying that KS is an interest free loan, but it isn't. KS allows a company to both remove the risk of loans and interest accrual while also reducing the cost of their product, exponentially increasing their profit margin while wiping out their break even point. In example:

Company A says they want to make a starter set, and sets their goal at $100,000, with their starter set costing $80 in the KS. They raise $500,000, offering 3 more army groups for $40 as add-ons, while giving every backer 12 free sprues over the course of the KS. So, off the top of the $500,000 they pay 10% to KS and fees, then another 10% set aside for taxes, leaving $400,000. They spend $100,000 to make molds for the starter set and all the type setting for the rulebook. Let's pretend they spend another $150,000 making molds for their other army groups, leaving a remainder of $150,000 to produce product to fulfill their KS. An injection molded sprue costs between 10 cents and 25 cents to produce when you talk about printing 10,000 or more, but let's pretend it's $1. Most starter sets have between 4 and 6 sprues per box, and printed paper materials probably cost another $4 or so, so let's say our starter box costs $10 to physically print at cost. Let's say they have to deliver 3000 to backers, so that costs $30,000, but they printed 10,000 overall. Let's say they sell 5,000 to retailers for $40, with a retail price of $80, netting them $30 per game or $150,000, with a stock of 2,000 starters in inventory. They then produce their army group boxes, with 4 sprues per box, so each box costs $4 to produce, they sell to retailers at $20 for a retail cost of $40. If they print 10,000 of each of the 3 offered army groups, they would cost $120,000 with a return of $16 per box, or $480,000 if they sold all 30,000 boxes.

What this illustrates is that KS removes the break even point for a company from the very beginning. Competency ranges from great to terrible in KS, as seen by all the discussion right here on Dakka Dakka. Having good connections in the business community changes pricing and materials and the quality of the end product, so my above example doesn't hold true for every company, but this is the very business model for established companies from the much reviled Games Workshop to Milton Bradley. GW brings some of the best HIPS to the market place, and commands a 55% cost to retailer, where a lot of smaller companies sell at 40-45% to retailer versus MSRP. Most companies have to recoup R&D costs, mold cutting, overhead, salaries and reserves to meet their break even point, usually defined by a certain amount of boxes or sets. KS removes the risk of a break even point for these companies, reducing costs to only the physical production cost, exponentially increasing profitability even before the product reaches market.

So I'm interested in what "value" means to everyone, as it changes from KS to KS. Value for me is how much I'm receiving in return for removing financial risk from a companies project, in relation to discount at retail and personally perceived value of physical objects received. It seems to vary by how much someone likes a company to how many cheap plastic figures they receive, while the angst increases in no discernible metric except when a company simply doesn't deliver. But I find it wildly enjoyable to see what fanboys crawl out of their caves on certain projects to tell everyone else what their perception of value should be.

So please, add your valuable discussion here, as I'd like to hear everyone's viewpoints.

 Salacious Greed wrote:

So I'm interested in what "value" means to everyone, as it changes from KS to KS.

For miniature and board games:

1. If it is legitimately something which won't exist without funding (which is a personal threshold and judgement) and I want it, then I pledge should I have reasonable assumption it will be completed.

2. For big fish who are using it as an interest-free pre-order. I want 30-40% discount to MSRP since often they sell to distributors for 45-65% off MSRP and have a solid profit stream. If you are going to cut out a distributor and FLGS and want interest free loan, then I want 30-40% off MSRP when all is said and done. (especially since often I can get the product virtually the same time as KS fullfillment from OLGS for 20% off)

3. Kickstarter Exclusives that I want which I can't get later... I care less about price, just getting stuff I like. If I want it and know it will be exclusive, then I will pay retail price in a KS for it.

For me, I expect KS to be a preorder, with full Consumer Law backing me. As I prepay significantly in advance, I expect considerable savings - wholesale price or better.

Just a few points I'd like to add...

