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.

winterdyne wrote:
If they're out of money they get bankrupted. It's that simple. Whatever cash is raised by liquidation is used in debts owed, and this includes the refunds to backers.
If it is found by the accountants doing the liquidation that negligent practices were followed (such as paying for a huge amount of wave 1 stock rather than using the money to fund the fulfilling of extant contracts (all backer rewards) then the directors responsible for those decisions can feasibly be held personally liable. Which would be bad news indeed for Kevin, as it seems to me like that's where the buck stops.

The term to look up is 'compulsory dissolution'. It's a fun read.

...and how is that going to happen? The unstoppable Legal Ricknami?

I edited the post and added the factor of shipping to the extra half million. I just did a raw number crunch to find the extra money spent beyond what was used to cover reward levels and did not realize that shipping was part of that number. Thanks for the Input Forar

 Talizvar wrote:

Looking for, and expecting volunteers to support the business just blows my mind: handouts are a business model for them.
Then there are allegations that all kinds of contributing work goes in and they slap their name on it with little or no acknowledgment of where it actually came from.
I just do not understand if there is an army of masochists supporting PB or shouldn't the well run dry after enough people get burned?

So lately we are questioning also if PB could use the kickstarter money for retail stock?
I was pretty sure it is to cover development and production of the product to provide for the backers.
Then with the process in place, they are free to produce as they see fit... on their dime (or if any KS money remains!).
The silliness of this is obvious: say you kickstart for making 4 products, you make the first one and have a gazillion retail made and it does not sell = dead kickstarter.
This is a fine reason for never backing a kickstarter for physical product.

Up Front also used volunteers for art and whatnot and did not deliver to backers.

I've seen creators go bankrupt because they created additional product for retail at the same time as KS rewards (presumably with KS funding *and* backer money for shipping). As said, it's a matter -- and temptation -- of economy of scale, combined with poor project management (pretty tempting to dip into the shipping funds when you misspent and are running out of KS funding). Some companies, like CMON, I can trust can create product at the same time for both KS backers and retail channels, some I can't. While I wouldn't go as far as say "never backing a kickstarter", it's a risk I think potential backers really need to consider. Myself, I think this is part of researching how well a creator fulfilled their previous crowdfunding projects (I regularly pass on First Created projects) and how satisfied their backers were.

...Chaosium was run by someone as crooked as Kevin (Charlie Crank) and ended up essentially going bankrupt as they blew through the budget for their first KS, then ended up having to use their 2nd KS to pay for their first.

It seems like the more 'established' (ie. old) a company is, the more likely they are to completely feth themselves, and their backers, with a KS.

Merijeek wrote:

winterdyne wrote:
If they're out of money they get bankrupted. It's that simple. Whatever cash is raised by liquidation is used in debts owed, and this includes the refunds to backers.
If it is found by the accountants doing the liquidation that negligent practices were followed (such as paying for a huge amount of wave 1 stock rather than using the money to fund the fulfilling of extant contracts (all backer rewards) then the directors responsible for those decisions can feasibly be held personally liable. Which would be bad news indeed for Kevin, as it seems to me like that's where the buck stops.

The term to look up is 'compulsory dissolution'. It's a fun read.

...and how is that going to happen? The unstoppable Legal Ricknami?

Unlikely; more potential in the FTC taking action (here in the UK, the courts can force a dissolution if the company cannot pay debts from cash or asset liquidation the FTC seems to have a similar role to Trading Standards here in that they can start court proceedings against firms). If a sufficient number of complaints is reached. I'd think a good chunk of whatever gets liquidated would end up paying legal fees and/or fines before it got to backers though.

Being fethed is also a matter of opinion.

There are some people who have legitimate complaints regarding how Flying Frog Productions has handled the Shadows of Brimstone campaign (delivered the core boxes on time, wave 1.5 was supposed to be Q1 or Q2 2015, current target is in a few weeks, Wave 2 is hopefully going out this year but I wouldn't hold my breath).

