I'm sure this will be a divisive topic, but why is a large, successful gaming company going all hat-in-hand on Kickstarter for a board game they could fund themselves? I will not be providing links or even calling the game by its name, but does anyone else think this is ridiculous? Or are there so many people who are blindly brand-loyal that they'll just wet their pants and throw money at PP for some KS exclusives and not care one bit that a large company is looking for a handout?
Let's be honest: KS is a preorder mechanic that allows large game companies to avoid the normal distribution channels, make a ton of money on a product upfront, and not risk a single dime of their own money.
Derisking development would seem the obvious reason. I don't personally agree with doing that at your customers expense.
Alternatively PP have traditionally had problems producing enough product which might be an indicator of strained cashflow/liquidity. A Kickstarter would obviously let them have the cash closer to their production costs.
Last one before bed: they sell allot of product through distributors and independents thus seeing allot of discounted sales. Kickstarter will give them (assuming success) a whole slew of cash with only KS fees deducted. Rather attractive margin-wise.
It being a board game maybe they wanted to test the waters before going in head first, even though they "should" be able to fund it them selves as a decent sized company. though i wouldn't know as im not their accountant.
They got $1.5 million a few years ago for their Warmachine video game through Kickstarter.
I think the "why" is pretty clear, as you stated its relatively risk free money.
I haven't paid attention to PP since abandoning Warmachine after the MKII rules came out, but when I used to play the company seemed intent on supporting B&M stores and developing communities through tournaments and LGS leagues.
Has that changed? If they are starting to pivot towards a GW model of distributing their products in a more direct manner (cutting out distributors/LGS) then that is sad and deserves derision.
But simply using Kickstarter doesn't seem like a faux pas to me, necessarily. Kickstarter is becoming so ubiquitous in the gaming industry that it's hard for me to fault PP for dipping their toe into the crowd sourcing pool when companies like CMON and Mantic do it regularly.
I don't care for the use of Kickstarter as pre-order service, one of many reasons I don't do any business with Mantic any longer.
That aside, other than speculation, we do not really know the financial situation of Privateer Press. Yeah, they're still in business, and releasing a lot of product, but are they making money hand over fist, scraping by, or somewhere in between?
It's easy for all the armchair CEO Dakka Know It Alls to criticize GW. As a publicly held company, their major financial data is a matter of public record. Not so for Privateer. Steve Jackson Games is one of the few private game companies I can think of that annually discuss financial and business matters/decisions in their annual report to stakeholders, most recent of which for 2015 was posted a few weeks ago. http://www.sjgames.com/general/stakeholders/ Company CEO Phil Reed was quite active in the forums discussing various questions, as well.
Personally, I hate established companies using it unless they're really going out on a limb with something that would otherwise be a large risk. KS wasn't built for preorders, it was built for little companies/projects to get off the ground.
(Edit: though darktraveller's point is still true that it's hardly a faux pas, despite being what I consider a poor practice)
the_Armyman wrote: Let's be honest: KS is a preorder mechanic that allows large game companies to avoid the normal distribution channels, make a ton of money on a product upfront, and not risk a single dime of their own money.
If the end result is companies offering games that they otherwise might not choose to take the risk on, I don't have a problem with that.
The video game thing was okish in my book because it was kinda a start up company and not something they have done before.
But they have done 4 level 7 games, Monsterpocalypse, Undercity and have 2 game systems out.....You can afford to make a board game guys.
A new product takes a big injection of cash, something which behaviour suggests PP don't just have lying around, as someone has already pointed out.
It's very likely that all their income is tied up in manufacturing inventory and developing their existing titles and that's exactly why they need the capital from somewhere else.
So, go to the bank, get a loan, become liable for the interest on that loan and have no guarantees that sales for the product will recoup that money, or go through KS which, to an established company like PP, carries almost no risk?
the_Armyman wrote: Let's be honest: KS is a preorder mechanic that allows large game companies to avoid the normal distribution channels, make a ton of money on a product upfront, and not risk a single dime of their own money.
If the end result is companies offering games that they otherwise might not choose to take the risk on, I don't have a problem with that.
Then, they must not have any real confidence in the product. It's not like it's something they've never done before. In fact, given that they have done this before and hasn't been particulalrly successful, it strikes me as even more of a glorified pre-order: make some quick cash on the few people interested, then if it flops, no skin off their teeth.
It's not innovative, it doesn't strenthen an existing product line, and other than the art and rules-writing, it'll probably be all overseas *cough*China*cough* production. I dunno, I just expected better of PP.
the_Armyman wrote: Then, they must not have any real confidence in the product. It's not like it's something they've never done before. In fact, given that they have done this before and hasn't been particulalrly successful, it strikes me as even more of a glorified pre-order: make some quick cash on the few people interested, then if it flops, no skin off their teeth.
The funny thing is that I get the same outcome from a slightly less negative viewpoint... If they've done this before and it hasn't been particularly successful, that's exactly why doing it this time through Kickstarter would be a good idea.
Lets them put out a fun little game for those who are interested in such things, without the risk of over-estimating demand and losing money on it when it doesn't sell as well as hoped.
So in the end, those customers who want such things get a pretty, niche board game that otherwise might have been deemed too risky to sink development budget into.
I'm honestly not seeing the issue here.
Here's another way of looking at it: If they hadn't used Kickstarter, but just listed it on their website for pre-order, would you still have a problem with it?
If not, and if you're just seeing Kickstarter as a glorified pre-order anyway... then what's the difference?
spiralingcadaver wrote: It competes people who are actually trying to do something beyond their means in a network of people with limited funds?
It's going to do that anyway.
If you've only got $50 to spend, and two different companies are offering $50 products at the same time, whether or not they're listed on the same website has no impact on how many of those releases you can afford to buy.
I have to agree with insaniak. "Here's this idea we have for a board game expansion, we're not sure how much money to put into development for this thing that's secondary to our business because we're not sure how much demand there is" is pretty much Kickstarter's niche.
It'd be nice if someone could convince Wyrd to do a Kickstarter project to expand Puppet Wars for the same reason--prove whether or not there's a demand for more of that particular product line.
At the end of the day, they're not your friends; they're running a business. In whatever they do, it's best to keep that in mind. The aim of any business is to make money, no matter how much of a "community" they build up around themselves. Running a Kickstarter seems to have quite a few advantages over a traditional business loan, so it's no surprise that established companies are using crowdfunding.
It might not be what Kickstarter was originally intended to be used for, but it must have been pretty obvious how things would go. It's not in Kickstarter's interest to change anything, because they're also wanting to be a successful business.
If it's a game you're interested in, and you think you'll still be interested in six to 12 months after the stated completion date, go for it. If not, wait until it hits the shops, or simply ignore it, as with any other product.
Give their previous experience with releasing boardgames and their success ratio, its quite logical they go for that rout.
Baring Level 7 Omega protocol that was sadly impacted by having "level 7" in its title (yes, level 7 escape was that bad) all their boardgames were bad and not well received by the boardgamers, Dicetower review was "would be awesome in the 1990s".
It will allow them to create a new boardgame and both judge the actual interest in it and maybe get some much needed feedback in the creation.
Yes, kickstarter is supposed to be one thing it has evolved to another thing but there is no going back, established companies will sue it and sometimes this is for the best, if they do so to test the waters on things they would not normally do and even more importantly if they manage to capitalize on the feedback they receive.
The only PP game outside of Warmahordes that was actually good and had a following was Monsterpocalypse, and they axed that one without even an explanation. They could be rebooting it but they'd rather keep pushing gak board games out the door.
The collectible nature might have hurt it, they tried to fix it by phasing it out but I am not sure if the dreamworks licence made it too risky to do anything with it.
Only if you view it as a pre order system. Regardless of how it's been treated, KS is intended as an investment system, it allows us all to be mini venture capitalists, and in that context it makes sense.
Personally I think there perhaps could be a stronger policy for creators to encourage them away from trips to find themselves when their project is already a year or more late and other BS we've been subjected to, but punishing creators for poor behaviour is near impossible when hurting them financially is realistically the only effective sanction, and doing so would most often damage the chances of successful completion.
Is the "Kickstarter is a pre-order" thing limited to the hobby games sector, or does it appear in other sectors too? The only non-gaming Kickstarter I backed was the Tank Girl project, so I don't know how it goes in the publishing, art, fashion, etc areas.
PsychoticStorm wrote: I am not sure Monsterpocalypse was doing well for them though.
At least the first series needed extra print runs, and the IP was worth something to Hollywood, which is way better than these knockoff board games they're doing now.
At this point I'd be happy with just an Excel table with stats for the missing Wave 6 that never was, so we could proxy and have 6 full factions.
The only reason I can see an established company going for Kickstarter over just posting a pre-order on their own store is that they want to abuse a loophole in KS or at least they want the possibility of abusing it if they need to down the line. Either way, it's not behavior that should be encouraged.
If it was a KS for a new Warmahordes faction, I could feel a bit of ire welling up at moving an established core business to KS. When it's little side-projects, then it makes perfect business sense depending on how it's run.
If they say "here's a game we thought about making, but we're not sure there's demand for it" and put up the actual production costs (maybe less what they're willing to invest as a company), then that's kind of exactly the point of the KS platform; to get things made that otherwise wouldn't be. As a business, wholly-new products are a huge risk, and one wrong gamble can set in motion the events to sink your company lock, stock and barrel (see also: THQ and the uDraw). This will no doubt be shocking information, but sometimes people are wrong and they think an idea is great and then it flops miserably. The reverse however is also true that someone has an *awesome* idea that they talk themselves out of and leave it behind to the detriment of all, even though we don't know it because it wasn't ever a thing. Using KS to gauge interest in an idea in this way is a perfectly sound business choice, and doesn't seem at-odds with the intent of the site.
However, if they're an established and reportedly successful business and they insist on playing the "normal" KS games of a transparently too-low funding goal and then adding things that were rather clearly always planned for the "final" product as stretch goals (e.g. - "we'll upgrade the paper tokens to cardboard!"), then yeah, I find it less acceptable. At that point it would appear to be solely trying to transfer all the risk to the backers while saving on the interest of traditional financing.
So, a rhetorical question here: what if Games Workshop had started a KS for its new Specialist Games Studios and wanted to produce a board game? Would that have been okay, too?
the_Armyman wrote: Let's be honest: KS is a preorder mechanic that allows large game companies to avoid the normal distribution channels, make a ton of money on a product upfront, and not risk a single dime of their own money.
If the end result is companies offering games that they otherwise might not choose to take the risk on, I don't have a problem with that.
Let's be honest - neither the banks nor the distributors work as a means of funding for new games, anymore.
The reason that KS has been so successful is that traditional means of lending have become less effective - and distributors have been proving less willing to take risks on new lines, even from established companies.
I approve of Privateer Press going the Kickstarter route.
The Auld Grump
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_Armyman wrote: So, a rhetorical question here: what if Games Workshop had started a KS for its new Specialist Games Studios and wanted to produce a board game? Would that have been okay, too?
Yes.
In fact, I rather hope that they go this route - gauging reaction could be the first step in actual market research.
Azreal13 wrote: Nothing to do with KS having much longer reach than the website of a company many KS supporters have never heard of, let alone visited, then?
That really depends on how many backers various projects get from people browsing KS at random vs. people hearing about a product from friends or a news outlet and going there. If it turns out people just browse KS everyday looking for new things to buy then you have a point, but my impression is that it is not the case.
My KS was clearly successful in large part due to KS internal traffic, and I'd certainly not say it's a frequent thing, but I back interesting looking KS projects I find by browsing.
the_Armyman wrote: So, a rhetorical question here: what if Games Workshop had started a KS for its new Specialist Games Studios and wanted to produce a board game? Would that have been okay, too?
That would be freaking Awesome , since it would allow them to accurately gauge how many to produce... Rather than the current arrangement, which results in stuff either selling out in preorder, or sitting on shelves for ever...
TheAuldGrump wrote:
The reason that KS has been so successful is that traditional means of lending have become less effective - and distributors have been proving less willing to take risks on new lines, even from established companies.
A healthy company doesn't borrow money. A healthy company does market research and has some skin in the game. The more the gaming industry chooses to skip the B&M in favor of pure profit, the less healthy the entire business ecosystem becomes. It's short-sighted and I think we're already starting to see the damage at the street level.
insaniak wrote:
the_Armyman wrote: So, a rhetorical question here: what if Games Workshop had started a KS for its new Specialist Games Studios and wanted to produce a board game? Would that have been okay, too?
That would be freaking Awesome , since it would allow them to accurately gauge how many to produce... Rather than the current arrangement, which results in stuff either selling out in preorder, or sitting on shelves for ever...
So, because GW is incompetent in gauging its customer's willingness to purchase a product, you'd rather reward them for taking the easy way out just so you have easier access to stuff? KS grants access to stuff I like, therefore it's okay. That's fine if that's how you feel. I just want to clarify.
TheAuldGrump wrote:
The reason that KS has been so successful is that traditional means of lending have become less effective - and distributors have been proving less willing to take risks on new lines, even from established companies.
A healthy company doesn't borrow money. A healthy company does market research and has some skin in the game. The more the gaming industry chooses to skip the B&M in favor of pure profit, the less healthy the entire business ecosystem becomes. It's short-sighted and I think we're already starting to see the damage at the street level.
You may want to do some basic research - because, right there?
You are just plain wrong.
It is a standard practice - and not just for gaming companies.
the_Armyman wrote: So, a rhetorical question here: what if Games Workshop had started a KS for its new Specialist Games Studios and wanted to produce a board game? Would that have been okay, too?
I'm pretty sure there are people attempting to bribe, cajole, entice or persuade Black Library to do just that. "Hello, yes, we would like to fund your project development for the next two years to bring this game back. We won't even mind if you ignore all of this marketing research we're leaving outside your doorway, either."
It's the fact that they're healthy that allows them to borrow money, and it's their ability to borrow money that allows them to develop new product.
Doing so is always a risk, though, regardless of how much market research you do... because sometimes, the conclusions reached through market research turn out to be wrong.
The more the gaming industry chooses to skip the B&M in favor of pure profit, the less healthy the entire business ecosystem becomes.
That might have been the case 10 years ago. But the simple fact is that this is the age of the internet and B&M stores, not just in gaming but retail in general, are rapidly becoming irrelevant. Businesses that find ways to adapt to that changing retail environment are the ones that will survive.
And Kickstarter is one of the tools that will let them do that.
I'll admit, when I saw that email this morning, I had a bad taste in my mouth. My gut told me that PP keeps wanting to get into board games, and knows that board game kickstarters (as opposed to minis) do fantastically well.
The problem is that people want good boardgames. I'd be excited for a titan legions boardgame. I like the IP, and I have some faith that they'll produce a quality product. I simply cannot get that excited about a PP boardgame.
So, because GW is incompetent in gauging its customer's willingness to purchase a product, you'd rather reward them for taking the easy way out just so you have easier access to stuff?
No, because GW is incompetent in gauging their customer's' willingness to purchase a product, I would rather see them adapt the way they produce new product in order to take advantage of a service that allows them to gauge their customers' willingness to purchase said product.
Yes, I know companies large and small borrow money. Yes, it appears on the surface to be normal and healthy. The fact is that a company that has little or no debt is better off than one that has debt, even with all the ridiculous financial tools and benefits that a generous tax code allows. PP is not Ford or Intel or Microsoft. They exist in a niche market and debt IS NOT a good thing. Contrary to what people pushing FICO scores tell you, it's better to have a FICO score of 0 than I is to have one that's 800+. I dislike having to explain that to intelligent people.
So, because GW is incompetent in gauging its customer's willingness to purchase a product, you'd rather reward them for taking the easy way out just so you have easier access to stuff?
No, because GW is incompetent in gauging their customer's' willingness to purchase a product, I would rather see them adapt the way they produce new product in order to take advantage of a service that allows them to gauge their customers' willingness to purchase said product.
Why not do it internally and intelligently rather than ask me to front capital for them?
the_Armyman wrote: Why not do it internally and intelligently rather than ask me to front capital for them?
Because people actually opening their wallets and throwing money at you is a more reliable gauge of customer interest than just asking people if they are interested.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_Armyman wrote: Yes, I know companies large and small borrow money. Yes, it appears on the surface to be normal and healthy. The fact is that a company that has little or no debt is better off than one that has debt, even with all the ridiculous financial tools and benefits that a generous tax code allows. PP is not Ford or Intel or Microsoft. They exist in a niche market and debt IS NOT a good thing. Contrary to what people pushing FICO scores tell you, it's better to have a FICO score of 0 than I is to have one that's 800+. I dislike having to explain that to intelligent people.
And BEHOLD!, here's this website that gives companies an extremely handy avenue for producing new stuff without having to go into debt...
the_Armyman wrote: Yes, I know companies large and small borrow money. Yes, it appears on the surface to be normal and healthy. The fact is that a company that has little or no debt is better off than one that has debt, even with all the ridiculous financial tools and benefits that a generous tax code allows. PP is not Ford or Intel or Microsoft. They exist in a niche market and debt IS NOT a good thing. Contrary to what people pushing FICO scores tell you, it's better to have a FICO score of 0 than I is to have one that's 800+. I dislike having to explain that to intelligent people.
And BEHOLD!, here's this website that gives companies an extremely handy avenue for producing new stuff without having to go into debt...
And you have just encapsulated the whole problem with KickStarter: no one actually believes that all that money is a LOAN!
I would disagree... The problem with Kickstarter currently is that people have started to assume that all that money is a loan, which is why they get so bent out of shape when a project doesn't actually deliver.
A Kickstarter pledge is an investment towards the development of a product, not a loan. Delivery is not guaranteed... the only obligation that the project creator has is to attempt to deliver on their promises.
insaniak wrote: I would disagree... The problem with Kickstarter currently is that people have started to assume that all that money is a loan, which is why they get so bent out of shape when a project doesn't actually deliver.
