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

 plastictrees wrote:
There really isn't an explanation on this page that doesn't make BF look like incompetent bufoons. 'DS didn't mention certain aspects of their deal with FFG'...so then obviously all those contracts would be void. 'You can't sell any of our existing product yet' would be a pretty major omission.

I'm going to assume that BF paid almost nothing to take on Dust from FFG, and then ran the KS so that they wouldn't have to invest any capital in it at all. The KS didn't blow up like they hoped and now BF realises that they are potentially on the hook and DS realise that BF aren't going to take any risks to 'make DUST work'. I assume both just want out with no (further) losses.

I agree that BF comes across as inept, and having dealt with them via FoW I will go further and say it's an entirely fair and validated statement in my experience. They're a well-meaning bunch that fail at basic operations; they have no real-time inventory for their web store, they can't coordinate a global release properly and any time they do anything with a partner it seems to inevitably blow up in their face (this latest situation follows after just a few that I've noticed such as their premium house subscription debacle). If the Dakka meme for Mantic is "Mantic....almost" then BF would be (prior to this foul-up) "Battlefront...sort of in the general direction."

However, while they initially may have not invested much, in the grand scheme your assumption is demonstrably false. DS says that BF took on the 220k of debt to buy out FFG's contractual obligation to Operation Achilles; that's what the loan that the factoring bank was hounding them for was about. Now, BF wouldn't likely do that purely out of the goodness of their heart, and that's why I think there was a bit of misrepresentation by DS on the matter and hence why that bill didn't get paid. Have nothing more than that suspicion, but it does fit the facts that BF might have thought that was freeing up the issue of existing SKUs and then through a "translation problem" find out that they were much worse off. Sure, you can litigate to try and get out of the contract, but the court costs are going to be in excess of being able to recover anything plus you're on the hook with a bank, who are notoriously well-funded for some reason. It would also explain the "oh no, we're not trusting your contracts" for the KS that DS claims occurred.

All of that said, there's certainly numerous other theories that fit the facts as well that cast the blame further in both directions. We'll likely not know which one fits reality unless they actually go to court and the documents all enter the public record.

Getting to the general topic of the "warning" this case shows us, my own advice and practice when it comes to Kickstarters is you should never, ever pledge money you're not comfortable with seeing disappear for no return. EVERY Kickstarter is a gamble because any number of things can happen wherein a project fails. Sure, an established company has LESS risk, but that isn't the same thing as NO risk. If the idea that you could end up with absolutely nothing for your money is bothersome to you, then crowd-funding is not a vehicle that it'd be smart for you to participate in, and that's perfectly fine.

This is why after some requirements-ish meetings, I ask my customers, "can you send that in a formal email please."

To put it in other terms, it sounds like it's be expecting Jervis Johnson to make deals on GW's behalf...

Hey. Jervis might well be a more competent negotiator than BF. Certainly, it's not obvious that he would have done any worse than BF has demonstrated so far.

I was more equating Jervis to Paulo and Kirby / Welles to Yeu.

But then, I don't have a hat in this, having no great interest in WW2-ish gaming.

Or that, way, too. It's not like DS has done a fantastic job, either.

 Compel wrote:
This is why after some requirements-ish meetings, I ask my customers, "can you send that in a formal email please."

To put it in other terms, it sounds like it's be expecting Jervis Johnson to make deals on GW's behalf...

I prefer the summarize what you said/agreed to follow up email.

This isn't about the Babylon Kickstarter or about who is in the wrong or about anything like that.

I just wanted to bring something positive to the forum. :-)


After more than a year Dust chronicles is back.

The fan-made magazine can be downloaded from www.dust-monthly.com

baby steps for the first issue but it sounds like they have a number of articles from fans for the next issue to improve the magazine content.


The best thing is they didn't even use a Kickstarter to get the magazine started :-)

 Krinsath wrote:

Spoiler:

 plastictrees wrote:
There really isn't an explanation on this page that doesn't make BF look like incompetent bufoons. 'DS didn't mention certain aspects of their deal with FFG'...so then obviously all those contracts would be void. 'You can't sell any of our existing product yet' would be a pretty major omission.

I'm going to assume that BF paid almost nothing to take on Dust from FFG, and then ran the KS so that they wouldn't have to invest any capital in it at all. The KS didn't blow up like they hoped and now BF realises that they are potentially on the hook and DS realise that BF aren't going to take any risks to 'make DUST work'. I assume both just want out with no (further) losses.