While their updates are generally good (in terms of content and length), they're few and far in between. However, I love the project and am willing to continue to give them the benefit of the doubt. Unlike this campaign, they *have* actually finished more product, and I fully expect even more to show up in the coming months (yes, particularly in time for Gencon).

Dwarven Forge has run 3 massive (~2 million dollars plus) campaigns in the time that this one has; 2 delivered on time or early, the third is currently delivering test cases and should be starting up delivery in earnest shortly, again on time or early, depending on ones perspective.

Basically, being late can be acceptable. Poor communications can be acceptable. Even both can be endured with gritted teeth. But all that, plus a year of silence and no evidence of progress, and a product that has been fairly contentious (the higher praise it gets is generally just a minimization of 'oh it's not THAT bad...') is what really garners my ire (again, speaking for myself). If the product were better I might be a bit more frustrated, but it wouldn't take much in terms of ongoing communication (a sprue breakdown render here, a 3D printed prototype there, basically the same effort they showed in 2014).

It's not just one area of weakness, it's all of them in conjunction, that really frustrate me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
IT HAS LANDED!

Here are the aspects of the New Year State Of The Union Update that pertain to RRT:

"● 2016 Robotech® RPG Tactics. We renewed the Robotech® license and look forward to getting RRT Wave Two into your hands and onto store shelves. I’ll offer up more info and details in an update in the next few weeks. More Robotech® sourcebooks are in the pipeline, too."

... it was renewed? HG is... happy with the state of affairs? O.o

"More details in the next few week".

You've had a year. Go feth yourself.

I wonder if the talk of renewing the license has to do with the talk of them trying to run out the timer on it as an excuse. Either way, the offer of more info in the upcoming weeks seems pointless considering we got the

"We’ll try to provide some more insight on this next week."

on the Dec 11th 2015 KS "update" with nothing to show for it.

Well, I hope that update gets posted to Kickstarter so the same 30ish dittoheads can go ahead and "like" it.

Merijeek wrote:
It seems like the more 'established' (ie. old) a company is, the more likely they are to completely feth themselves, and their backers, with a KS.

Good points about Chaosium and FFP.

Reminds me of zombie companies, although some definitions of a zombie company involve debt: Zombie companies only make enough to cover costs of operation and pay debt interest, but otherwise not enough to pay down the debt itself, or grow.

With the low costs of operations for game companies, I think this description from DougsGuides would apply to Chaosium, Palladium, and who knows what other companies: "Here's a situation that is more common than VCs and entrepreneurs would like to admit: a company on life support, making just enough money (usually with concessions from the employees) to stumble along. There's not enough money to grow the business, but the economics aren't quite dire enough to close the place down. These are 'zombie companies' - the walking dead." http://www.dougsguides.com/zombie

For these companies, KS is a cash infusion to prevent the places from closing down. But the mismanagement is still there, so the company doesn't change. It just lasts longer, relying upon crowdfunding money.

Zombie KickStarters.

Of course HG renewed. Kevin McKeever and Tommy Yune have spent the last fifteenish years doing the absolute minimum amount of work to milk money out of the property.

With regards to the money issue...

,,, at the end of the day, think about it as though you are a manager trying to deliver a big project. For scope management you split the deliverables into two waves. Basic brain work would say you must retain enough funds to deliver wave 2, even if wave 1 is priority and there are economies of scale to do a bit of retail production. While there can be some problems with shipping costs etc. that are an unknown at that point, the process and cost to produce the steel molds should be known already, and an monetary estimate and planning can be done.

If PB really did screw themselves by overspending on retail production, it's fiscally irresponsible of them, and demonstrates bad planning and management. Nothing that PB doesn't already have a track record of, but now they have an "economy of scale" to demonstrate their levels of incompetency with a larger amount of cash.

Personally I do expect them to do some retail production, if nothing else because production for backers alone may not justify a production run at the manufacturer. But if they overspent on retail production at the expense of funds that should have been ear-marked for Wave 2, that's unacceptable.