A Kickstarter pledge is an investment towards the development of a product, not a loan. Delivery is not guaranteed... the only obligation that the project creator has is to attempt to deliver on their promises.
Yes, that's the technical rules. A kickstarter pledge is essentially an investment in which you agree to accept repayment in kind. Obviously with any investment there is the possibility of the enterprise failing, and there being no ability to repay investors.
As with any investment though, the more established a company becomes, the more the expectations and relationship between investors and company changes. An angel investor in a start up has very different expectations of risk and loss than a person buying AAA bonds in a blue chip corporation.
For a company like PP, non-delivery is essentially only an option if the company fully collapses. Which means that this is basically an interest free loan for somebody at PP to develop a pet project, despite there being no evidence that PP can create marketable board games. That shouldn't dissuade a person from pledging if they like the project, but it's a very valid point to raise.
TheAuldGrump wrote: For that matter, few people would argue that Reaper Miniatures wasn't, and isn't, a well established company, going much further back than PP.
Yet the Bones Kickstarters are immensely successful.
The Auld Grump
That's a great point, actually. I think I can distinguish them, but there is precedent for pretty established companies going to this particular well.
For me, the difference is that Reaper was developing molds that were pretty expensive. They likely could have gotten financing, and clearly were able to produce a few models on their own. The injection of capital allowed the range to explode. A board game is a pretty small ticket item compared to a range of metal molds.
There was also a lot of pent up demand for low cost, easy to paint minis. It was a completely new product, in a way that a board game simply can't be.
Honestly, I'm guessing the biggest difference is that Reaper made the kickstarters into amazingly good deals, in a way that I think is difficult with a board game due to lack of add ons and options.
TheAuldGrump wrote:
The reason that KS has been so successful is that traditional means of lending have become less effective - and distributors have been proving less willing to take risks on new lines, even from established companies.
A healthy company doesn't borrow money. A healthy company does market research and has some skin in the game. The more the gaming industry chooses to skip the B&M in favor of pure profit, the less healthy the entire business ecosystem becomes. It's short-sighted and I think we're already starting to see the damage at the street level.
This is just flat out wrong.
One very basic principle of running a successful business is don't pass up an opportunity to use someone else's money instead of your own.
the_Armyman wrote:
insaniak wrote:
the_Armyman wrote: Yes, I know companies large and small borrow money. Yes, it appears on the surface to be normal and healthy. The fact is that a company that has little or no debt is better off than one that has debt, even with all the ridiculous financial tools and benefits that a generous tax code allows. PP is not Ford or Intel or Microsoft. They exist in a niche market and debt IS NOT a good thing. Contrary to what people pushing FICO scores tell you, it's better to have a FICO score of 0 than I is to have one that's 800+. I dislike having to explain that to intelligent people.
And BEHOLD!, here's this website that gives companies an extremely handy avenue for producing new stuff without having to go into debt...
And you have just encapsulated the whole problem with KickStarter: no one actually believes that all that money is a LOAN!
It isn't. It's an investment, it's giving somebody money with a promise of a return, but both parties understand there is a potential risk of that return not happening. If I loan you money and you don't repay it, I have recourse, if I invest in you and, fraud and negligence aside, you don't give me the promised returns, I learn from the experience and move on.
the_Armyman wrote: So, a rhetorical question here: what if Games Workshop had started a KS for its new Specialist Games Studios and wanted to produce a board game? Would that have been okay, too?
Yes and if they use it to introduce new IP to the company (NEW IP, not grimdark in sci fi and fantasy flavors) even more so.
Kickstarter is a fine way for companies to gauge interest in ideas they have before investing heavily into it and damaging themselves.
As to the original question, I've always been very curious as to how large Privateer Press actually is. Is it a $10m a year company? $20m? $50m? $100m?
insaniak wrote:
the_Armyman wrote: So, a rhetorical question here: what if Games Workshop had started a KS for its new Specialist Games Studios and wanted to produce a board game? Would that have been okay, too?
That would be freaking Awesome , since it would allow them to accurately gauge how many to produce... Rather than the current arrangement, which results in stuff either selling out in preorder, or sitting on shelves for ever...
It's the fact that they're healthy that allows them to borrow money, and it's their ability to borrow money that allows them to develop new product.
Doing so is always a risk, though, regardless of how much market research you do... because sometimes, the conclusions reached through market research turn out to be wrong.
Healthy companies borrow money, but companies that have more cash than they know what to do with don't. A company that can do something with its cash to grow itself is almost always better off doing that than paying out dividends.
In my opinion, it wouldn't be a bad thing for GW to engage in a Kickstarter type of prepaid deal, but not for cash reasons. GW could actually do it much more intelligently: Here is our planned products and stretch goals; this is the price if you buy into it now. We guarantee you will get X at Y dollar investment, or your money back.
Like you said, they'd be able to avoid epic failures in over and underproduction, but also gauge how much interest there is for the product line in general. And it would build up excitement for a product line.
TheAuldGrump wrote: For that matter, few people would argue that Reaper Miniatures wasn't, and isn't, a well established company, going much further back than PP.
Yet the Bones Kickstarters are immensely successful.
The Auld Grump
That's a great point, actually. I think I can distinguish them, but there is precedent for pretty established companies going to this particular well.
For me, the difference is that Reaper was developing molds that were pretty expensive. They likely could have gotten financing, and clearly were able to produce a few models on their own. The injection of capital allowed the range to explode. A board game is a pretty small ticket item compared to a range of metal molds.
There was also a lot of pent up demand for low cost, easy to paint minis. It was a completely new product, in a way that a board game simply can't be.
Honestly, I'm guessing the biggest difference is that Reaper made the kickstarters into amazingly good deals, in a way that I think is difficult with a board game due to lack of add ons and options.
For that, I look at Zombicide. (And, in a weird, twisty sort of way, Deadzone... which is technically a boardgame, but let us be honest....)
Boardgames and miniatures games can have compatible bits.... (My good lady was introduced to fantasy gaming and miniatures gaming by HeroQuest....)
insaniak wrote:
Healthy companies borrow money all the time.
It's the fact that they're healthy that allows them to borrow money, and it's their ability to borrow money that allows them to develop new product.
Doing so is always a risk, though, regardless of how much market research you do... because sometimes, the conclusions reached through market research turn out to be wrong.
Healthy companies borrow money, but companies that have more cash than they know what to do with don't. A company that can do something with its cash to grow itself is almost always better off doing that than paying out dividends.
I believe even company like Apple which doesn't even know what to do with all their liquidity, do sometimes borrow money for operational purposes. Not all of their 'cash' is laying in big piles of money around their office, or located in one big account named 'APPL00001'. In short term it might be better to borrow some money for operations rather than start liquidating and moving the cash reserves.
Publicly owned companies are usually expected to return some of their profits to the investors who financed the company, either in way of dividends or stock buyback programs. Growth is a mean for bigger profits, not an end in itself.
It's just plain silly to borrow money when you don't need it, and in my mind, it's silly to give money to someone who doesn't need it in the hopes for a few extra baubles that you may or may not receive a couple years down the road. Thanks for the replies. We'll just have to agree to disagree
the_Armyman wrote: it's silly to give money to someone who doesn't need it in the hopes for a few extra baubles that you may or may not receive a couple years down the road.
Ignoring the multiple fallacies in that statement for a moment... Why?
But then to address the fallacies in there - Clearly, any business needs money. That's why they sell stuff in the first place.
So you're not 'giving money to someone who doesn't need it'... you're giving money to a business for a product that you want.
By the 'extra baubles' I assume you're talking about stretch goals or the like thrown in? To be honest, those don't factor in to my decision to back a Kickstarter, since they may or may not happen. I back Kickstarters if they are offering a product that I want at a price I'm happy to pay, and being run by someone I trust to deliver on their promises. Any extras that wind up getting thrown in are a bonus, not a reason for backing.
How do you know they need money to release this boardgame? Because they started a KS? How do you know they don't have 10 million in the bank right now? Using that standard, I need money, insaniak. Can you pretty please send me a fiver? Hey, there's even a website for that, right? I'll send you a plastic Ork arm In the mail. Maybe.
Kickstarter is corporate, professional panhandling, and it seems to be perfectly acceptable to a lot of people. It's fascinating.
the_Armyman wrote: How do you know they need money to release this boardgame? Because they started a KS? How do you know they don't have 10 million in the bank right now?
Why would I care?
Is your desire for a product directly linked to the bank balance of that product's creator?
Using that standard, I need money, insaniak. Can you pretty please send me a fiver? Hey, there's even a website for that, right? I'll send you a plastic Ork arm In the mail. Maybe.
That's not the standard. The standard is 'They are offering a product I want, at a price I'm prepared to pay'.
Whether or not they actually need the money is as relevant to me as which brand of coffee they have in their lunch room. I tend to assume that if they're running a business, they're trying to make money.
Kickstarter is corporate, professional panhandling, and it seems to be perfectly acceptable to a lot of people. It's fascinating.
So long as they ultimately get what they paid for, why wouldn't it be acceptable?
KS grants access to stuff I like, therefore it's okay.
It could be a Fortune 500 company with a billionaire owner, and as long as they offer something you want, they can head on over to KS and you'll front the money for them? It doesn't feel slimey or create any ethical questions in your mind?
the_Armyman wrote: It's just plain silly to borrow money when you don't need it, and in my mind, it's silly to give money to someone who doesn't need it in the hopes for a few extra baubles that you may or may not receive a couple years down the road. Thanks for the replies. We'll just have to agree to disagree
Businesses do it all the time. Many times companies can invest cash on hand in more profitable ventures. Rather than only fund one venture, they fund one with cash on hand and borrow to pay for the other. The riskier, but higher return venture takes the cash, while the less risky one gets the loan as it is more likely to generate revenue to pay back the loan.
Though I don't see this being the case for PP. I suspect is simply a cash grab to maximize profits by bypassing retailers.
@the_armyman - for me, the issue isn't really how much money they have; it's why such a company or individual would go the kickstarter route.
It just doesn't make sense to have to put your project on hold while you look for funding for it, when the amount of funding you could potentially get is tiny compared to your wealth. I mean, kickstarter in its entire history has funded less money than Apple maikes in a quarter (in profit), so it just doesn't make sense, since time is almost always of the essence.
For Games Workshop, it's a little different. A million bucks is still significant to them, and a lot of their releases are not multimillion dollar super-hits. We're still a pretty small niche, and even the biggest fish in the pond isn't really a huge company. More importantly, like insaniak said, GW is plagued with never knowing how much stuff to make. Make too much, and they're doomed to fire sale it later on in some crazy priced bundle; make too little, and people scream murder that they're incompetent. There also aren't many huge trade secrets. Like, "New Space Marine versus Eldar boardgame!" is not something that someone else is going to run with and steal your idea; as opposed to a company like Apple, whose top secret pipeline is very important to keep a secret.
On the other hand, I would hope that if it were a company the size of Games Workshop (where the money isn't the only driver, and where they are pretty experienced at estimating project costs), they would have some type of risk-free guarantee to the person making the pledge, and also make clear to people why they're using Kickstarter. It's implied, anyhow, because if a company like PP or GW failed at a KS project, it would be a terrible PR nightmare for them, potentially causing them to lose customers of far greater value than the KS project.
I do, however, understand where you're coming from. The whole idea of Kickstarter is for the community to help fund projects that otherwise wouldn't be able to be realized -- often by artist-types or DIY engineer/inventor types; and by giving money to a company that doesn't really need it, you're taking away from the money that could potentially be used to fund a project that couldn't otherwise continue. It's a slightly flawed logic, though: just because I gave money to company A doesn't mean I can't also give money to company B; and just because I don't give money to company A doesn't mean that I am going to look harder to give money to company B. Mostly, because the amounts of money we're talking about usually aren't huge, from an individual perspective.
Talys wrote: The whole idea of Kickstarter is for the community to help fund projects that otherwise wouldn't be able to be realized -- often by artist-types or DIY engineer/inventor types
Sure. And the whole idea of eBay is for regular people to sell stuff they don't want anymore.
Or, at least, it used to be. The platform has gradually evolved into something quite different, because money.
Since I didn't see any of this when I skimmed the last couple of pages here is what PP themselves had to say about their use of KS in the latest No Quarter.
This February 16th, Widower’s Wood will become the first
board game Privateer Press ever crowdfunds—a big first
after fifteen years of producing great games. After careful
consideration and great discussion, we concluded Kickstarter
was the best choice because it would give us the opportunity
to raise awareness for our board games and hopefully
reach more gamers than we’ve been able to previously with
traditional marketing.
Kickstarter is unique because it will let us accurately gauge
our audience’s interest in a project. This means we can pack
our board games with every last thing we know gamers
want, without the risks associated with traditional publishing
methods. While we have no intentions or plans to use
Kickstarter for our miniatures wargames, our drive to create
new games and load them with extra content is something we
can’t contain. We can’t wait to use Kickstarter as a platform to
bring this project to life.
In short, we picked Kickstarter because it gives us a chance
to give our gamers what they want: tons of extra miniatures,
extra scenarios, extra tiles, extra everything!
And boy, do we have some extras in the works.
More reading for those interested about the actual rewards structure.
Spoiler:
Rewards!
Backers, or people who support our Kickstarter project, will
have their choice of three ways to pledge for Widower’s Wood:
Core Game, Deluxe Edition, or Premium Collector’s Edition.
These three rewards give you a variety of ways to support the
project and get exactly what you want for your gaming needs.
At the base level, there is the Widower’s Wood Core Game
reward. This is the game as it will be available to everyone in
the second half of 2016. It’s the simple, no-frills version of the
game. But if you’re looking to Kickstarter for extras, the next
two rewards are going to have your attention.
If you opt for the Widower’s Wood Deluxe Edition, you’ll
get the core game, the Dead Men Walking expansion—which
includes content for both Widower’s Wood and The Undercity—
and most importantly, all the extra stretch goal content
that’s unlocked during the campaign. Many of these stretch
goal extras will be Kickstarter Exclusives that will never be
available again! While we can’t yet reveal what these items
will be, we can say they will include dozens of miniatures,
extra tiles, extra missions, extra heroes, and a ton of amazing
stuff that will make Widower’s Wood a game you can play
for years to come. This extra content will be revealed as the
campaign meets its stretch goals.
The last of our three rewards is for the ultimate collector,
the gamer who needs to have not just everything for the
game but also a way to display it with pride. The Widower’s
Wood Premium Collector’s Edition comes with everything
in the Deluxe Edition (the core game, the Dead Men Walking
expansion, and all the stretch goal content) housed within
a specially designed luxurious case with a set of beautiful
Q-Workshop dice. We are hard at work on a truly unique box
set with internal trays to hold all the contents of Widower’s
Wood, the Dead Men Walking expansion, and all of the stretch
goal extras. We’re aiming for it to look like we skinned a bull
snapper to complete the look.
Talys wrote: In my opinion, it wouldn't be a bad thing for GW to engage in a Kickstarter type of prepaid deal, but not for cash reasons. GW could actually do it much more intelligently: Here is our planned products and stretch goals; this is the price if you buy into it now. We guarantee you will get X at Y dollar investment, or your money back.
Like you said, they'd be able to avoid epic failures in over and underproduction, but also gauge how much interest there is for the product line in general. And it would build up excitement for a product line.
An idea that predates Kickstarter by decades (Eureka MIniatures had their "300 club" range for ages - once 300 units are pre-sold, they go into production), and is still a viable idea. That's how North Star funded Frostgrave, as far as I remember.
Talys wrote: The whole idea of Kickstarter is for the community to help fund projects that otherwise wouldn't be able to be realized
And this is true regardless of the money whoever does have.
Kickstarter does allow people with no capital to realize their ideas, but it also allows traditional companies to try things they would not normally do because they would not want to commit to the risk of trying something so out of their comfort zone.
I see nothing wrong with PP doing this and I do not care about their product, so I cannot be chunked in the "I want it so I do not care" category.
They want to breach to the boardgaming scene, they have several unsuccessful attempts, they try kickstarter to gauge interest and not endanger their core company which is good for their consumers really.
I would not they do not kickstart their omega protocol line new game, they know they did that right, they kickstart their "rpg/ dungeon crawl" line who they did not do well.
And as a consumer one can potentially influence their creation with the comments.
jonolikespie wrote: Since I didn't see any of this when I skimmed the last couple of pages here is what PP themselves had to say about their use of KS in the latest No Quarter.
Spoiler:
This February 16th, Widower’s Wood will become the first
board game Privateer Press ever crowdfunds—a big first
after fifteen years of producing great games. After careful
consideration and great discussion, we concluded Kickstarter
was the best choice because it would give us the opportunity
to raise awareness for our board games and hopefully
reach more gamers than we’ve been able to previously with
traditional marketing.
Kickstarter is unique because it will let us accurately gauge
our audience’s interest in a project. This means we can pack
our board games with every last thing we know gamers
want, without the risks associated with traditional publishing
methods. While we have no intentions or plans to use
Kickstarter for our miniatures wargames, our drive to create
new games and load them with extra content is something we
can’t contain. We can’t wait to use Kickstarter as a platform to
bring this project to life.
In short, we picked Kickstarter because it gives us a chance
to give our gamers what they want: tons of extra miniatures,
extra scenarios, extra tiles, extra everything!
And boy, do we have some extras in the works.
More reading for those interested about the actual rewards structure.
[spoiler]
Rewards!
Backers, or people who support our Kickstarter project, will
have their choice of three ways to pledge for Widower’s Wood:
Core Game, Deluxe Edition, or Premium Collector’s Edition.
These three rewards give you a variety of ways to support the
project and get exactly what you want for your gaming needs.