KS is only *like* a loan, in that, to entice funding, the loanee has to give something to the loaner to compensate for the risk (including opportunity risk) of the money. For banks, this compensation is interest. For backers, this compensation is a discount from retail. But I'll agree that KS is not an actual loan, certainly from the perspective of the creator.

KS allows established businesses to release *more product*. So, while retail alone would allow the base game to be created, I don't think *all* the extras would have been released without crowdfunding. Also, by assuming less risk, the business, well, stays in business. But don't assume, of course, that "more stuff" and using KS as a lifeline is always a good thing. And, of course, a poorly managed crowdfunding project can kill the reputation of a company.

I'll add to nkelsch that, for miniatures vs. boardgames, it's almost impossible to find KS miniatures and terrain at the same discounts as boardgames at the OLGS, and certainly more difficult to reach a free shipping threshold with 30+ miniatures that you want and are on sale from an OLGS than three boardgames. So while it's not impossible for miniature companies to offer miniatures on their websites without crowdfunding, these miniatures are much more than I would like to pay. Crowdfunding allows me to get these miniatures are a much lower price.

As for value, I guess we could add the utility of the reward and its opportunity cost as being important in deciding to back the project. That is, I avoid boardgame-only, technology, product design, and entertainment projects, because retail (and its discounts) works fine for me -- and I already have enough of this stuff in my house. Particularly if I only need one of an item (eg. a wristwatch or coffee grinder), I'd like to see it up close in the store and read some reviews, rather than being given a pitch and a promise.

If it's going to get made anyway (like Mantic, Hawk, CMoN) I expect to get either;

1) Minimum 30+% off retail with a preferred 40%
2) 10-20% off retail of the product if Exclusive content is included in the actual purchase.

Without either of those it's not worth the upfront cost and the year long (generally minimum) investment of my money.

And while you can say the amounts they raise are allowing things to be done earlier than they would generally all products you see on a kickstarter were going to be made at some point. So if they want my money they have to make it worth it to me as a consumer.

Other items that genuinely might not get made without funding (some movies or silly invention) I don't really expect anything if I pledge but I figure I'd pay retail for it.

 Hulksmash wrote:
If it's going to get made anyway (like Mantic, Hawk, CMoN)

Hulk, I'm not in disagreement with you in general but wanted to ask about this point - what makes you think Mantic or Hawk could make things anyway?

What I mean is, we can look at the timeline it took Hawk for instance to get all their DzC starters in plastic, and the fact that their Resistance still isn't plastic. So, could they really afford to make the game anyway - or at least, make all 4 factions in plastic? They already are making more than they would have (space stations and launch assets in plastic).

So, maybe you mean, if the Game was going to be made anyway, not necessarily all the individual parts?

Obviously, if a company is just using Kickstarter as a way to get early preorders, folks rightfully expect a good discount (I just "preordered" Battletech on Kickstarter for only $25 for a full, possibly triple-A game). But a lot of things couldn't be made without it, or something like it. I am obviously a huge fan of Kickstarter, especially smallish projects, but I am just curious about that bar of "being made anyway" and what that means (there's a bit of grey in it, basically). Cheers

Oh, category-wise, I won't ever back software. That's a risk morass that swallows dollars for nothing good back. Consider how often AAA titles with Mega budgets suck and there's no way I'm ever fronting cash.

Entertainment / media is like software, so I leave that behind. Again, having bought tickets to movies that lots of smart people spent lots of time and Millions of dollars, I just can't back the shoestring version.

Design is interesting to me, as there are quite a few boutique items that I'd like, but the problem is I already get by just fine without them.

So that leaves games, which I've backed, but am backing away from.

Yeah, I do think software is one of the riskiest areas - I've only backed a few!

My second favorite category is art, and it's actually one of the things that has actually been the coolest to be a part of and to receive. I have quite a few pieces of art in our home from Kickstarter, and it's my wife's favorite, too

Design is, I have heard, actually the most popular category (gaming must be close right?). I have backed a lot of design projects too, but they seem a bit hit and miss... some incredible, some out of their depth (i.e. promising the world but in the end just offering something ordinary or even lackluster). I'm more cautious about them now, particularly for something "techy" - artistic design elements are much easier to know what you're getting in for

It is really semantics no matter how it is sliced. It is all about perception, marketing and each backer and even creator will have a different version on what they think it should be handled or what it means.