As for the license renewal, yes, I think it was a factor in the hand wringing delays (and to be fair it should be, there's no reason for a licensee to spend money if they couldn't sell end product due to expiry), but again, it's not like these things don't have a time stamp on it. Sounds more of typical PB "let's talk about this over the spread of 6 months but not decide on anything", resulting in everyone just waiting for the confirmation before doing anything.

Overall, it looks like PB is terrible at strategic business planning and negotiation, and is just stumbling from paycheck to paycheck. Enough of back histories to depend on to get by, but nothing of legacy to get big, and poor organization capabilities to adapt to changing economic realities.

If you assume PB has a mindless enthusiasm for their product and automatically assume the best outcome (wild sales #'s) then it actually fits the mold.......

 Mike1975 wrote:
If you assume PB has a mindless enthusiasm for their product and automatically assume the best outcome (wild sales #'s) then it actually fits the mold.......

Pretty much yeah. I do like the creativity that some of the PB products have, but really, their business track record is much, much less than stellar.

Part of the problem is that Kevin can't get over stuff even when he says "it's water under the bridge". So because of that mentality and the inability to adapt to an ever changing market it ends up hurting his business and the consumer.

 Cypher-xv wrote:
Part of the problem is that Kevin can't get over stuff even when he says "it's water under the bridge". So because of that mentality and the inability to adapt to an ever changing market it ends up hurting his business and the consumer.

And in this case our pocketbooks

firesped wrote:
so 5231 backers put up a total of $1,442,312.00 before additional backerkit funding. $905,610.00 covers the base pledged and $536,702.00 was pledged towards additional "purchase addons" and shipping costs.

Stuart Johnson got a reply from the AG and PB said they sent him over $700.00+ of product compared to his pledge $520.00.

Let us remember that, regardless of current PB's states of cost per mini (and I dare you to try and sell those at that price point), it is irrelevant, because what PB is contractually bound to send the pledgers for their base pledges is what they stated they would in the KS.

And they haven't even fulfilled that. So anything they might say on that regard about "value" of sent stuff is a smokescreen at best.

A best gauge for it would probably to define the approximate percentage of stuff received compared with the promised base pledge for those first $905,610.00

 Talizvar wrote:

jaymz wrote:
There are number of people that work closely with Kevin on a "volunteer" basis. I know and communicate with at least a few of them regularly. Thus why I said plausible deniability.

People willing to work on their spare time with that fellow does raise some concerns.
Looking for, and expecting volunteers to support the business just blows my mind: handouts are a business model for them.
Then there are allegations that all kinds of contributing work goes in and they slap their name on it with little or no acknowledgment of where it actually came from.
I just do not understand if there is an army of masochists supporting PB or shouldn't the well run dry after enough people get burned?

Yes, its almost the business model for charities isnt it?

And yes with no younger and newer blood discovering PB theres only us old farts left. Any decent talent winds up moving on to other companies who actually pay them decently (or pay them at all, or dont cheat them like happened with dead reign).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swabby wrote:
Is anyone else picturing Kevin reading Jaymz' post and spending endless hours trying to figure out who the traitor is?

I fully expect an internal war on teachery in the PB office now. And probably some missing collectible heist stories.

Pfft. Use to be a monthly event for Kevin, might be weekly by now. Everyone's out to bring him down. What happened with his now ex wife and later Steve probably cemented this thinking in his mind.

I have to honestly wonder what people think they are doing when contributing to a kickstarter.

Do any of you, that think the whole point of the kickstarter is to only reward those who pledged money, realize that if the project only manages to break even after rewarding the backers, even though they may now have the tools to manufacture more, they would still be effectively at square one again since they no longer have any funds to produce anything?

Think about it. Most of these projects are not companies that have other revenue streams (at least a good many of them).

If I didn't have the funds to produce the game, then you give me money to produce the game, but you only want YOU to get the game, leaving me with no money to produce further after YOU got the game, then what is the point of bothering at all as I am still left with no funding to actually produce the game.

No, it is quite obvious that backing a project entails paying for BOTH rewarding the backers and at least some amount of retail production to make the project self sustaining.