At the base level, there is the Widower’s Wood Core Game
reward. This is the game as it will be available to everyone in
the second half of 2016. It’s the simple, no-frills version of the
game. But if you’re looking to Kickstarter for extras, the next
two rewards are going to have your attention.
If you opt for the Widower’s Wood Deluxe Edition, you’ll
get the core game, the Dead Men Walking expansion—which
includes content for both Widower’s Wood and The Undercity—
and most importantly, all the extra stretch goal content
that’s unlocked during the campaign. Many of these stretch
goal extras will be Kickstarter Exclusives that will never be
available again! While we can’t yet reveal what these items
will be, we can say they will include dozens of miniatures,
extra tiles, extra missions, extra heroes, and a ton of amazing
stuff that will make Widower’s Wood a game you can play
for years to come. This extra content will be revealed as the
campaign meets its stretch goals.
The last of our three rewards is for the ultimate collector,
the gamer who needs to have not just everything for the
game but also a way to display it with pride. The Widower’s
Wood Premium Collector’s Edition comes with everything
in the Deluxe Edition (the core game, the Dead Men Walking
expansion, and all the stretch goal content) housed within
a specially designed luxurious case with a set of beautiful
Q-Workshop dice. We are hard at work on a truly unique box
set with internal trays to hold all the contents of Widower’s
Wood, the Dead Men Walking expansion, and all of the stretch
goal extras. We’re aiming for it to look like we skinned a bull
snapper to complete the look.
[/spoiler]
Sigh they could be a bit more humble and not overhype what they try to do, they come as arrogant.
The board game market has probably become so heavily intertwined with Kickstarter, that unless you are one one of the established companies like Fantasy Flight, you need some discounted stretch goal infused product to get your foot in the door.
I'm all for companies using Kickstarter to make a product happen that wouldn't otherwise. Still...I think It has a some bad consequences for gamer and game companies.
First, gamers come to expect a certain value for their money that effectively locks companies into Kickstarter to have enough sure fire capital along with manageable risk.
It also creates a false economy on Kickstarter when you have established companies like Privateer asking for money along side some dude with zero experience working out of his garage. It brings PP down a little, and the random dude up a lot. Caveat emptor, but unlike real investing were there are regulations, reporting laws, and accountability, it's still the wild west for backers. We all know who PP is, but to the audience you get on Kickstarter, they couldn't tell Privateer from Palladium. Or Defiance.
Finally, Kickstarters fail in public. Palladium, Battlefront, and Dust Studios all did irrevocable damage to their brands by mismanaging their Kickstarters. Contract disputes and cost overruns are pretty common except when you have thousands of people that put down money in advance. In a niche market you can't afford to disappoint that many people. If 5000 people tell their 5 friends and then they each tell 5 more friends, suddenly no one at Gencon is going to buy your stuff anymore.
jonolikespie wrote: Since I didn't see any of this when I skimmed the last couple of pages here is what PP themselves had to say about their use of KS in the latest No Quarter.
Spoiler:
This February 16th, Widower’s Wood will become the first
board game Privateer Press ever crowdfunds—a big first
after fifteen years of producing great games. After careful
consideration and great discussion, we concluded Kickstarter
was the best choice because it would give us the opportunity
to raise awareness for our board games and hopefully
reach more gamers than we’ve been able to previously with
traditional marketing.
Kickstarter is unique because it will let us accurately gauge
our audience’s interest in a project. This means we can pack
our board games with every last thing we know gamers
want, without the risks associated with traditional publishing
methods. While we have no intentions or plans to use
Kickstarter for our miniatures wargames, our drive to create
new games and load them with extra content is something we
can’t contain. We can’t wait to use Kickstarter as a platform to
bring this project to life.
In short, we picked Kickstarter because it gives us a chance
to give our gamers what they want: tons of extra miniatures,
extra scenarios, extra tiles, extra everything!
And boy, do we have some extras in the works.
More reading for those interested about the actual rewards structure.
[spoiler]
Rewards!
Backers, or people who support our Kickstarter project, will
have their choice of three ways to pledge for Widower’s Wood:
Core Game, Deluxe Edition, or Premium Collector’s Edition.
These three rewards give you a variety of ways to support the
project and get exactly what you want for your gaming needs.
At the base level, there is the Widower’s Wood Core Game
reward. This is the game as it will be available to everyone in
the second half of 2016. It’s the simple, no-frills version of the
game. But if you’re looking to Kickstarter for extras, the next
two rewards are going to have your attention.
If you opt for the Widower’s Wood Deluxe Edition, you’ll
get the core game, the Dead Men Walking expansion—which
includes content for both Widower’s Wood and The Undercity—
and most importantly, all the extra stretch goal content
that’s unlocked during the campaign. Many of these stretch
goal extras will be Kickstarter Exclusives that will never be
available again! While we can’t yet reveal what these items
will be, we can say they will include dozens of miniatures,
extra tiles, extra missions, extra heroes, and a ton of amazing
stuff that will make Widower’s Wood a game you can play
for years to come. This extra content will be revealed as the
campaign meets its stretch goals.
The last of our three rewards is for the ultimate collector,
the gamer who needs to have not just everything for the
game but also a way to display it with pride. The Widower’s
Wood Premium Collector’s Edition comes with everything
in the Deluxe Edition (the core game, the Dead Men Walking
expansion, and all the stretch goal content) housed within
a specially designed luxurious case with a set of beautiful
Q-Workshop dice. We are hard at work on a truly unique box
set with internal trays to hold all the contents of Widower’s
Wood, the Dead Men Walking expansion, and all of the stretch
goal extras. We’re aiming for it to look like we skinned a bull
snapper to complete the look.
[/spoiler]
Sigh they could be a bit more humble and not overhype what they try to do, they come as arrogant.
It's almost like they are trying to generate excitement for a new product
This is how I view KickStarter. Maybe you don't. This is why established companies using it as a platform for capital bothers me.
Pledge: $5
Reward: Good feels.
Situation #1: Walking down the street, see a homeless guy with a cup sitting on the sidewalk. Dirty clothes, unkempt hair, obviously down on his luck. Smile, drop a fiver in his cup, and wish him the best. Homeless guy ecstatic. Runs across the street and buys a package of hot dogs and a gallon of water. Yeah, the feels!
Situation #2: Walking down the street, see a homeless guy with a cup sitting on the sidewalk. Guy is dressed a lot like me and appears pretty clean cut. Maybe having a rough time? Smile, drop a fiver in his cup, and wish him the best. Stands up, walks across the street to Starbuck's, and buys a Vente decaf latte with extra foam. Um, feels?
Situation #3: Walking down the street, see a homeless guy with a cup sitting on the sidewalk. Three-piece suit, on his iPhone, talking to his assistant. Um, okay? Smile, drop a fiver in his cup, and wish him the best. Stands up, puts the fiver in his stacked billfold, points his key fob at a Beamer that chirps obediently, and gets in while still talking on his phone, never even bothering to say thanks. FEELS PLOX?!
jonolikespie wrote: Since I didn't see any of this when I skimmed the last couple of pages here is what PP themselves had to say about their use of KS in the latest No Quarter.
Spoiler:
This February 16th, Widower’s Wood will become the first
board game Privateer Press ever crowdfunds—a big first
after fifteen years of producing great games. After careful
consideration and great discussion, we concluded Kickstarter
was the best choice because it would give us the opportunity
to raise awareness for our board games and hopefully
reach more gamers than we’ve been able to previously with
traditional marketing.
Kickstarter is unique because it will let us accurately gauge
our audience’s interest in a project. This means we can pack
our board games with every last thing we know gamers
want, without the risks associated with traditional publishing
methods. While we have no intentions or plans to use
Kickstarter for our miniatures wargames, our drive to create
new games and load them with extra content is something we
can’t contain. We can’t wait to use Kickstarter as a platform to
bring this project to life.
In short, we picked Kickstarter because it gives us a chance
to give our gamers what they want: tons of extra miniatures,
extra scenarios, extra tiles, extra everything!
And boy, do we have some extras in the works.
More reading for those interested about the actual rewards structure.
[spoiler]
Rewards!
Backers, or people who support our Kickstarter project, will
have their choice of three ways to pledge for Widower’s Wood:
Core Game, Deluxe Edition, or Premium Collector’s Edition.
These three rewards give you a variety of ways to support the
project and get exactly what you want for your gaming needs.
At the base level, there is the Widower’s Wood Core Game
reward. This is the game as it will be available to everyone in
the second half of 2016. It’s the simple, no-frills version of the
game. But if you’re looking to Kickstarter for extras, the next
two rewards are going to have your attention.
If you opt for the Widower’s Wood Deluxe Edition, you’ll
get the core game, the Dead Men Walking expansion—which
includes content for both Widower’s Wood and The Undercity—
and most importantly, all the extra stretch goal content
that’s unlocked during the campaign. Many of these stretch
goal extras will be Kickstarter Exclusives that will never be
available again! While we can’t yet reveal what these items
will be, we can say they will include dozens of miniatures,
extra tiles, extra missions, extra heroes, and a ton of amazing
stuff that will make Widower’s Wood a game you can play
for years to come. This extra content will be revealed as the
campaign meets its stretch goals.
The last of our three rewards is for the ultimate collector,
the gamer who needs to have not just everything for the
game but also a way to display it with pride. The Widower’s
Wood Premium Collector’s Edition comes with everything
in the Deluxe Edition (the core game, the Dead Men Walking
expansion, and all the stretch goal content) housed within
a specially designed luxurious case with a set of beautiful
Q-Workshop dice. We are hard at work on a truly unique box
set with internal trays to hold all the contents of Widower’s
Wood, the Dead Men Walking expansion, and all of the stretch
goal extras. We’re aiming for it to look like we skinned a bull
snapper to complete the look.
[/spoiler]
Sigh they could be a bit more humble and not overhype what they try to do, they come as arrogant.
It's almost like they are trying to generate excitement for a new product
the_Armyman wrote: This is how I view KickStarter. Maybe you don't. This is why established companies using it as a platform for capital bothers me.
Pledge: $5
Reward: Good feels.
Situation #1: Walking down the street, see a homeless guy with a cup sitting on the sidewalk. Dirty clothes, unkempt hair, obviously down on his luck. Smile, drop a fiver in his cup, and wish him the best. Homeless guy ecstatic. Runs across the street and buys a package of hot dogs and a gallon of water. Yeah, the feels!
Situation #2: Walking down the street, see a homeless guy with a cup sitting on the sidewalk. Guy is dressed a lot like me and appears pretty clean cut. Maybe having a rough time? Smile, drop a fiver in his cup, and wish him the best. Stands up, walks across the street to Starbuck's, and buys a Vente decaf latte with extra foam. Um, feels?
Situation #3: Walking down the street, see a homeless guy with a cup sitting on the sidewalk. Three-piece suit, on his iPhone, talking to his assistant. Um, okay? Smile, drop a fiver in his cup, and wish him the best. Stands up, puts the fiver in his stacked billfold, points his key fob at a Beamer that chirps obediently, and gets in while still talking on his phone, never even bothering to say thanks. FEELS PLOX?!
#1 Legit need, #2 Mantic, #3 Privateer Press
As Talys was pointing out, PP isn't exactly a Fortune 500 here. They aren't even the biggest fish in their niche. PP are still small potatoes, and Kickstarter gives them the cash they need to create a game that might otherwise sink them if it flopped.
Do you have a problem with Reaper running kickstarters? They're quite open how they could slowly trickle out Bones releases, but they would rather kickstart to really get the line fleshed out. It's a very good comparison in my mind- PP could eventually fund this new board game themselves, but Kickstarter allows them to get it to the audience faster while also gauging interest.
In that light, do you still have a problem with this situation?
Reaper would be Situation #2. I would stilll not pledge. In the case of Bones 1, it's risk avoidance on the part of Reaper, rather than pure pre-order. Bones 2 and 3 is pre-order.
the_Armyman wrote: Reaper would be Situation #2. I would stilll not pledge. In the case of Bones 1, it's risk avoidance on the part of Reaper, rather than pure pre-order. Bones 2 and 3 is pre-order.
Their second and third kickstarters allowed them to expand the range far more quickly than their more traditional method.
This is one of those debates that essentially turns on personal preference. When one person says "I don't like this" you can't really convince them that they should.
Now, the polite thing to do is not keep repeating how much you don't like it, either.
Polonius wrote: This is one of those debates that essentially turns on personal preference. When one person says "I don't like this" you can't really convince them that they should.
Perhaps. Or maybe it's about critically thinking through a purchase. Rewarding a behavior that doesn't pass the sniff test. Light your money on fire, flush it down a toilet, or wipe your arse with it, it's not my money. But I can still point out that I think it's foolish.
Now, the polite thing to do is not keep repeating how much you don't like it, either.
Polonius wrote: This is one of those debates that essentially turns on personal preference. When one person says "I don't like this" you can't really convince them that they should.
Perhaps. Or maybe it's about critically thinking through a purchase. Rewarding a behavior that doesn't pass the sniff test. Light your money on fire, flush it down a toilet, or wipe your arse with it, it's not my money. But I can still point out that I think it's foolish.
I think there's plenty of critical thinking in this thread. People have pointed PP's lackluster track record with board games, they've mentioned that Boardgame kickstarters can be highly successful, but require either innovation or a bunch of free stuff, and there has been some discussion on the nature of Kickstarter. At least one person has pointed out that they'd rather wait for the game to deliver, fail at retail, and be available at steep discount.
What you're doing isn't critical thinking. It's simply asserting that it's "foolish" to back a kickstarter from an established company. Which, as you put it, doesn't meet the sniff test for critical thinking. If a person wanted to ensure that the game was made, and wanted to essentially preorder, than why not back the kickstarter? The odds of it failing to deliver drop to nearly zero, and there are plenty of people with the liquidity to loan PP $100, especially if they sweeten the pot. Which, given that they did in the last Kickstarter (with KS exclusive sculpts), there could be real value in it for fanboys.
Now, the polite thing to do is not keep repeating how much you don't like it, either.
At what point does a company become too big to ethically use Kickstarter? Is it a specific amount of profit they have to make, cash on hand, or based upon amount of previous releases?
If the latter, just because a company could release a board game two years ago doesn't mean they could still afford to release another one today.
I'd imagine that finances, not ethics, would stop companies above a certain size from using Kickstarter.
Companies borrow all the time, either with preferred stock, bonds, or notes secured by assets. A company with enough value to do so would likely raise funds with those models, as they are more efficient than Kickstarter. Don't forget, that while interest free, Kickstarter has a 10% fee, and requires substantial investment of time and human resources to be successful.
And borrowing can be very wise, if you think that the return on your investment will be higher than the rate you owe on the loan.
That PP is willing to run a kickstarter shows either that they're unable to self fund or borrow the funds to produce a boardgame, they are unsure about market demand and don't want to take a risk, or it's simply a pet project.
the_Armyman wrote: So, a rhetorical question here: what if Games Workshop had started a KS for its new Specialist Games Studios and wanted to produce a board game? Would that have been okay, too?
I'd have been 100% fine with it. In fact, I think that's how they should have approached it.
At what point does a company become too big to ethically use Kickstarter? Is it a specific amount of profit they have to make, cash on hand, or based upon amount of previous releases?
If the latter, just because a company could release a board game two years ago doesn't mean they could still afford to release another one today.
Do I have to know how much money they have on hand? Are you looking for a quantifiable net profitability or a certain number of employees? Do they have to have an HR department? Those numbers aren't public knowledge for a privately held company, so I have no answer for you. It's also irrelevant to the discussion. If you're an established company with employees and product and machinery and a warehouse, I'm not inclined to give you free money. Those are my totally subjective standards.
I'm kinda getting burned out on replying to three to four people. If what I've said so far makes no sense or you're inclined to go down the road of "stop liking what I don't like," that's cool. I won't give PP my money. If you do, I think you're dumb (but no hard feelings).
What exactly is the problem with an established company using Kickstarter?
I honestly don't get it, it's not exclusively for new or independent groups/businesses.
If a company wants to attempt to crowdfund the investment in a new product directly from their fanbase why is that a bad thing? Even if there were no doubt that they could pay for it out of their own pocket right now, the people who invest in the KS know what they are doing and are doing so of their own free will... where is the problem?
I think Kickstarter is a powerful tool, and I love all the new ways people and companies continue to find uses for it.
I like the idea of people making art projects, movies, murals, and getting seed money for a potential new business.
I like the idea of established companies using it to try experimental lines, see if there is any interest is in expanding existing lines, and even just using it for pre-orders.
I'm far more likely to invest in a kickstarter from an established company, I know the chances of them dropping the ball is much lower then a new start-up.
The only downside I see is cutting out Brick and Mortar stores, but at the same time a lot of model companies are starting to follow the GW model of having products available for retail, and products that are web-store exclusives.
I find a flaw in your analogy of giving money to the homeless or a rich person pretending to be homeless because with model and game based Kickstarters you back a project, and if they give you the product once it's finished.
This means that for established companies like PP, it's really another form of pre-order. If a potential backer either doesn't like the project or doesn't want to wait for the product, they simply don't back it.
Comic books have done this for years, they take orders for their comic lines, then print that exact amount. The supply perfectly matches demand, streamlining the entire process and also allows then to gauge how different comic lines are doing.
I'm kinda getting burned out on replying to three to four people. If what I've said so far makes no sense or you're inclined to go down the road of "stop liking what I don't like," that's cool. I won't give PP my money. If you do, I think you're dumb (but no hard feelings).
Well, you are the one that said healthy businesses don't borrow money, so that's a pretty accurate gauge of how much weight your opinion holds...
And FWIW, if I'm looking to get rid of money for "the feelz," I donate it to one of multiple charities we donate to. I don't go to KS. If that's why you're on KS then you're doing it wrong.