Short Answer: There are quite a few board games that won't see creation without funding. When we talk about companies that may not need the funding it really is a small amount: Mantic, CMoN, Hawk, Reaper, MegaCon Games, Stonemaier Games (any others I'm missing?). I don't think I can come up with a list of 10% of companies that wouldn't need KS to create the games, when you look at the large picture. There however isn't any real proof that the company could make it without Kickstarter either, it is all based on assumptions. Most people see company made $300K on Kickstarter and think that is successful. They didn't make that money though, it was used in creation, there is a profit window but it isn't as big as people think. Ultimately if a backer doesn't agree, they can always wait to retail, but despite it being a vocal topic, the majority of backers don't seem to agree as they are still backing.

Long Answer: There are 6,651 successfully funded games that breaks down into the following. There is another 13,562 Games that have not been funded. Granted I understand that isn't just board games, that is online games, tcgs and "send me to GenCon" or "Make my computer store" projects as well. I would probably guess that board and miniatures games makes up about 30-40% of the Gaming category. I'd have a better answer but I wasn't watching it closely in 2015 as I was in 2014.

Funded Breakdown
Less than $1000 Raised: 486
$1000 - $9999 Raised: 2596
$10,000 - $19,999 Raised: 1210
$20,000 - $99,9999 Raised: 1764
$100K - $999,999 Raised: 547
$1M+ Raised: 54

KS is much different now than it was a few years ago. It also isn't simply a risk free avenue for raising capital. That can be considered an aspect, but it is much more than that. The power in KS comes from the social, media networking advertising campaign in itself. It has grown so much that literally the coverage you can reach simply by creating a project vs creating a website/posting on facebook is huge in itself. It also is not risk free for backers or creators.

Pre-orders are essentially risk free. Kickstarter is definitely not risk free.

There are multiple answers to the value that will vary for each person as there isn't really a right or wrong way to answer.

For a creator the value just comes from the pure marketing and reach of potential backers that you can receive. It isn't simply about pre-orders but also building a starting customer base. Company A comes up with game idea. Traditional methods include development, testing, manufacturing and then advertising, demoing at a retail level and building a player base. Kickstarter saves a company in terms of advertising, a successful product will generate backers who hopefully do that selling and building through social and other networking.

Lisa Steenson from Gut Bustin' Games (she doesn't use Kickstarter) explained this process of social networking and marketing as "Gifting pregnant cats" to people. Essentially when you create an experience, demo, sell to an individual you are giving them a "Pregnant Cat". That cat has kittens, whom that player gives to other players spreading the game. Kickstarter is like that in essence, someone who backs a project can talk post a comment in three backed projects and potentially reach thousands of people. It bypasses the retail chain and builds that momentum that can propel a product. That doesn't mean just because it got to retail, it was successful. If a company can't generate more sales after KS, then essentially they don't really have a product, they have a fad.

Value for backers is different. There are essentially two types of of backers. Those that buy to sell, selling exclusives for a profit or sell at slightly below retail prices but still higher than KS pledge and make a profit. They may end up picking up the game later but sometimes waiting until retail can be better (for board games but not miniatures). Then there are those that either really like the game or want back for something to introduce more games and miniatures. If the campaign isn't ran well, takes too long or the backer becomes disenchanted they could easily flip-flop to the sell for profit group.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Oh, category-wise, I won't ever back software.

This is a fairly good strategy. Most software is KS vaporware. There are some that do make it and a couple I'd back but that is only because they were successful, they have a decent product vs someone who produced the minimum, then never grew it beyond that. Shadowrun/Battletech are examples of projects I backed that I enjoyed. Everything else although I like the ideas, I will wait until retail.

 RiTides wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
If it's going to get made anyway (like Mantic, Hawk, CMoN)

Hulk, I'm not in disagreement with you in general but wanted to ask about this point - what makes you think Mantic or Hawk could make things anyway?