Now Palladium fethed up by WAY over producing retail. In other words as I said before incompetent misuse of funds. That misuse of funds is why they are where they are. It is not fraud. What it WILL be if they do not produce wave two is breach of contract. Now if fraud can be demonstrated in trying to figure out the breach of contract so be it but as of right now, there is no fraud that I am aware of and everything I have been told points to incompetence. Gross incompetence, to be sure, but incompetence just the same.

jaymz wrote:
I have to honestly wonder what people think they are doing when contributing to a kickstarter.

Do any of you, that think the whole point of the kickstarter is to only rewards those who pledged money, realize that if the project only manages to break even after rewarding the backers, even though they may not have the tools to manufacture more, they would still be effectively at square one again since they no longer have any funds to produce anything?

Think about it. Most of these projects are not companies that have other revenue streams (at least a good many of them).

If I didn't have the funds to produce the game, then you give me money to produce the game, but you only want YOU to get the game, leaving em with no money to produce further after YOU got the game, then what is the point of bothering at all as I am still left with no funding to actually produce the game.

No, it is quite obvious that backing a project entails paying for BOTH rewarding the backers and at least some amount of retail production to make the project self sustaining.

Now Palladium fethed up by WAY over producing retail. In other words as I said before incompetent misuse of funds. That misuse of funds is why they are where they are. It is not fraud. What it WILL be if they do not produce wave two is breach of contract. Now if fraud can be demonstrated in trying to figure out the breach of contract so be it but as of right now, there is no fraud that I am aware of and everything I have been told points to incompetence. Gross incompetence, to be sure, but incompetence just the same.

The purpose of a kickstarter is to raise the money to DEVELOP a product, and produce and deliver rewards (not necessarily the product) in exchange for that money. Contractually that is all that's there.
That the rewards tend to be (in the case of many products) advance orders of the product itself is beside the point, and a choice of the Project Creator.
That the funding level for a project is usually set high enough to produce an initial run of stock to sell (over and above fulfilling the rewards of backers as required) is again beside the point, and a choice of the Project Creator.
Regardless of the specifics of the rewards offered and how they are produced, and regardless of the funding requested, a Project Creator is contractually obliged to produce those rewards or refund backers for rewards they cannot fulfill.
Within the 2013 ToU (I've not actually had cause to analyse the terms for more recent projects) there is no caveat emptor clause whatsoever - rewards absolutely MUST be fulfilled or refunded.

So if you didn't ask for enough money to develop, produce and/or get delivery of your retail stock as well as the backer rewards you've basically misfired the project.
If you ran out of money before fulfilling your contractual obligations, you're in very deep gak and absolutely need to find the money to do so. If you can't (and here I surmise PB can't) then it won't be forever before someone drags your arse to court and has you or your company bankrupted.

winterdyne wrote:

jaymz wrote:
I have to honestly wonder what people think they are doing when contributing to a kickstarter.

Do any of you, that think the whole point of the kickstarter is to only rewards those who pledged money, realize that if the project only manages to break even after rewarding the backers, even though they may not have the tools to manufacture more, they would still be effectively at square one again since they no longer have any funds to produce anything?

Think about it. Most of these projects are not companies that have other revenue streams (at least a good many of them).

If I didn't have the funds to produce the game, then you give me money to produce the game, but you only want YOU to get the game, leaving em with no money to produce further after YOU got the game, then what is the point of bothering at all as I am still left with no funding to actually produce the game.

No, it is quite obvious that backing a project entails paying for BOTH rewarding the backers and at least some amount of retail production to make the project self sustaining.

Now Palladium fethed up by WAY over producing retail. In other words as I said before incompetent misuse of funds. That misuse of funds is why they are where they are. It is not fraud. What it WILL be if they do not produce wave two is breach of contract. Now if fraud can be demonstrated in trying to figure out the breach of contract so be it but as of right now, there is no fraud that I am aware of and everything I have been told points to incompetence. Gross incompetence, to be sure, but incompetence just the same.