At what point does a company become too big to ethically use Kickstarter? Is it a specific amount of profit they have to make, cash on hand, or based upon amount of previous releases?
If the latter, just because a company could release a board game two years ago doesn't mean they could still afford to release another one today.
Do I have to know how much money they have on hand? Are you looking for a quantifiable net profitability or a certain number of employees? Do they have to have an HR department? Those numbers aren't public knowledge for a privately held company, so I have no answer for you. It's also irrelevant to the discussion. If you're an established company with employees and product and machinery and a warehouse, I'm not inclined to give you free money. Those are my totally subjective standards.
I'm kinda getting burned out on replying to three to four people. If what I've said so far makes no sense or you're inclined to go down the road of "stop liking what I don't like," that's cool. I won't give PP my money. If you do, I think you're dumb (but no hard feelings).
How exactly is it "free money?"
Is backing a KS for an established company really any different from pre-ordering something conventionally several months in advance? Or do you refuse to do that on the grounds of "it feels wrong" too?
I personally dislike the concept of ordering from a well established (say, employing a good dozen employees with a net turnover of a million plus) company on Kickstarter. Why? It's quite simple really. If I'm engaging in a Kickstarter, I'm giving a party my money, effectively without serious contract or expectation that I'll receive anything. It's an investment with no guarantee of repayment, which is why Kickstarters work so hard to convince me that they know what they're doing, and indeed, will repay me something. There's no risk for them, and whilst there's something of a moral obligation for them to give me my goods, if the project doesn't pan out for whatever reason, all that money I injected is gone down the plug hole.
Now the way I see it, the absolute only reason for me to inject my money into a business plan at complete risk to myself but none to the project creator, is if it would be difficult to impossible for them to raise the money for themselves. I then have to judge whether or not I want to see that plan come to fruition enough to risk my money.
With an established business, if they come to me for investment in this style, it tells me one of two things. That they either they do not have sufficient cash flow to fund their own business ideas, or they do not have sufficient confidence in their business ideas to risk their own cash. Neither of these prospects is appealing to me as an potential investor.
The one other alternative, is that despite possessing the cashflow/confidence, the business wants a risk free loan of money from me. Which sure, is great for the business. But I'm not a charity, and I don't do handouts. I have no desire to give a random business an interest free loan of my money so they don't have to spend theirs.
It isn't really interest free, and it certainly isn't a loan, as I've already mentioned, it's an investment and that's not the same thing.
It's a quid pro quo agreement, they get the money now in exchange for you receiving product at a discount (the interest,) or with exclusive availability, at a later date.
I also believe KS is increasingly becoming a marketing platform alongside anything else it may or may not be, and Kickstarting a product may be the actual thing that generates the sales that makes a product viable.
Ketara wrote: I personally dislike the concept of ordering from a well established (say, employing a good dozen employees with a net turnover of a million plus) company on Kickstarter. Why? It's quite simple really. If I'm engaging in a Kickstarter, I'm giving a party my money, effectively without serious contract or expectation that I'll receive anything. It's an investment with no guarantee of repayment, which is why Kickstarters work so hard to convince me that they know what they're doing, and indeed, will repay me something. There's no risk for them, and whilst there's something of a moral obligation for them to give me my goods, if the project doesn't pan out for whatever reason, all that money I injected is gone down the plug hole.
Now the way I see it, the absolute only reason for me to inject my money into a business plan at complete risk to myself but none to the project creator, is if it would be difficult to impossible for them to raise the money for themselves. I then have to judge whether or not I want to see that plan come to fruition enough to risk my money.
With an established business, if they come to me for investment in this style, it tells me one of two things. That they either they do not have sufficient cash flow to fund their own business ideas, or they do not have sufficient confidence in their business ideas to risk their own cash. Neither of these prospects is appealing to me as an potential investor.
The one other alternative, is that despite possessing the cashflow/confidence, the business wants a risk free loan of money from me. Which sure, is great for the business. But I'm not a charity, and I don't do handouts. I have no desire to give a random business an interest free loan of my money so they don't have to spend theirs.
I think that's a fine stance, and not overly far from my own views, but as I learned with Reaper Bones, when the deal is really good, I'm willing to preorder.
But that's no different from any other pre-order mechanic. Reaper, especially in Bones I, made it very worth my while to fund their kickstarter.
@Ketara - Like Azreal13, Insaniak and others have pointed out, a company might choose Kickstarter as a platform to market their product, in addition to, or perhaps independent of, any financial benefits.
In any case, if it's a well-established business that you trust, you should feel much more comfortable in giving them essentially what amounts to a discounted prepayment. After all, does anyone really think Privateer Press is going to take everyone's money and run? The risk is much smaller than, for instance, the guy who was selling foam cardboard boxes out of his garage. If they didn't launch, the amount of ill-will would be unreal.
There IS a cost to failing a Kickstarter, by the way. Namely, people won't trust you anymore. Reputation is pretty important, It hink.
@Azreal13 - It's "free money" in the sense that traditionally, if you have an idea but no money, you have to take your dog and pony show to investors until someone fronts you money, usually at cost that far exceeds what a loan from a bank would. With a Kickstarter, you still get to be profitable with your product that's essentially presold (like you said, presumably at some perceived discount). But you're right; it's "cheap money", not free.
Azreal13 wrote: I also believe KS is increasingly becoming a marketing platform alongside anything else it may or may not be, and Kickstarting a product may be the actual thing that generates the sales that makes a product viable.
The only problem is that you have to balance the opportunity for marketing (and lets be honest, direct sales) against the harm done to your retail partners in terms of hurt feelings. In many ways, nobody threads that needle as well as Reaper: they offer retailer only pledge levels, they don't deep discount current inventory (with a handful of specific examples, like starter paint sets), and the end product is a good seller for retailers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talys wrote: In any case, if it's a well-established business that you trust, you should feel much more comfortable in giving them essentially what amounts to a discounted prepayment. After all, does anyone really think Privateer Press is going to take everyone's money and run? The risk is much smaller than, for instance, the guy who was selling foam cardboard boxes out of his garage. If they didn't launch, the amount of ill-will would be unreal.
This is also a good point. While it is a low risk option for PP, if it funds, we can be virtually certain that something will deliver.
Now, the quality of that good is another question, but PP will fulfill their obligations to avoid a PR nightmare.
A Kickstarter pledge is an investment towards the development of a product, not a loan. Delivery is not guaranteed... the only obligation that the project creator has is to attempt to deliver on their promises.
And that is what gives some people a bad taste in their mouth when an established company comes to them with a Kickstarter.
The company is asking you to front the money and carry all of the risk for them. Why?
First, why are you asking?
Second, why should I?
It is a breeding ground for creating a hostile and/or antagonistic relationship with your customer base, which is why using Kickstarter really means trading one set of risks for an entirely different set of risks.
When you ask your customers to back a Kickstarter campaign, you are creating a set of expectations above and beyond your normal buyer/seller relationship because you are asking your customers to give more than they normally would as consumers.
This can be a great thing if you meet or exceed those expectations, but it can be disastrous if you don't, and I think it is fair to say that there are many more examples of the latter than the former.
Now, another thorny issue for the market as a whole is that creating those expectations can have implications far beyond a campaign in isolation. You are creating price expectations, for example, which every company is feeling both in and outside of Kickstarter.
Customers who approach a Kickstarter campaign that defies the typical or 'intended' nature of 'kick starting' a product or company tend to expect more traditional consumer-oriented compensation, e.g. reduced prices. This has an impact on the whole market, and especially within the Kickstarter ecosystem.
For example, large, established companies that can afford to offer traditional consumer-oriented compensation have created an expectation that all or most projects will come with those types of compensation. This makes it more difficult for smaller companies to use Kickstarter for its intended purpose.
@Azreal13 - It's "free money" in the sense that traditionally, if you have an idea but no money, you have to take your dog and pony show to investors until someone fronts you money, usually at cost that far exceeds what a loan from a bank would. With a Kickstarter, you still get to be profitable with your product that's essentially presold (like you said, presumably at some perceived discount). But you're right; it's "cheap money", not free.
This is actually the only part that concerns me, but even then concern is too strong a word. I believe there should probably be some accountability associated with crowdfunding aside from just reputational risk, but I'm not sure how regulated it should be, if at all. I think we'll see something in the future, as the SEC has started to regulate crowdfunded investments as of Nov 2015, but for now I'm not entirely sure where that will lead.
Talys wrote: In any case, if it's a well-established business that you trust, you should feel much more comfortable in giving them essentially what amounts to a discounted prepayment. After all, does anyone really think Privateer Press is going to take everyone's money and run? The risk is much smaller than, for instance, the guy who was selling foam cardboard boxes out of his garage. If they didn't launch, the amount of ill-will would be unreal.
This is also a good point. While it is a low risk option for PP, if it funds, we can be virtually certain that something will deliver.
Now, the quality of that good is another question, but PP will fulfill their obligations to avoid a PR nightmare.
Nostromodamus' post indicates he is still waiting for fulfillment of the PP video game Kickstarter. Has anyone else backed that and not received their pledged items?
If PP haven't made good on that first campaign I'd be wary of backing another one of their campaigns. Though, Raging Heroes' second successful campaign proved that others don't share those same concerns so what do I know.
I forget how it ended, but I seem to recall the Wyrd RPG Kickstarter struggling for much of its run, with many thoughts similar to those raised here expressed pretty freely. I could be misremembering though.
For what it's worth, I find it slightly tacky for a company that could foot the bill to run a kickstarter like this. It's a board game, not something that requires a massive capital investment. I also know their track record of middling board games. Still, if they make the pot sweet enough for people to jump in, I won't blame them.
At the end of the day, crowdfunding by its very nature creates a set of moral obligations/expectations that are atypical from a buyer/seller standpoint.
It's changing the market, for both good and ill. I think it remains to be seen where the balance will end up in five, ten years.
The important thing to remember is that while Kickstarter is helping to expand the market by introducing table top games to a wider audience, it is also influencing how longstanding participants in that market behave. Table top gaming is niche, and I think it is fair to say that this makes it rather sensitive to evolutions like crowdfunding.
I think it benefits everybody to have these types of discussions; to take a step back and look at crowdfunding from a broader perspective than what's the beast deal you can get today. We should try to be aware of how crowdfunding is influencing our own perceptions, behaviors, and expectations; and how it is influencing the market.
Just like consumers who choose to buy local, or buy American, or by free range, or buy sustainable, or whatever other ethical/moral choices enter into your purchasing decisions, we should think about what it means to use crowdfunding, both in the short term and the long term.
Because crowdfunding carries an implicit set of moral/ethical expectations by its very nature, it is particularly apt to consider it in a moral/ethical framework, rather than a dispassionate price analysis.
Cost/benefit analysis has a lot more going on than an objective price/vale analysis. Otherwise why would you support a sustainable fishery or refuse to purchase the products of child labor?
Nostromodamus' post indicates he is still waiting for fulfillment of the PP video game Kickstarter. Has anyone else backed that and not received their pledged items?
Someone who says they haven't received their pledge items yet should specify whether they're talking about the video game or the models. And if they're talking about the models, I'm sure everyone would love to hear the tale, since those shipped out in April: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/409030043/warmachine-tactics/posts/803216
Someone who says they haven't received their pledge items yet should specify whether they're talking about the video game or the models. And if they're talking about the models, I'm sure everyone would love to hear the tale, since those shipped out in April: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/409030043/warmachine-tactics/posts/803216
So it looks like the physical copies of the video game and sound track should be shipping out around the time the new KS goes live. *shrug* Seems reasonable.
Azreal13 wrote:It isn't really interest free, and it certainly isn't a loan, as I've already mentioned, it's an investment and that's not the same thing.
Re-read what I wrote please. I only called it a loan when I specified a scenario in which they already had the cash flow/product confidence. In which case, it's certainly no longer an 'investment' into a business plan, as the company has the ability and desire to produce the product regardless of my cash. The product will occur regardless of my input. Making my obligation-free infusion of cash into their company nothing more than a loan of my cash which they will use to sell me a pre-planned product at a profit to them.
Polonius wrote:
I think that's a fine stance, and not overly far from my own views, but as I learned with Reaper Bones, when the deal is really good, I'm willing to preorder.
But that's no different from any other pre-order mechanic. Reaper, especially in Bones I, made it very worth my while to fund their kickstarter.
Oh, certainly. But what is happening here is that you are weighing a tangible return in exchange for the loan of your capital, namely the discount. If PP set out here to make a product using a KS, and then sold it at equivalent retail price once produced, you'd have gained nothing.
The issue here, is that you often do not know what the retail price will be, making it difficult to judge if it is worth loaning a company your money in an obligation-free interest free setting.
Talys wrote:@Ketara - Like Azreal13, Insaniak and others have pointed out, a company might choose Kickstarter as a platform to market their product, in addition to, or perhaps independent of, any financial benefits.
In any case, if it's a well-established business that you trust, you should feel much more comfortable in giving them essentially what amounts to a discounted prepayment.
Not quite. It's the separation between the 'loan' and the 'investment' (roughly speaking here) that makes the difference. If the product would occur regardless as it's from an established firm, then I have no need to 'loan' them my cash. But if the product is from a new firm, it's a speculative 'investment', and I therefore assume I am risking my cash, on the basis that the product will not make it to market if I do not.
But please recall that there is also the options whereby an established firm is using KS because lack confidence in their product/cashflow. In either case, it is possible the product will not make it to market without my input (making it more of an investment in the latter), but frankly, coming from an established firm, neither are encouraging signs.
After all, does anyone really think Privateer Press is going to take everyone's money and run? The risk is much smaller than, for instance, the guy who was selling foam cardboard boxes out of his garage. If they didn't launch, the amount of ill-will would be unreal.
I think my money will not vanish into the night. But likewise, I feel no need to give an established firm an cash interest free loan of my capital to help their business along. I can find far better uses for my money than minimally boosting the liquidity of a multi-million pound firm for a 10% discount on some product that was going to appear regardless in six months.
And if it wasn't going to appear? Then either PP are cash strapped (making them a risky proposition for obligation free lending), or have so little confidence in their success of their product they wouldn't make it otherwise(which means that they're probably making bad business decisions in pursuing it to begin with).
I'm probably not going to back this because PPs boardgames really really aren't great. I have Level 7, both high commands, Undercity and they're all missing something. Undercity was especially bad with only 8? scenarios with no variability in terms of scenarios. Which for a game with a 95 dollar RRP is pretty damn horrible.
And the sad part is PP will never improve on this it seems because they think that what they're doing is good enough/meets boardgame standards. They think the plastic they're using is the standard for board games and most of the users on their board agree with them. It's almost like they don't know what modern boardgame figures are like.
Even if Kickstarter were a 'loan' then I would still like game companies to use it.
I would rather see the companies paying the 'interest' to gamers than to the bank.
So, Bones III is from a well established company, for an increasingly well established line.
And it is worth it to me to 'loan' Pugh et ali a few hundred doallars, knowing that in the fullness of time, the 'interest' will come to me in the form of loverly unpainted plastics that I can spread on the floor and roll on, in orgiastic glee.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Even if Kickstarter were a 'loan' then I would still like game companies to use it.
I would rather see the companies paying the 'interest' to gamers than to the bank.
So, Bones III is from a well established company, for an increasingly well established line.
And it is worth it to me to 'loan' Pugh et ali a few hundred doallars, knowing that in the fullness of time, the 'interest' will come to me in the form of loverly unpainted plastics that I can spread on the floor and roll on, in orgiastic glee.
What was the question again?
The Auld Grump
Good for you. Some of us don't see the need to give interest free loans to established companies and assume all the risk of their pet project in exchange. While Kickstarter has produced has produced a few excellent gaming products, most of it has been run of the mill junk. If flooding the market with low quality junk was the mission, then Kickstarter has been a resounding success. There are only so many $$$s out there to give, and contrary to the bleatings of fanboys, the industry is not always better off when there is a flood of projects. Good ideas get lost in the all the blather of the Mantics and PPs hawking their next wave of low bidder produced Chinese junk.
It hurts, if not outright murders local game store sales, which everyone is always crying about, and does not build a community of gamers when all demand for a product is satisfied in a campaign. Then the product is DOA on a store shelf. And don't even get me started on the thieves that actually run Kickstarter, taking their cut, and shrugging their shoulders at outright fraud and abuse on their 'service'. Enjoy it while you can. The Robotechs and Up Fronts are going to bring an end to the Wild West era of Kickstarter.
Nostromodamus' post indicates he is still waiting for fulfillment of the PP video game Kickstarter. Has anyone else backed that and not received their pledged items?
If PP haven't made good on that first campaign I'd be wary of backing another one of their campaigns. Though, Raging Heroes' second successful campaign proved that others don't share those same concerns so what do I know.
Wasn't there a closed beta or something for people who pledged? It does seem like a super-long time ago that the video game went to KS, though, either way.
PP doing a video game is quite a bit different than PP doing a board game (or miniatures product), though. I would actually forgive PP for screwing up a video game, as it's not part of their core competency. Like, a lot of people vastly underestimate the amount of money, effort, and talent required to get a game from concept to a marketable product, and how high player expectations are today. Not to mention, how quickly the landscape and tools change.
So, if PP messed up a video game Kickstarter, I wouldn't give them more money for another video game kickstarter, but it wouldn't rule out giving them money for terrain boards or a miniatures boardgame. If they screwed up a miniatures or boardgame Kickstarter, I'd really lose faith in them. Maybe I'd still buy stuff, because I'm a sucker for nice shiny things in front of me, but I'd definitely think less of them as a company.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Even if Kickstarter were a 'loan' then I would still like game companies to use it.
I would rather see the companies paying the 'interest' to gamers than to the bank.
So, Bones III is from a well established company, for an increasingly well established line.