I agree that BF comes across as inept, and having dealt with them via FoW I will go further and say it's an entirely fair and validated statement in my experience. They're a well-meaning bunch that fail at basic operations; they have no real-time inventory for their web store, they can't coordinate a global release properly and any time they do anything with a partner it seems to inevitably blow up in their face (this latest situation follows after just a few that I've noticed such as their premium house subscription debacle). If the Dakka meme for Mantic is "Mantic....almost" then BF would be (prior to this foul-up) "Battlefront...sort of in the general direction."

However, while they initially may have not invested much, in the grand scheme your assumption is demonstrably false. DS says that BF took on the 220k of debt to buy out FFG's contractual obligation to Operation Achilles; that's what the loan that the factoring bank was hounding them for was about. Now, BF wouldn't likely do that purely out of the goodness of their heart, and that's why I think there was a bit of misrepresentation by DS on the matter and hence why that bill didn't get paid. Have nothing more than that suspicion, but it does fit the facts that BF might have thought that was freeing up the issue of existing SKUs and then through a "translation problem" find out that they were much worse off. Sure, you can litigate to try and get out of the contract, but the court costs are going to be in excess of being able to recover anything plus you're on the hook with a bank, who are notoriously well-funded for some reason. It would also explain the "oh no, we're not trusting your contracts" for the KS that DS claims occurred.

All of that said, there's certainly numerous other theories that fit the facts as well that cast the blame further in both directions. We'll likely not know which one fits reality unless they actually go to court and the documents all enter the public record.

Getting to the general topic of the "warning" this case shows us, my own advice and practice when it comes to Kickstarters is you should never, ever pledge money you're not comfortable with seeing disappear for no return. EVERY Kickstarter is a gamble because any number of things can happen wherein a project fails. Sure, an established company has LESS risk, but that isn't the same thing as NO risk. If the idea that you could end up with absolutely nothing for your money is bothersome to you, then crowd-funding is not a vehicle that it'd be smart for you to participate in, and that's perfectly fine.

I'm inclined to believe that the DS/BF got off to a rocky start. Paolo claimed that BF was so eager to get into distributing Dust that they bought out FFG's contractual obligation, but I remember about 6 months between the announcement from FFG and BF doing anything with the game.

And while I don't think BF are the best at business, I don't think they are bad enough to get into the position they where with Dust concerning what FFG still had control of knowingly. Both in terms of stock and the Warfare rules. Yeah, BF has trouble managing an international supply chain, but they've shown to make pretty good strategic choices like with their wargaming terrain and licensed board games.

My own pet theory is that BF really wanted Dust Warfare. It was the hot thing at the time they acquired the license, and then found out that they didn't get it in the bargain because Paolo never liked warfare to begin with. Forcing BF to put effort into constructing the 2nd ed and Battlefield rules.

That or DS did such a terrible job getting out of their FFG contract that it left BF with their hands tied. I really don't think they where ever set up to succeed with Dust.

I seem to recall whispers about FFG not making the transfer very easy either. The pile of stock FFG has/had on hand is an obvious problem. Battlefront is NOT new at this and they aren't the biggest dog in the pile after GW, not to mention the only other international firm that does all their own distro and in house manufacturing without understanding at least some basic business sense. I'd guess there were a lot more problems out of the gate with Dust then any of us know.

I'm actually curious as to why FFG did this to begin with. They've never really been a miniature gaming company.

 Compel wrote:
I was more equating Jervis to Paulo and Kirby / Welles to Yeu.

But then, I don't have a hat in this, having no great interest in WW2-ish gaming.

A real question is 'Did Paulo claim or imply that he had authority to make business decisions for DS?'

Or even 'Did Paulo either believe or had been led to believe that he had the authority to make business decision for DS?'

Either of which open up new and interesting questions....

Malice not needed on any side - folks are quite capable of convincing themselves of things....

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Compel wrote:
I was more equating Jervis to Paulo and Kirby / Welles to Yeu.

But then, I don't have a hat in this, having no great interest in WW2-ish gaming.

A real question is 'Did Paulo claim or imply that he had authority to make business decisions for DS?'

Or even 'Did Paulo either believe or had been led to believe that he had the authority to make business decision for DS?'

Either of which open up new and interesting questions....

Malice not needed on any side - folks are quite capable of convincing themselves of things....