The purpose of a kickstarter is to raise the money to DEVELOP a product, and produce and deliver rewards (not necessarily the product) in exchange for that money. Contractually that is all that's there.
That the rewards tend to be (in the case of many products) advance orders of the product itself is beside the point, and a choice of the Project Creator.
That the funding level for a project is usually set high enough to produce an initial run of stock to sell (over and above fulfilling the rewards of backers as required) is again beside the point, and a choice of the Project Creator.
Regardless of the specifics of the rewards offered and how they are produced, and regardless of the funding requested, a Project Creator is contractually obliged to produce those rewards or refund backers for rewards they cannot fulfill.
Within the 2013 ToU (I've not actually had cause to analyse the terms for more recent projects) there is no caveat emptor clause whatsoever - rewards absolutely MUST be fulfilled or refunded.

So if you didn't ask for enough money to develop, produce and/or get delivery of your retail stock as well as the backer rewards you've basically misfired the project.
If you ran out of money before fulfilling your contractual obligations, you're in very deep gak and absolutely need to find the money to do so. If you can't (and here I surmise PB can't) then it won't be forever before someone drags your arse to court and has you or your company bankrupted.

And I do not dispute any of what you said. My point was that there is zero point in doing a project in the first place if after rewarding those that helped fund it, you cannot continue to produce the game.

This may be an issue with how Kickstarter has set up it's ToU. I do not know but I can tell you from a business perspective, let alone a logical one, to do a project that cannot sustain itself after "paying back investors" (for lack of a better term), is asinine and doomed to failure. No one should be surprised, ever, that a retail run is produced using the same funds that were used to make backer rewards.

What it does point to though, in this case, is that whoever had the final say, at the time of the initial campaign, over did it with unlockable rewards for backers. The whole situation goes back to, you guessed it, incompetence not fraud. (and by extension, breach of contract)

No, I think the reward structure was fine. The bulk of the design work had been done well before the Kickstarter launched, so costs to bring to production *should* also have been understood and understood at that point. If there was *ANY* doubt whatsoever about getting production rolling, then the Kickstarter should have been cancelled prior to being funded.

I concur, the whole thing is incompetent - but you can only be incompetent to that sort of level knowingly. To then purport to be 98% done, and/or provide pie-in-the-sky ship dates (Q2 2014!, No, wait 2015... No wait..) is not just incompetent it's fraudulent.

I did a bunch of the painting work for Maelstrom's Edge - and given that the SAS guys are pure amateurs, and were learning and spending as they went (fronting most of the development cost before they ever started their Kickstarter), the difference in the handling of the two projects is night and day. Similar in scope (get plastic models produced in China, high detail, multiple facing details in design to overcome), print books, boxes, package, ship. There's no excuse, really.

jaymz wrote:
I have to honestly wonder what people think they are doing when contributing to a kickstarter.

Do any of you, that think the whole point of the kickstarter is to only reward those who pledged money, realize that if the project only manages to break even after rewarding the backers, even though they may now have the tools to manufacture more, they would still be effectively at square one again since they no longer have any funds to produce anything?

Think about it. Most of these projects are not companies that have other revenue streams (at least a good many of them).

I didn't back "most of these projects"... I backed THIS project. THIS project took my money to develop the project and bring it to market. Bringing it to market does NOT mean that I paid in part for every single retail box sitting in their warehouse. To think that it does is as much of a stretch as Kevin Siembieda apparently thinking that making a phone call once a week makes the project progress substantially enough to not warrant refunds after a projected 3 year delay. Bringing that project to market means that my funding (obviously along with everyone elses) paid for the development of that project, producing the necessary rewards, and a small initial retail offering out of LEFT OVER funds. That left over part is key because it becomes extra difficult to judge that when you split completion suddenly AFTER your supposed intial delivery date.