And it is worth it to me to 'loan' Pugh et ali a few hundred doallars, knowing that in the fullness of time, the 'interest' will come to me in the form of loverly unpainted plastics that I can spread on the floor and roll on, in orgiastic glee.
What was the question again?
The Auld Grump
Good for you. Some of us don't see the need to give interest free loans to established companies and assume all the risk of their pet project in exchange. While Kickstarter has produced has produced a few excellent gaming products, most of it has been run of the mill junk. If flooding the market with low quality junk was the mission, then Kickstarter has been a resounding success. There are only so many $$$s out there to give, and contrary to the bleatings of fanboys, the industry is not always better off when there is a flood of projects. Good ideas get lost in the all the blather of the Mantics and PPs hawking their next wave of low bidder produced Chinese junk.
It hurts, if not outright murders local game store sales, which everyone is always crying about, and does not build a community of gamers when all demand for a product is satisfied in a campaign. Then the product is DOA on a store shelf. And don't even get me started on the thieves that actually run Kickstarter, taking their cut, and shrugging their shoulders at outright fraud and abuse on their 'service'. Enjoy it while you can. The Robotechs and Up Fronts are going to bring an end to the Wild West era of Kickstarter.
Sadly the facts contradict your excellently constructed rant, and people need to stop using loan interchangeably with investment, it makes it look like you don't know what you're on about...
If people supported them then, for at least some of them they were worth it, likewise before boardgames reached the level they are now, many duds were released and frankly now KS cuts a lot of the duds by people not supporting them, which is good for both the creator and the market, cutting the clutter and giving instant feedback on the creator.
As with every market KS is in the process of maturing at least in the boardgame genre each year more and more work is needed for a project to fund and even more for it to be a success, it will not be long before the rate of good games increases just because the bar will be held high enough.
totalfailure wrote: Good for you. Some of us don't see the need to give interest free loans to established companies and assume all the risk of their pet project in exchange. While Kickstarter has produced has produced a few excellent gaming products, most of it has been run of the mill junk. If flooding the market with low quality junk was the mission, then Kickstarter has been a resounding success. There are only so many $$$s out there to give, and contrary to the bleatings of fanboys, the industry is not always better off when there is a flood of projects. Good ideas get lost in the all the blather of the Mantics and PPs hawking their next wave of low bidder produced Chinese junk.
I think SWM terrain boards started off as Kickstarter, and those are great. I do concur that most things coming out of Kickstarter for gaming are not great, which is why personally, I just wait for it to come out and pay the full price.
totalfailure wrote: It hurts, if not outright murders local game store sales, which everyone is always crying about, and does not build a community of gamers when all demand for a product is satisfied in a campaign. Then the product is DOA on a store shelf.
This is actually a pretty good point. I never really thought about that, and it's really true. Kickstarter stuff doesn't sell at the only local store here that stocks any significant amount of such things because most of the people who are would have been excited already got it at the Kickstarter stage. Ironically, it's probably a reason why that store doesn't stock a lot of Mantic. If they can't make money off of them, why stock it, and if they don't stock it, they won't ever grow their sales or develop a community.
Good for you. Some of us don't see the need to give interest free loans to established companies and assume all the risk of their pet project in exchange. While Kickstarter has produced has produced a few excellent gaming products, most of it has been run of the mill junk. If flooding the market with low quality junk was the mission, then Kickstarter has been a resounding success. There are only so many $$$s out there to give, and contrary to the bleatings of fanboys, the industry is not always better off when there is a flood of projects. Good ideas get lost in the all the blather of the Mantics and PPs hawking their next wave of low bidder produced Chinese junk.
It hurts, if not outright murders local game store sales, which everyone is always crying about, and does not build a community of gamers when all demand for a product is satisfied in a campaign. Then the product is DOA on a store shelf. And don't even get me started on the thieves that actually run Kickstarter, taking their cut, and shrugging their shoulders at outright fraud and abuse on their 'service'. Enjoy it while you can. The Robotechs and Up Fronts are going to bring an end to the Wild West era of Kickstarter.
Awe...did one of them touch you in a no-no place?
Of the 80 some projects I've backed, I'd say I've been unhappy with less than 10. But then again, that's probably just the bleating of a fanboy.
Talys wrote: Kickstarter stuff doesn't sell at the only local store here that stocks any significant amount of such things because most of the people who are would have been excited already got it at the Kickstarter stage. Ironically, it's probably a reason why that store doesn't stock a lot of Mantic. If they can't make money off of them, why stock it, and if they don't stock it, they won't ever grow their sales or develop a community.
This sort of assumes that the local store would be doing anything to grow a community if the stuff was available to them rather than through Kickstarter... Which in a lot of cases simply isn't so.
People who have a store that promotes gaming and builds community involvement seem to assume that this is the default for all stores. It most certainly is not. A lot of stores are there for nothing more than to sell product, and they'll only stock what they think will sell... which excludes most of the traiditionally-developed and released games out there as well as the Kickstarter stuff.
While I can understand why those who have a good local store would want to support them and don't like to see them getting cut out of the sales chain, for an awful lot of us that's simply not a consideration in our purchasing. The existence (or not) of a local store, and the range they choose to stock (or not) has absolutely zero impact on my gaming.
Talys wrote: PP doing a video game is quite a bit different than PP doing a board game (or miniatures product), though. I would actually forgive PP for screwing up a video game, as it's not part of their core competency. Like, a lot of people vastly underestimate the amount of money, effort, and talent required to get a game from concept to a marketable product, and how high player expectations are today. Not to mention, how quickly the landscape and tools change.
You are a more generous person than I am, then.
Quite frankly I don't think a company should be seeking funding for a project if they don't have the competency to see the project through. If said company are breaking into a new market they better have their gak in order or else they deserve all of the bad blood their failure will heap on them. Especially if they are experimenting with other people's money.
Talys wrote: So, if PP messed up a video game Kickstarter, I wouldn't give them more money for another video game kickstarter, but it wouldn't rule out giving them money for terrain boards or a miniatures boardgame. If they screwed up a miniatures or boardgame Kickstarter, I'd really lose faith in them. Maybe I'd still buy stuff, because I'm a sucker for nice shiny things in front of me, but I'd definitely think less of them as a company.
PP tried to get into comics and action figures at one point and those ventures bombed. That was before crowd-sourcing was really thing, but if those projects were Kickstarted and they had left backers hanging, I wouldn't give PP the benefit of the doubt if their next KS idea was more in line with their wheelhouse. For me PP would have already proven that they weren't good stewards of backers money and I'd have to be really wowed by whatever new proposal they had to even consider giving them a dime.
And just so I am not misunderstood, I am not implying PP failed with their Warmachine: Tactics video game. I am merely speaking hypothetically.
Quite frankly I don't think a company should be seeking funding for a project if they don't have the competency to see the project through. If said company are breaking into a new market they better have their gak in order or else they deserve all of the bad blood their failure will heap on them. Especially if they are experimenting with other people's money.
By its very nature, though, Kickstarter is always going to result in a lot of projects being run by people who thought they knew what they were doing right up until it came time to actually do it... and suddenly they start to find out the hard way how much they didn't actually know.
PP tried to get into comics and action figures at one point and those ventures bombed. That was before crowd-sourcing was really thing, but if those projects were Kickstarted and they had left backers hanging, I wouldn't give PP the benefit of the doubt if their next KS idea was more in line with their wheelhouse. For me PP would have already proven that they weren't good stewards of backers money and I'd have to be really wowed by whatever new proposal they had to even consider giving them a dime.
And just so I am not misunderstood, I am not implying PP failed with their Warmachine: Tactics video game. I am merely speaking hypothetically.
Yeah, I'm with you there. If they (hypothetically) fail at one side venture, or took so long that it was no longer relevant, I wouldn't pony up money up front for something else that they weren't proven to be competent at. Don't get me wrong... I wouldn't be happy about losing my money and it'd leave a sour taste in my mouth; but I'd understand the "why" of it (especially with video games), and I don't think I'd stop buying nice models or rulebooks that they make over it.
The far more intelligent thing for them to have done with the video game if there were uncertainties, I think, would have been to spin off another company, and do the Kickstarter under that. People would have still backed it, being an official Warmachines title.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Even if Kickstarter were a 'loan' then I would still like game companies to use it.
I would rather see the companies paying the 'interest' to gamers than to the bank.
So, Bones III is from a well established company, for an increasingly well established line.
And it is worth it to me to 'loan' Pugh et ali a few hundred doallars, knowing that in the fullness of time, the 'interest' will come to me in the form of loverly unpainted plastics that I can spread on the floor and roll on, in orgiastic glee.
What was the question again?
The Auld Grump
Good for you. Some of us don't see the need to give interest free loans to established companies and assume all the risk of their pet project in exchange. While Kickstarter has produced has produced a few excellent gaming products, most of it has been run of the mill junk. If flooding the market with low quality junk was the mission, then Kickstarter has been a resounding success. There are only so many $$$s out there to give, and contrary to the bleatings of fanboys, the industry is not always better off when there is a flood of projects. Good ideas get lost in the all the blather of the Mantics and PPs hawking their next wave of low bidder produced Chinese junk.
It hurts, if not outright murders local game store sales, which everyone is always crying about, and does not build a community of gamers when all demand for a product is satisfied in a campaign. Then the product is DOA on a store shelf. And don't even get me started on the thieves that actually run Kickstarter, taking their cut, and shrugging their shoulders at outright fraud and abuse on their 'service'. Enjoy it while you can. The Robotechs and Up Fronts are going to bring an end to the Wild West era of Kickstarter.
Sucks to be you then, doesn't it?
Nice rant, by the way - but completely misses the point.
The banks weren't loaning them the money - so game companies had to look elsewhere.
The distributors cut far back on what they were distributing - as fewer but larger distributors took over. (Alliance actually carried less product than either Chessex or Armory., as an example.) Look back at the 1990s and early 200s - when a large number of game companies vanished, due to both the banks and the larger combined distributors, that only stocked what they considered to be sure sellers.
So, no, if you want to point at who is 'murdering' the poor innocent gamestore, point at distributors and banks, as well as all of the people that buy online rather than go to their local store.
As for 'interest free loans' - correct me if I'm wrong, but I do typically get more in product from the Kickstarter than I would purchasing retail, yes?
The 'interest' is in the form of the product that I would have been purchasing in any event, at a discount.
So, let me pretend to brush away an imaginary tear.
Because Kickstarter is merely stepping into a vacancy left by traditional methods failing to fulfill their purpose.
Just putting it out there but has anyone actually proven KS is hurting FLGSs?
Last I heard Dreadball sold 3 or 4 times as many copies through regular sales channels post KS than it did in the KS campaign. I'd say your average FLGS would be glad it got kickstarted so that he would then be able to sell it too.
I can put my hand up and say I got my Dreadball from a (sort of) LGS. Both of the Season books I've bought and any teams I buy will be too.
The issue with KS sometimes is there's a time sensitive window and if your hobby budget isn't infinite, you just can't afford to put the money in, or you can't put it in before the window closes.
Normal retail doesn't go anywhere near so quick, and one has a chance to plan one's purchases, even if they don't offer quite the same discount. Plus of course any supplements post KS may well go normal channel.
jonolikespie wrote: Just putting it out there but has anyone actually proven KS is hurting FLGSs?
Last I heard Dreadball sold 3 or 4 times as many copies through regular sales channels post KS than it did in the KS campaign. I'd say your average FLGS would be glad it got kickstarted so that he would then be able to sell it too.
It's certainly a consideration... One of the biggest hurdles for new games is that stores want to stock stuff with a guaranteed audience. Kickstarter would certainly seem to be a way of showing stores that the audience is there.
That would be more helpful with games that are going to have supplements or other addons than with one-shot all-in-one box games, though.
jonolikespie wrote: Just putting it out there but has anyone actually proven KS is hurting FLGSs?
Last I heard Dreadball sold 3 or 4 times as many copies through regular sales channels post KS than it did in the KS campaign. I'd say your average FLGS would be glad it got kickstarted so that he would then be able to sell it too.
Some articles from Gary Ray, proprietor of Black Diamond Games. Gary is a regular contributor to the Delphi Forums games retailer sub forum, and seems to be a well-respected guy in the business:
Everything's anecdotal in this business, so if you're looking for hard numbers as to the impact of KS on retailers, you're just not going to find them. However, I have had maybe half a dozen retailers in various places around the country tell me that KickStarter isn't good for their store.
insaniak wrote: That says that Kickstarter is bad for FLGS sales of products that are launched via Kickstarter.
By that token, though, any product that the FLGS doesn't stock is 'bad' for the FLGS.
Errr....not really seeing how you're getting that. There's a very specific reason the chap says KS launched products are bad for his store, and that's because the niche products have already been sold to everyone via KS at a better rate than he could offer before he could even sell it (cannibalising his sales). By what you've said above though, any product not launched on Kickstarter and not stocked by the FLGS would have the same effect and be 'bad' for FLGS sales.
Which doesn't make sense, because a product launched on KS can't be a product not launched on KS.
Ketara wrote: Errr....not really seeing how you're getting that. There's a very specific reason the chap says KS launched products are bad for his store, and that's because the niche products have already been sold to everyone via KS at a better rate than he could offer before he could even sell it (cannibalising his sales). By what you've said above though, any product not launched on Kickstarter and not stocked by the FLGS would have the same effect and be 'bad' for FLGS sales.
Yes, that's exactly where that idea takes you.
Which doesn't make sense, because a product launched on KS can't be a product not launched on KS.
No, but a product not sold through the store is a product not sold through the store.
Kickstarter is a red herring here. The problem is with the store owners choices of products to range. If he's ranging product that has no market, then it's not going to sell. Whether or not the product previously sold on Kickstarter has no impact on that.
A product sold through KS is only available for what, 3 weeks?
But KS means that product gets made and FLGSs everywhere are then able to stock it and sell it for years to come.
Were I to own a FLGS I'd think that seeing a successful KS means I should stock that product when it releases so I can capitalize on all those people who didn't manage to get the product via KS, but are now seeing the people who did enjoying it.
Obviously, there isn't any data to prove or disprove the impact of Kickstarters on retail hobby. But, let's run through a mental exercise.
If Games Workshop put the next plastic Imperial Knight on Kickstarter for:
- 20% less than MSRP, prepaid 1 year in advance - Stretch goals: extra bits with more weapons, extra faceplate, extra tabard, tokens, dice, pilot model, etc - You get the model 2 weeks before it ships to retail
Everyone wins! You get a nice discount, you get it earlier than anyone else, and if enough people buy in, there will be more goodies available! GW gets a higher profit margin! Money in advance!
Now... what do you think the impact would be to FLGS? I'm pretty sure local gaming stores would scream bloody murder, because if for no other reason, there would be eager people signed to buy it on KS, so that they get it a little earlier.
That's the problem with a company releasing on a direct channel earlier -- the most eager participants who want product in the release window and are probably some of the best (or at least, most excited) customers, won't buy at least the first copy through the local stores. That's gotta hurt. I don't know if it's permissible to ship to the stores at the same time as the pledges. That would certainly help.
Now, on the other hand, I get that not having the product ever developed, well, that doesn't help anyone either
Talys wrote: If Games Workshop put the next plastic Imperial Knight on Kickstarter for:
- 20% less than MSRP, prepaid 1 year in advance
- Stretch goals: extra bits with more weapons, extra faceplate, extra tabard, tokens, dice, pilot model, etc
- You get the model 2 weeks before it ships to retail
Everyone wins! You get a nice discount, you get it earlier than anyone else, and if enough people buy in, there will be more goodies available! GW gets a higher profit margin! Money in advance!
Now... what do you think the impact would be to FLGS? I'm pretty sure local gaming stores would scream bloody murder, because if for no other reason, there would be eager people signed to buy it on KS, so that they get it a little earlier.
As opposed to the current system, where stores would find out about the Knight a week before it is released, waste an inordinate amount of time frantically trying to drum up pre-orders for an expensive kit with no notice, and then receive a quarter of the kits that they ordered, because GW sold out through their website 3 and a half minutes after the pre-order went live.
I don't think GW is the best model for your little hypothetical, to be honest...
Pledge Managers and related things (like accepting late pledges) change that three to four week window. That's probably a good portion of the demand killer.
"Love/Hate Relationship" is how one of the local game store owners summarized his feelings about Kickstarter.
I have a question on a bit of a different tack. What's wrong with Privateer Press' board games? I haven't played any, with the possible exception of a couple of games of High Command, if that counts. Someone mentioned one only having a limited number of very similar scenarios? And someone else suggested the quality of their figures is poor compared to the rest of the board games industry?
I'm kinda getting burned out on replying to three to four people. If what I've said so far makes no sense or you're inclined to go down the road of "stop liking what I don't like," that's cool. I won't give PP my money. If you do, I think you're dumb (but no hard feelings).
I've been reading through this thread with quite a lot of bemusement.
Your (slightly reworked) lines here appear to essentially sum up your entire argument very well: "Stop liking what I don't like, If you do, I think you're dumb."
And FWIW, if I'm looking to get rid of money for "the feelz," I donate it to one of multiple charities we donate to. I don't go to KS. If that's why you're on KS then you're doing it wrong.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I have a question on a bit of a different tack. What's wrong with Privateer Press' board games? I haven't played any, with the possible exception of a couple of games of High Command, if that counts. Someone mentioned one only having a limited number of very similar scenarios? And someone else suggested the quality of their figures is poor compared to the rest of the board games industry?
That was me. I've played level 7 , high command and undercity. High command died locally cause they really messed up their release schedule when it came out. With nothing but the base set to play for months, it got really old really fast.
For undercity, which I bought at full rrp from them at gencon, 95usd iirc, there were only 8 scenarios in the book. I completed them with friends in one afternoon plus night of gaming. And there's no reason to replay since there arent any different characters to use or any changes to the scenario depending on how you completed a previous scenario. It's a very poor investment for 95 USD. Sure they might have released a few new scenarios in no quarter, their bimonthly magazine but considering I paid full retail for this game, I shouldnt have to spend extra money buying a magazine to supplement the severe lack of scenarios.