What I mean is, we can look at the timeline it took Hawk for instance to get all their DzC starters in plastic, and the fact that their Resistance still isn't plastic. So, could they really afford to make the game anyway - or at least, make all 4 factions in plastic? They already are making more than they would have (space stations and launch assets in plastic).

So, maybe you mean, if the Game was going to be made anyway, not necessarily all the individual parts?

Obviously, if a company is just using Kickstarter as a way to get early preorders, folks rightfully expect a good discount (I just "preordered" Battletech on Kickstarter for only $25 for a full, possibly triple-A game). But a lot of things couldn't be made without it, or something like it. I am obviously a huge fan of Kickstarter, especially smallish projects, but I am just curious about that bar of "being made anyway" and what that means (there's a bit of grey in it, basically). Cheers

To me there is a difference between small unestablished companies creating a new product and kickstarter being their ability to secure financing to get it to the level retail requires and established companies that could secure business loans turning to kickstarter to avoid the work or loss of profit that comes from those loans.

Mantic slowly was making things. Kickstarter gave them the ability to get things out faster but that would have been made. I'd also argue that Kickstarter actually is hurting Mantic more than it's helping at this point because they've never pulled themselves out from behind the 8-ball. This isn't including the massive damage they have done to their retail relationships because of how they handle their kickstarters.

Hawk is a company that has been in business for years. Has regular releases, an excellent reputation, and is available in retailers across the US and I'm assuming Europe. They could have secured a business loan to release their product. They chose to go the kickstarter route. And they chose to start at a point that is more than retail even for their "sweetspot pledge". And while I don't agree with how they are handling their entire KS it's a success and if it hits the right spot will fall into my category of a worthwhile purchase while maintaining their links to retailers that Mantic no longer can.

CMoN is the closest to a straight pre-order but KS allows them to create things for the game that wouldn't likely be released in the form of their large number of exclusives. And this allows them to sell not much cheaper than retail and still be carried by local stores.

Basically my "line" for going to be made anyway generally has to do with established companies that could get that line of credit to create what they are looking to complete. The Hawks, Mantics, Mierce (now), and CMoN's to name a few. There is a weird grey zone with companies that wouldn't exist without kickstarter but that basically try to play kickstarter games and factor that into their models. I tend to avoid those like Prodos because the value generally isn't there and I don't trust them with my money However you've got the mostly upfront folks who try to create something larger that might have existed as boutiques but that don't play games like Dreamforge and Poots from Kingdom Death. Those types get my money even when I might not be getting 30-40% off because they are genuinely creating new product and taking a leap to a larger platform.

Not sure that makes sense but there it is. A look into my brain

 Dark Severance wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Oh, category-wise, I won't ever back software.

This is a fairly good strategy. Most software is KS vaporware. There are some that do make it and a couple I'd back but that is only because they were successful, they have a decent product vs someone who produced the minimum, then never grew it beyond that. Shadowrun/Battletech are examples of projects I backed that I enjoyed. Everything else although I like the ideas, I will wait until retail.

I spent over a decade doing software for the DoD, so I know how the sausage is made; that is why I won't back commercial software.

Actually the way the banks (and venture capital markets to a lesser extent) are working in the UK I would lay odds that Hawk could not get any significant sort of loan beyond that secured on machinery or their building

the individuals involved might well be able to get personal loans secured on their houses that they could then 'loan' to the business but I would not be surprised if they'd done that already to get DCZ into plastic to the extent they have.

As to KS if it's a small/new company offering something I want I'll pay retail prices on KS because I want to help it get made. I'm also happy for them to sell the stuff at cons or even at retail before I get mine as long as they ask if they need to keep the businesss afloat (as longs I trust them to deliver eventually)

If I'm interested but not desperate for stuff I'll want some sort of discount (most preferred) or something exclusive (as long as it's cool). If they want to sell at gencon or similar before I get mine, again I'm OK with that if they ask.