The Auld Grump

Exactly, I'm pretty sure this is a case of "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." At least at the start, as it doesn't make any since either side to have gone into this with bad intent. That said, a couple of badly burnt bridges later and I can see grudges being held.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
A real question is 'Did Paulo claim or imply that he had authority to make business decisions for DS?'

Or even 'Did Paulo either believe or had been led to believe that he had the authority to make business decision for DS?'

Either of which open up new and interesting questions....

Malice not needed on any side - folks are quite capable of convincing themselves of things....

The Auld Grump

This.

Because from the statements that Paulo has made recently, it certainly seems like he is at least operating under the belief system that he has some level of authority.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:I seem to recall whispers about FFG not making the transfer very easy either. The pile of stock FFG has/had on hand is an obvious problem. Battlefront is NOT new at this and they aren't the biggest dog in the pile after GW, not to mention the only other international firm that does all their own distro and in house manufacturing without understanding at least some basic business sense. I'd guess there were a lot more problems out of the gate with Dust then any of us know.

BrookM wrote:I'm actually curious as to why FFG did this to begin with. They've never really been a miniature gaming company.

I think FFG has always wanted a miniature line. It makes sense since miniatures tend to be more long term product lines. You'll get more brand loyalty than with one shot board games. They finally got it with X-wing,

I get the impression that FFG will burn you hard if you burn them. And do it with a smile. Like how when Rackham pulled back AT-43 and Confrontation and then FFG flooded the market with their exiting stock at fire sale prices. Going back to what I said earlier about Paolo not liking warfare. The IP owner didn't like the direction that FFG was taking the game and wanted it back. FFG probably didn't like loosing out on what they invested in. If it turns out that Warfare got the product line selling better than previously, and then DS decides to take it to a new distributor right away, I can see that hurting FFG right in the feels.

A lot of this comes back to some very odd plays and decisions over at DS... who the hell is actually in charge over there? Being donkey mad about your distro providing a cool set of rules that people like better'n yours is the type of reaction an artist would have, not a business man... I doubt Mr. Yau cares as long as his royalties roll in...

Could Dust Studios finally be going the way of Rackham?

I think they've BEEN going that way for quite some time, the distro switch and this KS was a desperate last attempt by the auteur to save his opus, but that's just my personal opinion.

 BrookM wrote:
Could Dust Studios finally be going the way of Rackham?

Is that the gaming industry equivalent of a scarlet letter?

Just like Jean, Paolo is an idea guy, not a chap to put in charge.

 BrookM wrote:
Just like Jean, Paolo is an idea guy, not a chap to put in charge.

Apparently he isn't.

Has anyone seen this? Is this relevant?
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/were-millers-director-tackling-adaptation-778963?mobile_redirect=false

If a Hollywood movie is being made, seems like that is relevant to a monetary dispute over 200kish dollars.

(or am I confusing the brands?)

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I think FFG has always wanted a miniature line. It makes sense since miniatures tend to be more long term product lines. You'll get more brand loyalty than with one shot board games. They finally got it with X-wing,

I get the impression that FFG will burn you hard if you burn them. And do it with a smile. Like how when Rackham pulled back AT-43 and Confrontation and then FFG flooded the market with their exiting stock at fire sale prices. Going back to what I said earlier about Paolo not liking warfare. The IP owner didn't like the direction that FFG was taking the game and wanted it back. FFG probably didn't like loosing out on what they invested in. If it turns out that Warfare got the product line selling better than previously, and then DS decides to take it to a new distributor right away, I can see that hurting FFG right in the feels.

Yup. FFG managed to latch onto a strong property via Star Wars.

FFG burned BattleLore really hard, trying to make it Game of Thrones and now Descent. I'm not a big FFG fan based on how they treated the BattleLore fans. Fortunately, my group has basically all of the BL1 stuff.

nkelsch wrote:
Has anyone seen this? Is this relevant?
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/were-millers-director-tackling-adaptation-778963?mobile_redirect=false

If a Hollywood movie is being made, seems like that is relevant to a monetary dispute over 200kish dollars.

(or am I confusing the brands?)

Same brand but it sounds like it has nothing to do with battlefront beyond the same licensor. He likely kept the movie and novel rights to himself independent of the tabletop game ones. I would however have expected battlefront to know that such a deal was in the works though and if that were the case I'm sure they'd be hoping for a bump in sales once it came out or even possibly was announced. A popular movie drives tabletop game sales (see GW's LOTR trilogy minis bump and subsequent slump after the movies were done).

nkelsch wrote:
Has anyone seen this? Is this relevant?
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/were-millers-director-tackling-adaptation-778963?mobile_redirect=false

If a Hollywood movie is being made, seems like that is relevant to a monetary dispute over 200kish dollars.