I find black diamond rants laughable, beyond the obvious the product would not be made in many cases (beyond the usual suspects), the amount of people backing a project is laughably minuscule if one considers its people globally, lets see Zombiecide season 3 was backed by 12k backers globally, if 12k people, most of them not in his state and quite a few of them not even in his country are enough to impact his business then how can I take him seriously.
Its the same rant I hear about online sales, well, adapt and make your store competitive.
In all his rants the pattern is the same he wants everything in his favor.
Going back to the "Is KickStarter bad for retail?" angle, the answer is really "it depends on many factors." First and foremost is how good the company is on completing the project. I think this is somewhat secondary to the overall success of the project, really. Other factors include how good the game is at its core, is there TOO much content produced for it, and how long before the company starts tinkering with it again.
Mantic, for example, is somewhat hard to find on the shelves around me despite having about 7 game stores in an hour's drive. I can think of three (two of them branches of the same tree) where I've seen Mantic product of any kind for sale. Aside from the fact that Mantic's actual fans know to get things off their numerous KS, I think a great deal of the reason is simply that Mantic has issues getting their KS's done without pulling some sort of customer-alienating blunder. This causes your most dedicated supporters to no longer be dedicated, which hurts any word-of-mouth you're going to get. When a company fumbles or seemingly jerks their backers around this poisons the well of demand very quickly as "the guys who make that are donkeycaves" gets circulated around gaming groups. Sure, some terrible companies make some great products, but most people don't like supporting companies that annoyed their friends personally.
The other thing that happens when a project is very notable (i.e. - the ones FLGS seem to want to get behind) is you have the KS speculator. The guy (or gal) that orders six of something, planning to sell off four+ copies at a profit to cover the cost of the others they're keeping. These are competition for retailers, and botching your fulfillment via half-promises or general feth-ups means more backers become those speculators or indeed simply divest themselves of the goods they receive entirely. These people are an additional dimension of competition beyond the normal ones FLGS have to deal with in Amazon and online gaming stores. Making it worse is that a speculator often cares even less about margins because most of them were playing with money anyway as opposed to a store where their livelihood depends on the money; it's more like gambling/entertainment for them than it is a way of life. However, this can very easily create a glut on the market, and few games seem to reach the post-KS level of success needed to absorb it so that supply levels return to normal.
Taking an aside to really dive into that scenario, if I'm a consumer and I see a product I've never heard of on the shelf of a FLGS I'm going to use the magic box known as the "Internet" to see what it looks like out of the box; I don't typically drop a hundred dollars+ at a store on a product I've not seen before. We'll take Robotech as an example, because it's been both a feth-up and I've actually seen the product stocked on store shelves; none of which seem to actually MOVE said product mind you. What am I going to find? A clusterfeth of a project that has no end in sight, mistreated backers and, by far most importantly, massive discounts on the product from online retailers and people selling off their pledges because the game has no traction in their area. Even presuming I was somehow a rabid fan who somehow missed the KS, why would I pay a 30-40% mark-up compared to what prevailing prices are? Then further why would I buy into a system that people seem ambivalent towards from a company that has yet to fulfill their obligations years later? Neither question bodes well for a store trying to sell something at MSRP.
So back to the original point, there's many different factors on each project will determine if that project is bad for retail or not, but at this point in the platform's performance I can't fault stores for not wanting to roll the dice with how their bills are paid and just ignoring anything that comes out of KS for a few months after release to see if it actually has legs.
I'm kinda getting burned out on replying to three to four people. If what I've said so far makes no sense or you're inclined to go down the road of "stop liking what I don't like," that's cool. I won't give PP my money. If you do, I think you're dumb (but no hard feelings).
I've been reading through this thread with quite a lot of bemusement.
Your (slightly reworked) lines here appear to essentially sum up your entire argument very well: "Stop liking what I don't like, If you do, I think you're dumb."
I figured for the people who had trouble with reading comprehension, I'd just distill my posts down into what they would read anyway. Next time, I'll just lead the thread with that and save everyone some time.
And FWIW, if I'm looking to get rid of money for "the feelz," I donate it to one of multiple charities we donate to. I don't go to KS. If that's why you're on KS then you're doing it wrong.
r
Also, this.
It was a metaphor for how I view KS. It had nothing to do with charity. You and cincydooley must have gone to the same school district.
Kickstarter allows more games to be made...at little to no risk (assuming a well-organized campaign that accurately predicts costs) to the producer. It also allows companies to see first hand what gamers are willing to back, encouraging development of more games of that kind.
How is this not a win/win? Throw in that most KS campaigns are intended to fund the retail production of the game as well, and you end up with win/win/win, as LGS shelves will see the game eventually as well. And with KS demand serving as an accurate gauge for overall gamer demand, the products that succeed at KS will likely translate into LGS sales.
If people want to view crowdfunding as a tool only for the little guy, there's not much anyone can do to persuade them otherwise. I see KS as a way to take financial support away from the controlling hands of greedy banks and the super rich, and places it directly in the hands of consumers and every-day people. It replaces the guesswork of "will the market want this product" with a certainty that is hard to fault.
jonolikespie wrote: A product sold through KS is only available for what, 3 weeks?
But KS means that product gets made and FLGSs everywhere are then able to stock it and sell it for years to come.
Were I to own a FLGS I'd think that seeing a successful KS means I should stock that product when it releases so I can capitalize on all those people who didn't manage to get the product via KS, but are now seeing the people who did enjoying it.
The thing to bear in mind is perception - the owners of stores perceiving that Kickstarter could be stealing away sales.
During the Bones I Kickstarter one of the stores decided to get the retail pack - and sold it all before it came in. (I'm cheating here - what they did was put up a list of what people wanted from the retail pack, took money from those people it, then ordered the needed number of retail packs - it was not that they sold what they bought, it was that they bought what they sold - and then put up a list of the items that hadn't been purchased out of the retail packs, crossing them off as people chose from the remainders.)
In Bones II there were figures that I ordered through the FNSLGS (Friendly, not so local game store) - even though I also had a fairly hefty pledge. (Things that I wasn't getting enough of, and a few things that I hadn't thought that I wanted. (Trash dumpsters - four of them...)
The store does not buy the Kickstarted items, and thus cannot sell the Kickstarted items.
Also important, in this age of the interweb, folks are buying online, and often directly from the company - the game store is becoming redundant for many shoppers, and this is happening even without Kickstarter.
The Auld Grump, though I am of the opinion that the internet is just a fad - like Pokemon....
Quite frankly I don't think a company should be seeking funding for a project if they don't have the competency to see the project through. If said company are breaking into a new market they better have their gak in order or else they deserve all of the bad blood their failure will heap on them. Especially if they are experimenting with other people's money.
By its very nature, though, Kickstarter is always going to result in a lot of projects being run by people who thought they knew what they were doing right up until it came time to actually do it... and suddenly they start to find out the hard way how much they didn't actually know.
True, which is why there are so many heartbreak stories involving Kickstarter. I'd wager a good 20-30% of Kickstarters should never be allowed to run in the first place.
If a lot of those failed project creators were honest with themselves they probably would admit they weren't ready for the challenges associated with their projects. I think a lot of campaigns fail because of the over eagerness (or greed) of the project creators and not enough reality checks to ensure they are being responsible and cautious entrepreneurs.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Also important, in this age of the interweb, folks are buying online, and often directly from the company - the game store is becoming redundant for many shoppers, and this is happening even without Kickstarter.
The Auld Grump, though I am of the opinion that the internet is just a fad - like Pokemon....
That's a thought worth exploring. Is KS a problem, or is it simply a target that can be held up and vilified in a much, much wider economic landscape that has changed drastically over the last decade?
TheAuldGrump wrote: So, no, if you want to point at who is 'murdering' the poor innocent gamestore, point at distributors and banks, as well as all of the people that buy online rather than go to their local store
You know I love you Grump, but just to be totally fair, that up there is part of the gripe some folks have with KS; it cuts out the FLGS. It is essentially buying online instead of in a brick and mortar store.
You can say that it is a product that wasn't available in the store anyways, but maybe those products would be in the stores if they hadn't been crowdfunded, maybe not.
Just pointing it out is all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kingbobb wrote: Kickstarter allows more games to be made...at little to no risk (assuming a well-organized campaign that accurately predicts costs) to the producer. It also allows companies to see first hand what gamers are willing to back, encouraging development of more games of that kind.
But that statement isn't actually true. Kickstarter involves some quite substantial risks. There can be a significant return in the form of market penetration, advertising, and available channels for customer engagement; but you are playing a dangerous game to get there.
CMoN has created a formula that works...most of the time. But I think it is quite fair to say that there are far more Kickstarter/crowdfunding tales of woe than there are tales of success.
Heck, just look at the All Quiet on the Martian Front thread in News and Rumors. Lots of apparently successful crowdfunding campaigns in the table top games market wind up in a mess, or wind up being unprofitable.
As I often say, Kickstarter is a Siren living in El Dorado on top of the Big Rock Candy Mountain. To be 'successful' in crowdfunding these days, you mostly have to come with a product that is 100% complete, or nearly so. LOTS of campaigns that tell you a project isn't finished are not being forthcoming. Finishing a project pre-campaign is how many smaller companies, ironically, minimize the risks associated with crowdfunding.
The type of projects that were successful just 3 or even 2 years ago simply could not get funded in today's Kickstarter environment. What does that mean? At the very least, it means that crowdfunding has changed. Kickstarter is influencing the way we view, purchase, interact with, and think about table top gaming products, for both good and ill.
As I have said already, it isn't simply a more-games-less-money-more-better scenario, just like more and cheaper chicken eggs isn't necessarily better in the long term or that using child labor to produce cheaper electronics and textiles isn't automatically better because it drives down prices and increases availability.
Crowdfunding has good things about it and bad things about it, but I do no think it is fair for anyone to say that the platform is functioning as the creators ostensibly intend it to function. That's not 100% bad, but it isn't 100% good either.
Is it better for the market/community if a product hits the market quicker, but the producer goes under because the campaign resulted in a net loss, or for the product to get released more slowly in a way that allows the producer to turn a steady profit and continue supporting the product? We are collectively creating a set of circumstances in which lots of producers feel that they need to use crowdfunding in order to survive, even if it means putting their entire business at risk every time they launch a new campaign.
Not every campaign is like this, but we should not think of crowdfunding in a binary good vs evil framework. It's far more complicated than that. We should give some serious thought to what our support for what kind of projects means for the community and market at large. I want table top gaming to grow and become more mainstream. I want a diversity of quality products produced by highly enabled small developers that can sustain ongoing support for those products.
If that is what I want, and if that is what anybody else wants, then we should all think critically about how we interact with crowdfunding and what impact this behavior has on our broader wants/goals.
TheAuldGrump wrote: So, no, if you want to point at who is 'murdering' the poor innocent gamestore, point at distributors and banks, as well as all of the people that buy online rather than go to their local store
You know I love you Grump, but just to be totally fair, that up there is part of the gripe some folks have with KS; it cuts out the FLGS. It is essentially buying online instead of in a brick and mortar store.
You can say that it is a product that wasn't available in the store anyways, but maybe those products would be in the stores if they hadn't been crowdfunded, maybe not.
Just pointing it out is all.
I would be willing to bet that 75% of those folks buying through Kickstarter would not have been buying from the FLGS in any event - so, that is largely a false gripe.
Kickstarter is contesting more with the online games market than with the brick and mortar shops.
If for no other reason that the people that know about what is coming up on Kickstarter are more likely to, you know, have a computer, and to have at least some small modicum of interweb savvy.
Kickstarter is a symptom of the internet plague - but is not the disease in and of itself.
My own viewpoint is heavily weighted by the need to special order items that I want - if I need to order and wait in any event, then I might as well mail order.
The convenience of the store is the ability to see the physical product on the shelves, and to make a judgement based upon that presence.
If what I want to order isn't carried because the game store proprietor got his nose out of joint due to a Kickstarter, then he loses twice - because he does not have the product on the shelves, I am more likely to order on the internet.
*EDIT* It is worth noting that when I am in an area with a game store, I hit the store first - the internet is my second choice. But if the proprietor does not want to stock, oh... Deadzone Rebs, for example, because he dislikes that Mantic hit the Kickstarter first... then he can go pound sand. (I am more forgiving if it is because he just never heard of the game - in which case I may order through him, just so he can see the product.) (I have had both reactions to Deadzone... the store that hadn't known about it is thinking to get the game - because it will help boost Necromunda when it comes out... (Not compete - he thinks that there will be overlapping sales - since the terrain works just fine for both games.))
In the case of the Reaper Bones, I have seen a reverse of that trend in one of the stores - they are more likely to have the newest Bones than to have the latest metal Reaper minis - for the simple reason that they sell a heck of a lot faster, and, more importantly, sell through faster. (Selling through means that the product no longer takes up space, which means that it can be replaced with new product, which, in the case of Bones, is also likely to sell through.)
Bones are an excellent impulse buy - with folks picking them up with their Magic cards.
TheAuldGrump wrote: So, no, if you want to point at who is 'murdering' the poor innocent gamestore, point at distributors and banks, as well as all of the people that buy online rather than go to their local store
You know I love you Grump, but just to be totally fair, that up there is part of the gripe some folks have with KS; it cuts out the FLGS. It is essentially buying online instead of in a brick and mortar store.
You can say that it is a product that wasn't available in the store anyways, but maybe those products would be in the stores if they hadn't been crowdfunded, maybe not.
Just pointing it out is all.
I would be willing to bet that 75% of those folks buying through Kickstarter would not have been buying from the FLGS in any event - so, that is largely a false gripe.
Kickstarter is contesting more with the online games market than with the brick and mortar shops.
The Auld Grump
I don't know that it is fair to say that. It would be fair enough to say that products that are entirely unavailable to a brick and mortar shop don't compete with a brick and mortar shop, but that is also a false dichotomy.
At the end of the day, people have a hobby budget. Companies, such as Red Box Games among many others, are specifically going to Kickstarter because even their webstores have experienced a significant drop in sales. I can't tell you how often I have heard that my own company should go to Kickstarter in order to compete effectively. That is the prevailing perception, and it is a perception we are complicit in creating.
As I have heard from lots of producers, the money is on Kickstarter. Lots of producers feel like they have to go there in order to compete effectively, not because of the advertising benefits, but because their typical customers are spending their money backing Kickstarter campaigns. We are becoming conditioned to Kickstarter campaigns, and we are becoming conditioned as to what to expect from those campaigns, which is both good and bad.
It would be disingenuous to say that these sorts of buying habits, in the aggregate, have no impact on the types of products that we have seen, and will see in the future. And it would be equally disingenuous to say that these buying habits have no impact on the ways in which products are offered for sale in this market.
We are seeing a Kickstarted board game from Privateer Press because we have helped create a value proposition for that type of product delivered in that manner.
If you asked me, I would say PP isn't going to Kickstarter because it wants customers to take on the risk. I would say that PP is going to Kickstarter because that is where people are spending their money, so if you want that money, you have to compete in that space, with a product tailored to compete 'well' in that space, i.e. a self-contained CMoN style board game with a splashy campaign and all the Kickstarter bells and whistles.
As I said, Kickstarter, for both good and ill, is changing the way we learn about, purchase, and experience table top games products. We can't hand wave the impact of those changes. The fact that people are spending their money on Kickstarter means that they are less likely to spend that money in the FLGS. That's not a great leap of logic to make. It also means that they are less likely to spend their money on ecommerce sites.
I do it all the time. If I throw $200 into a Kickstarter campaign one month, I'm not buying a slew of new 4Ground terrain, and I'm much less likely to grab a blister off the rack for the lols at the FLGS. Was I going to spend that $200 at the FLGS? We'll never know, because I didn't. It got spent on a Kickstarter campaign so it wasn't even in my pocket when I went down to the shop.
TheAuldGrump wrote: So, no, if you want to point at who is 'murdering' the poor innocent gamestore, point at distributors and banks, as well as all of the people that buy online rather than go to their local store
You know I love you Grump, but just to be totally fair, that up there is part of the gripe some folks have with KS; it cuts out the FLGS. It is essentially buying online instead of in a brick and mortar store.
You can say that it is a product that wasn't available in the store anyways, but maybe those products would be in the stores if they hadn't been crowdfunded, maybe not.
Just pointing it out is all.
I would be willing to bet that 75% of those folks buying through Kickstarter would not have been buying from the FLGS in any event - so, that is largely a false gripe.
Kickstarter is contesting more with the online games market than with the brick and mortar shops.
The Auld Grump
I don't know that it is fair to say that. It would be fair enough to say that products that are entirely unavailable to a brick and mortar shop don't compete with a brick and mortar shop, but that is also a false dichotomy.
At the end of the day, people have a hobby budget. Companies, such as Red Box Games among many others, are specifically going to Kickstarter because even their webstores have experienced a significant drop in sales. I can't tell you how often I have heard that my own company should go to Kickstarter in order to compete effectively. That is the prevailing perception, and it is a perception we are complicit in creating.
As I have heard from lots of producers, the money is on Kickstarter. Lots of producers feel like they have to go there in order to compete effectively, not because of the advertising benefits, but because their typical customers are spending their money backing Kickstarter campaigns. We are becoming conditioned to Kickstarter campaigns, and we are becoming conditioned as to what to expect from those campaigns, which is both good and bad.
It would be disingenuous to say that these sorts of buying habits, in the aggregate, have no impact on the types of products that we have seen, and will see in the future. And it would be equally disingenuous to say that these buying habits have no impact on the ways in which products are offered for sale in this market.