Palladium would NOT "still be effectively at square one again since they no longer have any funds to produce anything" as you strangely and naively claim. The kickstarter allowed them to develop and market the product at no cost to them instead using their backers' money. The designs, contracts, and know how to make backer rewards paid for by backer funds don't suddenly disappear like an IMF tape into smoke once rewards go out. The marketing including the initial KS campaign itself as well as subsequent updates to backers and traditional ads allows them to use their 30 year history in the industry to presell to both gamers, retailers, and distributors ahead of production which pays for both THOSE purchased retail copies as well as provides them extra profit to make additional retail copies to sell on the market, just like backer copies theoretically do if costs are determined correctly. This separation of funds becomes even more important when they decide to only ship half the products after a year's delay since costs of production and development will only go up (and likely in ways that they can't predict). Instead of putting half the project's completion at risk by spending the money in a pyramind scheme fashion, they should have made a smaller initial wave 1 print run consisting of only what they could afford from the portion of pledges plus preorders plus extras from whatever they can afford with the their own money which would naturally include extras from the profit margin of rewards and preorders. Unfortunately they got, according to your story, extra greedy and spent everything gambling at the expense of the KS backers and in violation of their contract with them since, again according to your theory, they can no longer afford to make half the rewards.

Palladium might have had a smaller profit margin INITIALLY if they had instead responsibly acted as stated above (again, assuming your theory is correct) but at least it would have ensured to the best of their ability the full completion of the project providing better long term reception and sales for the line. Instead, they were betting with OUR money, not their own, on a massive initial retail sales that apparently didn't happen. It is IMO likely some combination of saturation of a niche market with the KS and a general souring of the reception of the game after a year of broken promises didn't provide that. If they wanted to gamble, they should have used their own money instead.

@winterdyne - Oh the backer reward levels were fine I agree. It is all the Unlocked rewards that are causing the issues. You will notice those were by and large all Wave Two items.

I also agree that there has to be some level of "knowledge" of misleading information on their part but without the ability to get full disclosure there is absolutely zero way to prove it.



@warboss - did i say every single retail box? no i did not that's where the "over stocked" comes from so don;t get your underoos in a frickin knot.

I did not say PALLADIUM would be at square one. Stop twisting words for your so called outrage. I said in most cases the people creating these projects do not have other streams of revenue. Palladium does so yes they should foot part of the bill to take it to market....mind you a company that has all this experience and history shouldn't be allowed to use Kickstarter in the first place. They should be required to go the traditional route for product creation and launch, like securing bank loans, but that's an argument for another day.

I'll point out

"The kickstarter allowed them to develop and market the product at no cost to them instead using their backers' money. "

by default includes "taking to market" not just marketing the product. If you cannot manufacture the product for the market then you cannot TAKE it to market. Also whatever development that was done prior to the KS Campaign, if there was in fact any done, was paid by somebody so to say this whole thing was at no cost is a bit disingenuous on your part.

Furthermore I have repeatedly said they screwed up so trying to make it seem like I am trying to give them a pass is on you not me.

I'll say it again clearly for you.

They. Incompetently. Misused. Funds. To. Overstock. Retail.

Now they cannot finish. Again that is breach of contract. Not fraud.

End result is we are screwed because of it and they should be held accountable for that. Unless you, me, winterdyne, and everyone else here decides to act together and actually DO something about it not a damn thing will happen.

I am looking at my options via FTC/AG/BBB etc being Canadian and not merely going to file a complaint online to just get a canned response back. I am going to do so down the avenue that makes the most sense. Fraud isn't it.

What are you doing?

We at least agree on one thing overall. They should have done this on their own dime not any one else's. Obviously they didn;t think it was viable to do with their own money. THAT is more telling than anything else really.

They misrepresented how much work was complete (and continue to do so), they misrepresented release dates, and they misrepresented who was actually doing the work.

But that's not fraud? These things happened before they ever overproduced for retail.

Now, I'm just a simple unfrozen cave man who doesn't understand new and fancy things like your sliding core molds and facebookery, but it seems to me that these things would qualify it as fraud.

jaymz wrote:

I did not say PALLADIUM would be at square one. Stop twisting words for your so called outrage.