(or am I confusing the brands?)

Curiouser and curiouser.

OK, new hair brained theory. DS wants to purposely void their contract with BF so that they can distribute movie based toys through Hasbro or some such.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Has anyone seen this? Is this relevant?
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/were-millers-director-tackling-adaptation-778963?mobile_redirect=false

If a Hollywood movie is being made, seems like that is relevant to a monetary dispute over 200kish dollars.

(or am I confusing the brands?)

Curiouser and curiouser.

OK, new hair brained theory. DS wants to purposely void their contract with BF so that they can distribute movie based toys through Hasbro or some such.

No offense but that seems more than a bit crazy to me. The article just says that a director personally bought the movie rights for Dust from Parente, that's it. It sounds like it's a pet project, lacks any kind of real structure yet and is still years away since the director already committed to making at least one other movie in the interim. Having somebody interested in making a Dust movie is nice but owning the film rights is a long way from having a viable script, actors under contract, studio backing/funding and schedule for filming.

If DS thought blowing up their agreement with BF today would pay off on the chance that a actual Dust movie gets made sometime in 2017 or so that would be pretty short sighted. I would think having a healthy game would help fuel the enthusiasm for the movie rather than destroying this KS and hoping that a possible movie in the near future breathes new life into the game.

Prestor Jon wrote:


No offense but that seems more than a bit crazy to me. The article just says that a director personally bought the movie rights for Dust from Parente, that's it. It sounds like it's a pet project, lacks any kind of real structure yet and is still years away since the director already committed to making at least one other movie in the interim. Having somebody interested in making a Dust movie is nice but owning the film rights is a long way from having a viable script, actors under contract, studio backing/funding and schedule for filming.

If DS thought blowing up their agreement with BF today would pay off on the chance that a actual Dust movie gets made sometime in 2017 or so that would be pretty short sighted. I would think having a healthy game would help fuel the enthusiasm for the movie rather than destroying this KS and hoping that a possible movie in the near future breathes new life into the game.

I did say it was hair-brained.

nkelsch wrote:
Has anyone seen this? Is this relevant?
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/were-millers-director-tackling-adaptation-778963?mobile_redirect=false

If a Hollywood movie is being made, seems like that is relevant to a monetary dispute over 200kish dollars.

(or am I confusing the brands?)

That's the right brand, but I'm not sure it's relevant to this dispute. To my understanding, all the IP, and thus movie rights, are retained fully by DS and the article references Thurber optioning the rights from Parente/DS. That could be wrong and the IP is actually Parente's alone.

Assuming though that DS is the IP-owner, what WOULD be interesting for this case is who is the name on that optioning agreement. If it is Paolo, that takes some of the wind out of DS's sails since he can clearly enact agreements which then calls into question the validity of the disputed freebie split much more in BF's favor. If it's Mr. Yau, then it reinforces DS's interpretation. However, I'm not sure that knocks down BF's claims to the same degree as the previous scenario, but at least there's consistency and that would be very beneficial still.

If the IP rights are still Paolo-as-an-individual, that just makes the water incredibly muddy far beyond my layman's ken to see through.

Um, were did FFG burn Battle-Lore players. They did quite a good job polishing up a game that was slowly sinking.

 Duncan_Idaho wrote:
Um, were did FFG burn Battle-Lore players. They did quite a good job polishing up a game that was slowly sinking.

Nothing from BL 1E is compatible with BL 2E. That's a burn to me.

It would be as if Dust Warfare was nothing like Dust Tactics.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Has anyone seen this? Is this relevant?
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/were-millers-director-tackling-adaptation-778963?mobile_redirect=false

If a Hollywood movie is being made, seems like that is relevant to a monetary dispute over 200kish dollars.

(or am I confusing the brands?)

Curiouser and curiouser.

OK, new hair brained theory. DS wants to purposely void their contract with BF so that they can distribute movie based toys through Hasbro or some such.

In my experience, these types of disputes are usually related to one party wanting the get out of the contract for one reason or another.

That is opposed to something like wanting to renegotiate the terms of the contract. I have seen more than a few cases where a contract dispute was engineered because the contract became bothersome or obstructive in the context of some broader strategic goal or new business development.