We are seeing a Kickstarted board game from Privateer Press because we have helped create a value proposition for that type of product delivered in that manner.
If you asked me, I would say PP isn't going to Kickstarter because it wants customers to take on the risk. I would say that PP is going to Kickstarter because that is where people are spending their money, so if you want that money, you have to compete in that space, with a product tailored to compete 'well' in that space, i.e. a self-contained CMoN style board game with a splashy campaign and all the Kickstarter bells and whistles.
As I said, Kickstarter, for both good and ill, is changing the way we learn about, purchase, and experience table top games products. We can't hand wave the impact of those changes. The fact that people are spending their money on Kickstarter means that they are less likely to spend that money in the FLGS. That's not a great leap of logic to make. It also means that they are less likely to spend their money on ecommerce sites.
I do it all the time. If I throw $200 into a Kickstarter campaign one month, I'm not buying a slew of new 4Ground terrain, and I'm much less likely to grab a blister off the rack for the lols at the FLGS. Was I going to spend that $200 at the FLGS? We'll never know, because I didn't. It got spent on a Kickstarter campaign so it wasn't even in my pocket when I went down to the shop.
I do not know that stores are making less because of Kickstarter on top of the loss to the internet .
I do know that the most successful store in the area actively backs Kickstarters themselves - and that people spend their money there in preference to the internet. (If it were closer to where I live, then I would very much be spending my money there - they are also the store that sees crossover sales betweeen Deadzone and Necromunda - and will be using the Deadzone terrain for both games.)
They backed Bones, and get in each fresh Bones release - and have plugged several other KS campaigns, feeling that the KS hype does help raise interest.
The physically second closest store is pretty much entirely GW supplies - and is not doing well.
They are being hurt a lot harder by GW's 'direct only' internet sales and by the fact that they invested heavily in AoS. (They bought sixteen AoS boxes, and sold two - both in the first week. Since then, nothing. They are returning the bulk of those unsold boxes while they can.)
While I can get there easily, they have nothing that I want to purchase. (I think that they will be lucky to survive the year - though BaC is doing well for them.)
The next closest is the one that refuses to carry any product that has been Kickstarted - and even refused to special order any. (Care to guess where I don't shop at all anymore?)
The first closest gaming store is kind of a special case - being more about anime and manga. They will special order, but aren't much interested in the games. They pretty much have prepainted minis, official D&D minis, and that is it for minis gaming. Nice people, very friendly... but lacking in what I am looking for - and they do a very good job of catering to their customers, so I cannot say that they are wrong - they are just focused.
But the FNSLGS is a great place - and we get up there about once a month. (It might go up, if the rumors that I am hearing about a KoW league bears fruit.) But an hour plus drive, in Maine winters... not much fun.
Based on their release and forget policy for games, I don't believe anything Mantic says about their post Kickstarter sales any more than something GW bloviates, like their 'best sellers' list. It's all gak without real numbers.
While not as many some, I can offer a bit of anecdotal evidence - only one store within a two hour drive of me carries any Mantic at all. And they stopped getting in anything more at the original Dreadball and Deadzone. It simply has no legs beyond the Kickstarter, and people are not beating down their doors asking for it.
It was a metaphor for how I view KS. It had nothing to do with charity. You and cincydooley must have gone to the same school district.
If we did, it must have been the same one that taught us that your example wasn't a metaphor.
You make a pretty clear claim that people backed KS "for the feels."
I very plainly stated that if you were in giving money away "for the feels" then charity, not KS, is the appropriate avenue to do so.
You made a false claim that you were just using a metaphor (which, if we're being technical, would have been a conceit based on the length of your not-metaphor).
Talys wrote: If Games Workshop put the next plastic Imperial Knight on Kickstarter for:
- 20% less than MSRP, prepaid 1 year in advance - Stretch goals: extra bits with more weapons, extra faceplate, extra tabard, tokens, dice, pilot model, etc - You get the model 2 weeks before it ships to retail
Everyone wins! You get a nice discount, you get it earlier than anyone else, and if enough people buy in, there will be more goodies available! GW gets a higher profit margin! Money in advance!
Now... what do you think the impact would be to FLGS? I'm pretty sure local gaming stores would scream bloody murder, because if for no other reason, there would be eager people signed to buy it on KS, so that they get it a little earlier.
As opposed to the current system, where stores would find out about the Knight a week before it is released, waste an inordinate amount of time frantically trying to drum up pre-orders for an expensive kit with no notice, and then receive a quarter of the kits that they ordered, because GW sold out through their website 3 and a half minutes after the pre-order went live.
I don't think GW is the best model for your little hypothetical, to be honest...
No, you're right; GW is not the best model at all
Realistically what happens today is, GW rep calls up the store and says, "We have 3 knights allocated for you", and the store says, "please please please may I have 10?" and then the rep says, "Because I love you, and you buy all the other stuff that doesn't move, you can have 4". And they're sold before they get there. On the plus side, the store doesn't really have to do anything at all in order to get the preorders; on the downside, there's a lot of disappointed fans who have to wait a month for the next run.
But you could replace GW with any other company's product, and you'd end up with the same result -- either way, whatever that first run was, it's snapped up in a direct channel, with no opportunity for the independent, and at least with GW products, the launch window is the best time to bring stuff in, because the turnaround is so fast.
The way my store looks at it -- even factoring in discounts -- when GW has a hot new release, they bring in 6, sell 6 instantly, and then bring in 3 more, that sell more slowly. The net effect is that those last 3 were free, because the profit from first 6, even with a discount, paid for the last 3.
It was a metaphor for how I view KS. It had nothing to do with charity. You and cincydooley must have gone to the same school district.
If we did, it must have been the same one that taught us that your example wasn't a metaphor.
Nope, my example is a metaphor. I dun lukd it up.
You make a pretty clear claim that people backed KS "for the feels."
I very plainly stated that if you were in giving money away "for the feels" then charity, not KS, is the appropriate avenue to do so.
Nope, my metaphor was in using three different bums on the street to represent the three different types of KickStarters I tend to see. The "feels" that you seem fixated on was the reward for the "pledge." In a real KS, there is no person sitting on the street with a mug. The "mug" is their KS account. Though you may get feels from your reward, it is not the actual thing you are backing. Were there other parts of my metaphor that were confusing to you? PM me and I'll take time out of my day to help you understand more clearly.
You made a false claim that you were just using a metaphor (which, if we're being technical, would have been a conceit based on the length of your not-metaphor).
What? A conceit? Is that like a metaphor? Or is it a not-metaphor? Hmm, the Oxford English Dictionary seems to think a conceit is a type of metaphor.
Now we're here.
Indeed. Are there any grammar problems you noticed in my post? Because when you have nothing to contribute to a thread, the very least you can be is (incorrectly) pedantic about something that has nothing to do with the topic, amirite?
Of course, I don't think that Privateer Press are pretending to be poor- they're just selling a game, and they're plenty up front about it.
In this case, I believe that Privateer Press is trying to break into a new market. They're experimenting with Kickstarter to see if it will help them break into the larger board game audience who are not currently playing Privateer Press' games.
They've had this attitude for a long time (they first announced it when they were selling Monsterpocalypse). They want different audiences for different games, not just the same blokes moving back and forth between their properties.
I'd wager a good 20-30% of Kickstarters should never be allowed to run in the first place.
We have real statistics on this! The University of Pennsylvania did the research, and it is good stuff. According to them, only 9% of Kickstarters fail to deliver.
What we don't have numbers for are the kickstarters that delivered but lost money (like Kingdom Death: Monster- fantastic game, by the way).
No, Gary is totally fine with stocking games kickstarted by well established large companies. Presumably, his sales of CMON games have been solid. So he'll be stocking Widower's Wood even though it was a kickstarted project (and as a retailer, he ought to stock things he thinks will sell).
The games that he is not stocking are the ones that probably could never have existed without Kickstarter- the small companies using Kickstarter to fund their for the love projects out of their garages.
You know- the ones that we all say "That's what Kickstarter is really for!" Those are the games he has a problem with.
This is only true for a lot of very small businesses (like mine).
However, that's not how it works in the world these days. Huge companies like, say Walmart, do not operate in the black. They borrow money every year to cover their routine operations. They operate in the red for most of the year, and are only operating in the black for the end of the year (approximately Black Friday onward).
That's why the real estate industries bubble burst was able to sink all of our economies in 2008 (ie, banks had less money to loan out, so all big businesses were effected).
You'd think that business loans are for starting up a business, but large companies will especially do whatever the market rewards.
In this case, I believe that Privateer Press is trying to break into a new market. They're experimenting with Kickstarter to see if it will help them break into the larger board game audience who are not currently playing Privateer Press' games.
They've had this attitude for a long time (they first announced it when they were selling Monsterpocalypse). They want different audiences for different games, not just the same blokes moving back and forth between their properties.
I think games companies should just realize that they're games companies and not try to market much beyond their niche. There is no mass market appeal to these hobbies. They're esoteric, they're analog, they attract a predominately white, male, middle to upper class demo. You can make vidya games and licensed tabletop games from blockbuster, Hollyood movies, and you're barely going to move the needle. GW's the top dog, hitched their wagon to a multi-biliion dollar franchise, and where is their Lord of the Rings line now?
No, Gary is totally fine with stocking games kickstarted by well established large companies. Presumably, his sales of CMON games have been solid. So he'll be stocking Widower's Wood even though it was a kickstarted project (and as a retailer, he ought to stock things he thinks will sell).
The games that he is not stocking are the ones that probably could never have existed without Kickstarter- the small companies using Kickstarter to fund their for the love projects out of their garages.
You know- the ones that we all say "That's what Kickstarter is really for!" Those are the games he has a problem with.
I don't know Gary Ray personally, but I'd be more than happy to read blog posts or trade articles written by other hobby retailers who wholeheartedly endorse KS as a part of their business.
odinsgrandson wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is only true for a lot of very small businesses (like mine).
However, that's not how it works in the world these days. Huge companies like, say Walmart, do not operate in the black. They borrow money every year to cover their routine operations. They operate in the red for most of the year, and are only operating in the black for the end of the year (approximately Black Friday onward).
That's why the real estate industries bubble burst was able to sink all of our economies in 2008 (ie, banks had less money to loan out, so all big businesses were effected).
You'd think that business loans are for starting up a business, but large companies will especially do whatever the market rewards.
So, you mention that big business uses loans all the time, then you say that the bursting of a financial bubble almost caused the whole thing to collapse in on itself. Yup, business as usual sounds very healthy! Just because borrowing at 3% interest means you can invest the money in a financial vehicle that makes a 20% return before you need to pay the loan back, doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do. The big boys can get away with because of the ridiculous fiscal gymnastics they can manage.
The "a healthy business doesn't borrow money" comment mainly applies to small businesses like yours and PP's. It's not a sustainable business model to borrow in the spring with the hopes of a good harvest in the fall. Our grandparents knew this, we know this. A healthy company is healthy because it has no debt. PP can afford to develop a boardgame on their own dime. They choose not to because there are enough people that will throw money at them on KS.
Hoo boy, I can see the replies just rolling in, telling me how ignorant and ill-informed I must be
In this case, I believe that Privateer Press is trying to break into a new market. They're experimenting with Kickstarter to see if it will help them break into the larger board game audience who are not currently playing Privateer Press' games.
They've had this attitude for a long time (they first announced it when they were selling Monsterpocalypse). They want different audiences for different games, not just the same blokes moving back and forth between their properties.
I think games companies should just realize that they're games companies and not try to market much beyond their niche. There is no mass market appeal to these hobbies. They're esoteric, they're analog, they attract a predominately white, male, middle to upper class demo. You can make vidya games and licensed tabletop games from blockbuster, Hollyood movies, and you're barely going to move the needle. GW's the top dog, hitched their wagon to a multi-biliion dollar franchise, and where is their Lord of the Rings line now?
Well you certainly have the right attitude to work for Games Workshop. This right here is why they are treading water at best and sinking at worst. If you restrict yourself to a narrow market then you've also capped your growth. And should your narrow market disappear then you vanish as well.
They killed it by halving the contents of the boxes for the same price and not supporting it. It was a great game the community loved and drew in TONS of new people. I joined the hobby because I saw an add on TV for it through the partner magazine they had going. This was also during GWs biggest period of growth. They reached beyond their narrow niche and their popularity EXPLODED thanks to LotR.
It's a hobby, it's not a mass market product. D&D (another product that has had movie and video game tie-ins) has been around for over 40 years and it's IP is owned by one of the largest toy companies in the world. It's still not available in Walmart. I would imagine this is not for a lack of trying, but rather, it doesn't appeal to a mass market audience. It never will. Why continue to pound that square peg into a round hole? For every given luxury/niche product, there will be portions of the population who either can not afford it, or it simply does not appeal to them.
But discussing the marketing habits of hobby companies has nothing to do with the topic that PP should use its own money to fund its own pet projects.
I can't speak to D&D, but I know X wing is sold in a ton of stores you can find even remotely nerdy stuff in but can't buy a GW product in here down in Australia.
Zatsuku wrote:Except D&D IS sold at Walmart and GW stuff used to be.
I've never seen a GW product in a Walmart or any other big box store. If it was in your Walmart at some point, okay then. Perhaps the store managers are given some leeway in carrying products outside of the normal supply chain, and the manager in your local store had a kid who was into Warhammer, so he thought he'd give the line a try.
jonolikespie wrote:I can't speak to D&D, but I know X wing is sold in a ton of stores you can find even remotely nerdy stuff in but can't buy a GW product in here down in Australia.
Let's be real: you could lay a turd, get it officially licensed by Disney as a Star Wars product, and someone would buy it. This has less to do with it being a tabletop game than it does with the ubiquitousness of the Star Wars brand. PP will never have this advantage.
Zatsuku wrote: Except D&D IS sold at Walmart and GW stuff used to be.
This is not really a good thing, though. Selling RPGs and wargames through Walmart, Toys-R-US, etc. deprives specialty stores of the sales, and it's a hard enough slog as it is. The bigger stores that have a lot of other things treat these like toys and heavily discount them, making it really tough for hobby shops and gaming stores to compete.
As Armyman put it, stamp Star Wars onto just about anything, and it will sell. It doesn't matter if it's a lunch box, board game, robot, flying drone, or Halloween costume, so Star Wars is just not a good comparative, because there are literally no other scifi properties like it.
Talys wrote: This is not really a good thing, though. Selling RPGs and wargames through Walmart, Toys-R-US, etc. deprives specialty stores of the sales, and it's a hard enough slog as it is. The bigger stores that have a lot of other things treat these like toys and heavily discount them, making it really tough for hobby shops and gaming stores to compete.
Walmart sells MTG and Pokemon and you don't see the FLGSmtg/pokemon sales devestated. On top of that, its possible to restrict what portions of the line that big boxes carry. Need to buy add-ons? The customer needs to go FLGS or direct.
My first GW game purchase was Space Crusade- a joint project by GW and MB that got into bigger stores (along with Heroquest).
The LGS isn't the only way to get into the hobby- especially for a younger audience (ie, one that will be interested in Pokemon).
I mean- how many of your 30-something game store regulars do you really think go looking for new games at Walmart?
If you can get your board game into Toys R Us, then do it- you'll sell more copies and expose the game to a completely different audience. You can potentially expand the hobby.
Back on topic-
Privateer Press has their core audience and they don't want to compete with themselves all the time, so they want their board games and RPGs to have appeal outside of their Warmachine audience.
I think they've been looking at CMON for a while, and how their kickstarter projects seem to do well in the LGS (I have found this true in reports and anecdotes).
There are a lot of people playing miniatures board games right now who don't play Warmachine. The main market for this is Kickstarter- so that's where they're going with it.
Makes plenty of sense to me. Kickstarter has long since stopped being only a place for startup companies. But if we want to get angry that a company that isn't just starting up is using Kickstarter- well, that's fine too. There's plenty of rage to go around about Kickstarter.
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but PP may be in more trouble then we think. My local store just moved WMH to 40% clearance and there as many people playing AoS in the store as WMH. The Infinity group I'm in now is made up of a good number of ex-WMH players.
Losers included Tactical Miniature Games, which were down 1%. We announced yesterday we're dropping Warmachine and Hordes from the store, which performed terribly in 2015 (1 turn, for those who do inventory management). This was due to poor events, increased competition, and a change in the game meta that turned off a lot of casual players. I regret having to let it go and I will absolutely consider bringing it back, if circumstances change. It's on sale in the store right now at 40% off.
A strong Warhammer 40K revival is why this category is only down 1% and we'll be shifting inventory dollars in that direction, although there's not a lot we need. I never thought I would consider Games Workshop a worthy partner, but after the turmoil of 2015, they're a safe bet. Also, as a suburban store that caters to casual players, it makes no sense for us to chase smaller, specialty miniature games. It took a decade to realize that and the help of retailer friends.
Being a Local, the reason he is loosing money is that he WAY overstocks his stuff. and that he dislikes competitveness and hear in the bay WM/H is all about being competitive, and he is known for running piss poor events
I know gary, the reason he dislikes KS is that it competes with him He is so full of himself he belives every competitor is trying to steal and cheat.
In my opinion, dropping WMH makes no sense at all. Even if it's a poor performer, fire sale all the old inventory at 35%, keep the new inventory for the shelf (it will sell eventually), keep the paint shelf, and put up a sign the says you'll order anything for 25% off MSRP prepaid.
There's no downside at all, since it all comes from distribution, and there aren't any stocking requirements.
Yeah- Warmachine is doing well locally (in the three stores around here).
One of them pretty much only does Talys' method (ie, the store has almost no stock, but customers order loads of stuff through them at a discount).
They're maintaining a much stronger presence than Infinity.
Now- Gary should appeal to his local patrons, and not follow internet lore of what 'ought' to be popular. If they've all moved away from Warmachine, then he really shouldn't be trying to push it.