I guess 20% is my threshold here, the UK doesn't have online stores that discount anything like as deeply as some in the USA, if it did I think I'd be looking at numbers more like Hulksmash

To an extent the more risky the KS feels the more discount/extras I'd want to back too
(but only to an extent as giving away too much stuff is one of the major ways a KS will end up killing the company meaning you get nothing)

For campaigns where I know the stuff is going to be made (or indeed has been made) either because the company will fund any shortfall themselves (eg CMON) or because the campaign itself will be massive (eg CMON/Reaper) I want a huge discount or a bucket of minis.

I'll be grumpy if this sort of campaign screws up delivery and I don't get mine before it hits retail (unless they warn that it might happen on the KS itself, that's fair enough, I've been warned)

For much of this stuff, I assume that a successful KS then goes to the bank with cash in hand, asking for more money that they don't need...

edit - oops, replied in the wrong tab again :(

Thanks for the peek into your mind Hulk, I appreciate it (genuinely!)

I have been torn on things like this in the past, but for Dropfleet for instance the fact that it is not insanely discounted means I actually feel a little more confident that the game will catch on at retail, because they're not undercutting themselves so much. I actually wish (in hindsight, which is 20/20!) that Dreamforge hadn't had to discount as much as they did, since I think it hurt them being able to move the line forward afterwards. But then I was one of the folks wanting the 15mm walkers, so how can I talk!

It has been really interesting to see Kickstarter and the industries most connected to it (gaming being a primary one!) develop. I personally think it's good for all involved in a sense, but also that regulation will likely happen at some point once a kerfuffle big enough happens! But it has made things so much more accessible and resulted in a lot of awesome things being created... along with some terrible ones but those at least don't continue on after the fact (capitalism kicking in!) whereas the worthwhile projects/products can.

So, overall I think it's a really positive thing... but it is really great to hear people's mindsets on it and to see how it is being perceived over time.

For how small and new DFG was at the time of his KS launch, $89 was not a bad price. Sure, $99 + S&H would have been a smarter price point, but would it have sold as well as it did? Results are that DFG got a kick-ass kit on the market, and it got them from pouring individual resin into HIPS as a boutique plastics kit manufacturer. That's pretty awesome.

Kingdom Death was a somewhat similar position, but even more delayed. Still awesome, though.

I just backed a boardgame called Shadowstar Corsairs that absolutely would not have been made without Kickstarter.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
For how small and new DFG was at the time of his KS launch, $89 was not a bad price. Sure, $99 + S&H would have been a smarter price point, but would it have sold as well as it did? Results are that DFG got a kick-ass kit on the market, and it got them from pouring individual resin into HIPS as a boutique plastics kit manufacturer. That's pretty awesome.

Kingdom Death was a somewhat similar position, but even more delayed. Still awesome, though.

I agree that it is awesome!! I still have some of his resin kits, and they're sweet, but fully posable plastic is hard to top

I just think in hindsight, with how many and how complex of molds were needed for that campaign, the amount targeted wasn't high enough. But that's hindsight - I would totally back him again to make some new stuff, I think he's working on a lot behind the scenes!

Another thing to keep in mind, is that even when a game "would still be made anyway", using Kickstarter often allows that game to become something more than it would have been. Plastic tokens instead of cardboard, plastic models instead of resin, extra options and expansions instead of just the basic version, and so on.

If more people would step outside the games section of KS, they might realize just how spoiled they are with the discounts and freebies. Many nongaming projects don't even make their first stretch goal (if they even have them).

Isn't Kickstarter the thing where I pay someone to give me bad news for the next few years, if they bother to update at all?

I look at it as a pre-order.
KS helps a company to produce the right amount of stock. If a product is a hit, they will make enough. If its a bomb, they won't be sitting on thousands of unsold units.
Like ET the video game.

I definitely think it helps create things that wouldn't otherwise exist (or wouldn't exist in the same form).

That said, if I'm taking on the risk that it fails, and I'm paying potentially 2 years in advance, I want there to be something that compels me to hand over cash now. Usually a significant discount, freebies and/or exclusives.