Now, if his attitude towards the game has made all of those customers move to other stores with a more welcoming atmosphere to their preferred gaming style, that's another thing entirely.
Talys wrote: In my opinion, dropping WMH makes no sense at all. Even if it's a poor performer, fire sale all the old inventory at 35%, keep the new inventory for the shelf (it will sell eventually), keep the paint shelf, and put up a sign the says you'll order anything for 25% off MSRP prepaid.
There's no downside at all, since it all comes from distribution, and there aren't any stocking requirements.
There most certainly is a downside... And it's a bit of a catch 22: He still winds up with money tied up in product that isn't moving, while not having a full product range on the shelf means that at least some of the customers that he might otherwise have got are just going to order from an online store instead rather than bother coming to the store to place an order.
Balancing out potential sales against the cost of keeping product on the shelf is a bit of an arcane art, and has been the undoing of many a hobbyist-turned-storeowner.
I think that making money off WMH requires either a good customer base or an understanding of what models sell readily. It's a huge range at this point, but only about 40% makes into most tournament lists.
If you don't go big, you need to keep a finger on the scene to stock the stuff people buy. Far too many stores have only niche units on the shelf...
I'd wager a good 20-30% of Kickstarters should never be allowed to run in the first place.
We have real statistics on this! The University of Pennsylvania did the research, and it is good stuff. According to them, only 9% of Kickstarters fail to deliver.
Thanks for sharing that! I am surprised it is only 9%, but looking over my pledges that actually checks out. I have backed 15 (+1) KS. 5 pledges I either dropped out of or the campaign didn't fund. Of the remaining 10 (+ 1 for a pledge I bought off another backer and had the pledge transferred to my name by the project creator) I've had one fail to fulfill entirely.
Interesting too that the fail rate remains consistent throughout the various project categories.
Now, if his attitude towards the game has made all of those customers move to other stores with a more welcoming atmosphere to their preferred gaming style, that's another thing entirely.
Pretty much this, he shows active disdain for customers who play competitively.
I'd wager a good 20-30% of Kickstarters should never be allowed to run in the first place.
We have real statistics on this! The University of Pennsylvania did the research, and it is good stuff. According to them, only 9% of Kickstarters fail to deliver.
Thanks for sharing that! I am surprised it is only 9%, but looking over my pledges that actually checks out. I have backed 15 (+1) KS. 5 pledges I either dropped out of or the campaign didn't fund. Of the remaining 10 (+ 1 for a pledge I bought off another backer and had the pledge transferred to my name by the project creator) I've had one fail to fulfill entirely.
Interesting too that the fail rate remains consistent throughout the various project categories.
It is important to remember that there's a difference between 'failing to deliver' and 'failing to fully deliver', 'failing to meet expectations', 'failing to make a profit', and 'failing to be a good experience'.
The latter four are, I daresay, more common than completely failing to deliver. It is a little unclear how the research defined 'failed to deliver', although it looks like not receiving all of your rewards might have been captured in that data set. However, I would not take that as gospel.
In any case, failing to meet expectations seems like a comparatively more common occurrence, and especially failing to make a profit. I have heard of precious few Kickstarter campaigns that have been financially beneficial to the project creator, and 9 out of 10 project creators I have talked to have disliked the Kickstarter experience, even if they have done multiple Kickstarter campaigns and have plans to continue to do so.
That is something we should all be thinking about. I want to see games that continue to be supported, and companies that stick around to support them.
As much as I am dubious about CMoN, the company supports the crap out of Zombicide, and I have routinely had positive experiences with both the products and the Kickstarter campaigns. But most other times this is not the case.
Take Shadows of Brimstone as an example. The campaign was caustic, to say the least, the production quality of the models was atrocious, and Flying Frog has provided precious little post-campaign support for the game. Flying Frog is an okay company, right, but I don't think the Shadows Kickstarter was terribly 'good' for the community or the market.
And the list of examples is long, from the clusterfeth that was Sedition Wars in the early days to the ongoing clusterfeth that is AVP.
It is important to remember that there's a difference between 'failing to deliver' and 'failing to fully deliver', 'failing to meet expectations', 'failing to make a profit', and 'failing to be a good experience'.
The latter four are, I daresay, more common than completely failing to deliver. It is a little unclear how the research defined 'failed to deliver', although it looks like not receiving all of your rewards might have been captured in that data set. However, I would not take that as gospel.
The researcher defined a fail as:
The core question behind the professor’s research was whether a creator delivered rewards as promised — not whether the creative work was actually made. For example, if a creator successfully finished a film funded through Kickstarter but backers didn’t get a copy of their DVD, the project was counted as “failed.”
I don't find anything problematic with that definition.
Are you suggesting that a partially fulfilled campaign is a success?
The core question behind the professor’s research was whether a creator delivered rewards as promised — not whether the creative work was actually made. For example, if a creator successfully finished a film funded through Kickstarter but backers didn’t get a copy of their DVD, the project was counted as “failed.”
I don't find anything problematic with that definition.
Are you suggesting that a partially fulfilled campaign is a success?
He's suggesting that an incompetently fulfilled campaign should not be treated as a success. If someone bought a regiment of Mantic's Basilean Men At Arms and literally got Chinese knockoffs being passed off as the real thing, I would call that a failure even if it fulfilled the letter of the law.
Yeah, Technically the Dust Kick start under those would be considered a success.
MY problem with KS is the fact that it takes the risk away from companies and puts it on the customer.
He's suggesting that an incompetently fulfilled campaign should not be treated as a success. If someone bought a regiment of Mantic's Basilean Men At Arms and literally got Chinese knockoffs being passed off as the real thing, I would call that a failure even if it fulfilled the letter of the law.
I am not familiar with the Basilean issue, so can't comment on that, but if a product changes post-campaign so drastically that backers are unsatisfied that campaign certainly isn't a success but I don't think that is accurate to classify it a failure either. Really, it is a failure on the project creator's part to meet the expectations of his or her investors.
If the backers got something resembling what they pledged for then isn't that part of the "magic" of Kickstarter? As members on here so haughtily like to remind people Kickstarter isn't a pre-order system, it is an investment to bring an idea to life, so as long as you received a return on your investment the campaign is technically a success, as the campaign fulfilled its promise to backers.
Talys wrote: In my opinion, dropping WMH makes no sense at all. Even if it's a poor performer, fire sale all the old inventory at 35%, keep the new inventory for the shelf (it will sell eventually), keep the paint shelf, and put up a sign the says you'll order anything for 25% off MSRP prepaid.
There's no downside at all, since it all comes from distribution, and there aren't any stocking requirements.
There most certainly is a downside... And it's a bit of a catch 22: He still winds up with money tied up in product that isn't moving, while not having a full product range on the shelf means that at least some of the customers that he might otherwise have got are just going to order from an online store instead rather than bother coming to the store to place an order.
Balancing out potential sales against the cost of keeping product on the shelf is a bit of an arcane art, and has been the undoing of many a hobbyist-turned-storeowner.
I think you misunderstand -- just don't keep anything on the shelf, and essentially turn the Privateer Press part of the business into a discount mail-order desk, with the exception of stuff like hobby tools and paints, that are supplies which will move. The only items I was suggesting to leave on the shelf was the stuff he already had that didn't survive the fire sale Brick & Mortar stores can undersell online stores (or at least be competitive) because the marginal cost of the special order item is zero -- they're ordering from the distributor for other stuff anyhow. So even if you're only making $2 on a blister, well, it was $2 more than you were going to make. It's literally zero risk, because you make all the people who aren't regulars prepay for everything (the trade-off for a nice discount).
And if they're not ordering anything from the distributor on a regular basis, well, they're not going to stay in business long
I think you misunderstand -- just don't keep anything on the shelf, and essentially turn the Privateer Press part of the business into a discount mail-order desk, with the exception of stuff like hobby tools and paints, that are supplies which will move. The only items I was suggesting to leave on the shelf was the stuff he already had that didn't survive the fire sale Brick & Mortar stores can undersell online stores (or at least be competitive) because the marginal cost of the special order item is zero -- they're ordering from the distributor for other stuff anyhow. So even if you're only making $2 on a blister, well, it was $2 more than you were going to make. It's literally zero risk, because you make all the people who aren't regulars prepay for everything (the trade-off for a nice discount).
And if they're not ordering anything from the distributor on a regular basis, well, they're not going to stay in business long
The flaw in that approach is unless one is at a given store on the regular, the cost of special-ordering something through B&M is rather substantial due to having to return to the store. As a consumer, having to drive to a location to acquire an item that could have been sent for a comparable price to a location of one's choosing is usually going to come down in favor of the mail-order. Our hypothetical consumer would also acquire the advantages of stock-in-hand versus the nebulous "from a distributor" as it can happen that there's nothing left in distribution and it's all down to the retail channel for the time being. Not a universal problem, but it does indeed plague some ranges/models. There's also the timing consideration wherein a store cannot acquire from a distributor on-demand and needs to schedule orders. Deciding on Wednesday that you want something could mean a 2 week lag ordering from a store if their order date is Tuesday (i.e. - you have to wait for the following Tuesday for the order and another few days for the actual shipment) while ordering from someone who has it on hand would see it there 3-5 business days sooner.
That's not to say it's impossible to make such a model work, and there are certainly people for whom it's not a big deal to go to their local store because they're there anyway or it's on the way from work, etc. In grand scheme though it's likely that it's more trouble than it is actually worth for many business owners and so they feel their time is better spent not chasing those particular dollars at all. Again, some locales could make it work fine, and their owners would be fools not to; I'm just skeptical that you could generalize that much, if at all, to the whole FLGS marketplace.
hotsauceman1 wrote: MY problem with KS is the fact that it takes the risk away from companies and puts it on the customer.
That's not entirely true. We've seen any number of companies suffer considerably (and in some cases fold entirely) as a result of unexpected issues once it came time to actually produce the Kickstarter product.
It certainly passes a share of the risk to the 'customer'... but a certain amount of risk is still there for the company. How much depends largely on just how well planned out the Kickstarter was... although a better planned Kickstarter is generally going to result in less risk to the customer as well, so ultimately everyone wins.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talys wrote: I think you misunderstand -- just don't keep anything on the shelf, and essentially turn the Privateer Press part of the business into a discount mail-order desk, with the exception of stuff like hobby tools and paints, that are supplies which will move. The only items I was suggesting to leave on the shelf was the stuff he already had that didn't survive the fire sale Brick & Mortar stores can undersell online stores (or at least be competitive) because the marginal cost of the special order item is zero -- they're ordering from the distributor for other stuff anyhow. So even if you're only making $2 on a blister, well, it was $2 more than you were going to make. It's literally zero risk, because you make all the people who aren't regulars prepay for everything (the trade-off for a nice discount).
This only works, though, if your customers are actually willing to order what you don't have on the shelf. Many are not.
If I walk into your store and you don't have what I'm looking for, I'm not going to stuff around placing an order for something that I'm going to have to make a separate trip back to collect. I'm just going to get what I want somewhere else that does have it... and then next time I want something, chances are I'm going back to the place that had what I wanted, rather than to your store.
hotsauceman1 wrote: MY problem with KS is the fact that it takes the risk away from companies and puts it on the customer.
That's not entirely true. We've seen any number of companies suffer considerably (and in some cases fold entirely) as a result of unexpected issues once it came time to actually produce the Kickstarter product.
It certainly passes a share of the risk to the 'customer'... but a certain amount of risk is still there for the company. How much depends largely on just how well planned out the Kickstarter was... although a better planned Kickstarter is generally going to result in less risk to the customer as well, so ultimately everyone wins.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talys wrote: I think you misunderstand -- just don't keep anything on the shelf, and essentially turn the Privateer Press part of the business into a discount mail-order desk, with the exception of stuff like hobby tools and paints, that are supplies which will move. The only items I was suggesting to leave on the shelf was the stuff he already had that didn't survive the fire sale Brick & Mortar stores can undersell online stores (or at least be competitive) because the marginal cost of the special order item is zero -- they're ordering from the distributor for other stuff anyhow. So even if you're only making $2 on a blister, well, it was $2 more than you were going to make. It's literally zero risk, because you make all the people who aren't regulars prepay for everything (the trade-off for a nice discount).
This only works, though, if your customers are actually willing to order what you don't have on the shelf. Many are not.
If I walk into your store and you don't have what I'm looking for, I'm not going to stuff around placing an order for something that I'm going to have to make a separate trip back to collect. I'm just going to get what I want somewhere else that does have it... and then next time I want something, chances are I'm going back to the place that had what I wanted, rather than to your store.
Exactly.
A good store might notice what you are ordering, and keep an eye open for more in that vein - but this does them no good if, instead, you go to Amazon and place an order, getting the product faster, more conveniently, and for a lower price.
And if the store refuses to carry the product, because it had been Kickstarted, then he deserves the lost sale.
This only works, though, if your customers are actually willing to order what you don't have on the shelf. Many are not.
If I walk into your store and you don't have what I'm looking for, I'm not going to stuff around placing an order for something that I'm going to have to make a separate trip back to collect. I'm just going to get what I want somewhere else that does have it... and then next time I want something, chances are I'm going back to the place that had what I wanted, rather than to your store.
Yes, you're right. You'll lose a lot of sales by trying to sell from an empty wagon: no argument there. Ultimately, if you do this with everything, I suspect your business would fail.
However, what I was saying is that it makes no sense to tell your customers, "I'm not going to sell Privateer Press anymore." -- because it costs you nothing to tell the same customers, "I'm not going to stock Privateer Press anymore, but I'll order it in for you for the best price in town any time you want." Even if you only make 5% on the sale, it's 5% you otherwise wouldn't have made. Just as importantly, it prevents some of your customers from hopping over to Joe's Wargaming down the road -- where he'll end up buying non-PP stuff too. Or just maybe Mr. Cheap will come and buy the expensive $100 PP model from you because you have the best price, and then in the future, buy something else from you.
Remember the context -- the fellow's PP sales were really low (1 turn annually). So he either figures out how to improve his PP sales, or he has to stock less (or not at all). But why not pick up free special orders?
This only works, though, if your customers are actually willing to order what you don't have on the shelf. Many are not.
If I walk into your store and you don't have what I'm looking for, I'm not going to stuff around placing an order for something that I'm going to have to make a separate trip back to collect. I'm just going to get what I want somewhere else that does have it... and then next time I want something, chances are I'm going back to the place that had what I wanted, rather than to your store.
Yes, you're right. You'll lose a lot of sales by trying to sell from an empty wagon: no argument there. Ultimately, if you do this with everything, I suspect your business would fail.
However, what I was saying is that it makes no sense to tell your customers, "I'm not going to sell Privateer Press anymore." -- because it costs you nothing to tell the same customers, "I'm not going to stock Privateer Press anymore, but I'll order it in for you for the best price in town any time you want." Even if you only make 5% on the sale, it's 5% you otherwise wouldn't have made. Just as importantly, it prevents some of your customers from hopping over to Joe's Wargaming down the road -- where he'll end up buying non-PP stuff too. Or just maybe Mr. Cheap will come and buy the expensive $100 PP model from you because you have the best price, and then in the future, buy something else from you.
Remember the context -- the fellow's PP sales were really low (1 turn annually). So he either figures out how to improve his PP sales, or he has to stock less (or not at all). But why not pick up free special orders?
From the sound of it, because he values his opinion more highly than that extra sale....
My general response to such retailers is to shop elsewhere.
Game store/comic book store owners are not always the best at separating their opinion from the good of the store.
Sure thing -- I understand that. If I walk into a place that offers great prices on something I like, but the store manager is incredibly negative about it, I'd say screw the prices, I'll go somewhere more welcoming
Bringing it back on topic, it's not hard to imagine, in my mind store owners that have a less favorable opinion of vendors that launch via KS rather than through a channel they can profit from, and that may be a reason to have a poor general attitude towards a company.
Though of course this has nothing really to do with PP historically, or the one store we're specifically chatting about (the video game doesn't count, because it's not like that deprived stores of any potential sales), it might apply to other companies that get their products out via kickstarter, and that general attitude may sour the store's sales of that product.
I'm still trying to figure out where these stores are where you can reliably special order stuff are. Most games stores I've been a regular at, are completly unreliable for special orders. You place an order with them and it takes 2-3 weeks before they place it with a distributor, even though they always say they are going to place it the next day.
The store I'm a regular at now I'm friends with the guy that does the ordering, and I still have to brow beat him just to get him to order stuff people other than me want.
Ok and back to the topic, I'm pretty sure Kickstarting Widowers Woods has everything to do with how well Undercity did. It got trashed in reviews on boardgame sites. So they might be kickstarting it to cover themselves.
Talys wrote: Sure thing -- I understand that. If I walk into a place that offers great prices on something I like, but the store manager is incredibly negative about it, I'd say screw the prices, I'll go somewhere more welcoming
Bringing it back on topic, it's not hard to imagine, in my mind store owners that have a less favorable opinion of vendors that launch via KS rather than through a channel they can profit from, and that may be a reason to have a poor general attitude towards a company.
Though of course this has nothing really to do with PP historically, or the one store we're specifically chatting about (the video game doesn't count, because it's not like that deprived stores of any potential sales), it might apply to other companies that get their products out via kickstarter, and that general attitude may sour the store's sales of that product.
I view it as akin to a bookstore not carrying an author because the author self published through Amazon - Kickstarter makes it much easier for a company to get into the business, or to increase awareness of their products.
Starting a new company, or starting a new line by an existing company, is much harder now than it was in the past.
Likewise, it is a lot harder for an author to get into the business now than it was in the past. Or even for an established author to publish outside of the genre/series that she or she has become known for. (Carrie Vaughn being an example.)
So, alternate means have come into being.
I blame neither the game company nor the author - it is the current paradigm.
):