I'm not buying something at near RRP 6+ months early.

What about projects that probably wont even hit retail, other than just for any stock that's left over after backers get their stuff? Some games made by small one-man companies only have a goal that is enought to cover the required amount for the printer to do a production run.

I think many games even from "established" companies would not see the light of the day without kickstarter, beyond the usual bla bla bla about loans and money, Kickstarter allows the companies to see if the project is actually worth doing and get an immediate feedback before a cent is spend.

Hawk is been talked a lot here, I am not sure they would be confident enough to commit to dropfleet without the response they got from KS having the money does not equal ability to make something.

For me if I want a project to be made I commit, though after the KS earlier years I am more eclectic, because badly handled projects even delivered can hurt a genre and I would like for example to see more creators thinking about non grimdark sci fi and having a lot of backers happy about sci fi projects will lure a few into this direction.

 RiTides wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
For how small and new DFG was at the time of his KS launch, $89 was not a bad price. Sure, $99 + S&H would have been a smarter price point, but would it have sold as well as it did? Results are that DFG got a kick-ass kit on the market, and it got them from pouring individual resin into HIPS as a boutique plastics kit manufacturer. That's pretty awesome.

Kingdom Death was a somewhat similar position, but even more delayed. Still awesome, though.

I agree that it is awesome!! I still have some of his resin kits, and they're sweet, but fully posable plastic is hard to top

I just think in hindsight, with how many and how complex of molds were needed for that campaign, the amount targeted wasn't high enough. But that's hindsight - I would totally back him again to make some new stuff, I think he's working on a lot behind the scenes!

I have both sizes of the Leviathans, and both flavors too, but I think that not having his own game, and opposition forces is what has hurt DFG. You're only going to sell so many if people are using your figures as "stand ins" for another game. Launching a 28mm and 15mm "mech" type game with some other types of mechs would go a long way to people getting into DFG more.

True, a lot of people have said they will wait for his rules before purchasing the minis so they would know what to buy and the best builds. It really didn't help DFG that 40k started a slow death spiral between the campaign funding and delivering, which must have hurt sales. Also, the Space Nazi look might have been a bit too niche...

I really hope he gets the Shadokesh to market (or KS) before GoA, Mantic, WGF, WWX or someone else comes to the market with hard plastic aliens that look good.

It is also worth noting that since the nineties banks have been steadily becoming a less viable means of financing small yield manufacture - which describes most of the gaming industry.

This has only been made worse by changes in the distribution network - fewer, larger distributors that look for a larger yield, as opposed to the myriad smaller distributors of the early to mid nineties - game companies that could entice Chessex into taking a risk on a card game about the Black Plague would have a much harder time convincing Alliance, which needs a much bigger return to justify the risk of stocking the game.

It is not only that Kickstarter is moving into a niche, it is also that conventional means of financing have receded.

The Auld Grump - the card game mentioned above is not a random example.

To be successful, as in a successful campaign that actually turns a profit, most companies have to come to KS with a product that is, for all intents and purposes, complete.

They may not have 'paid for production', but even then, deposits have likely already been paid.

It's a boondoggle. KS is a great marketing platform, and as a project creator you pay good money for the value it provides, but in the table top gaming niche it has essentially become a dog and pony show.

There are exceptions, of course, but for the most part KS is not being used to create table top games products that would 'not otherwise have existed', not anymore at any rate.

I think a lot of projects do deliver something that only Kickstarter could provide. Even if that's as simple as allowing them to invest future profits directly back into the business rather than servicing loan interest. You often get other material available immediately rather than a year or two down the line as an expansion, too.

Stretch goals offering massive amounts of additional miniatures are a turn off for me - even a warning that something's going to go wrong. If it's on a board game, it's a suggestion that the actual game will be substandard as it's only being used to shift low-quality plastic miniatures. Sadly, the Kickstarter market for miniature gaming projects has been so distorted that it's seen as the "right" way to do things.