So... in the thread specifically about the Palladium Robotech KS, the singular kickstarter you're talking about exclusively to backers of the Palladium Kickstarter below in which you specifically say "they would still be effectively at square one again since they no longer have any funds to produce anything" doesn't refer to the Palladium Kickstarter? But instead to some random crowdfunded knitting project? Or maybe an indie video game? So which kickstarter are you referring to in the Robotech thread when you say "the kickstarter" multiple times below?

jaymz wrote:
Do any of you, that think the whole point of the kickstarter is to only reward those who pledged money, realize that if the project only manages to break even after rewarding the backers, even though they may now have the tools to manufacture more, they would still be effectively at square one again since they no longer have any funds to produce anything?

@Merijeek - the problem is proving it. As I already said. Take a road that can be traveled (breach of contract) rather than one that is likely to end at a chasm you can't cross. (Fraud)

Taking the road you can travel (Breach) MAY lead to a bridge to get across that chasm.

jaymz wrote:

I am looking at my options via FTC/AG/BBB etc being Canadian and not merely going to file a complaint online to just get a canned response back. I am going to do so down the avenue that makes the most sense. Fraud isn't it.

What are you doing?

We at least agree on one thing overall. They should have done this on their own dime not any one else's. Obviously they didn;t think it was viable to do with their own money. THAT is more telling than anything else really.

I'm looking at the same options as you are with likely the same results. Look, we agree on most things your wrote and if anything your contribution here on dakka will likely move up my own timetable. I've previously said that I was giving Palladium to the end of the current sorting hat delivery date/Gencon before I filed with the above authorities. I'm reconsidering that now and honestly the 1,000th anniversary of funding with no delivery in sight coinciding with Valentine's Day seems a poetic day to start. It would be fitting to recipricate the love Palladium has shown to backers by filing with those authorities on the day the production of half the rewards is 2,500% late. I haven't decided for sure but am considering it.

 warboss wrote:

jaymz wrote:

I did not say PALLADIUM would be at square one. Stop twisting words for your so called outrage.

So... in the thread specifically about the Palladium Robotech KS, the singular kickstarter you're talking about exclusively to backers of the Palladium Kickstarter below in which you specifically say "they would still be effectively at square one again since they no longer have any funds to produce anything" doesn't refer to the Palladium Kickstarter? But instead to some random crowdfunded knitting project? Or maybe an indie video game? You're too used to the Palladium forums if you think that sort of revisionist posting at best will pass the sniff test. So which kickstarter are you referring to in the Robotech thread when you say "the kickstarter" multiple times below?

jaymz wrote:
Do any of you, that think the whole point of the kickstarter is to only reward those who pledged money, realize that if the project only manages to break even after rewarding the backers, even though they may now have the tools to manufacture more, they would still be effectively at square one again since they no longer have any funds to produce anything?

Picking and choosing quotes does not change the tone of the entire post regardless of what you think warboss. The overall post was speaking in generic terms. As evidenced by the rest of it that you specifically left out of what you quoted. But hey whatever makes you feel like you are right man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:

jaymz wrote:

I am looking at my options via FTC/AG/BBB etc being Canadian and not merely going to file a complaint online to just get a canned response back. I am going to do so down the avenue that makes the most sense. Fraud isn't it.

What are you doing?

We at least agree on one thing overall. They should have done this on their own dime not any one else's. Obviously they didn;t think it was viable to do with their own money. THAT is more telling than anything else really.

I'm looking at the same options as you are with likely the same results. Look, we agree on most things your wrote and if anything your contribution here on dakka will likely move up my own timetable. I've previously said that I was giving Palladium to the end of the current sorting hat delivery date/Gencon before I filed with the above authorities. I'm reconsidering that now and honestly the 1,000th anniversary of funding with no delivery in sight coinciding with Valentine's Day seems a poetic day to start. It would be fitting to recipricate the love Palladium has shown to backers by filing with those authorities on the day the production of half the rewards is 2,500% late. I haven't decided for sure but am considering it.

Well at least we are on the same page about one thing. Palladium needs to be made accountable

As far as I'm aware, Kickstarters are allowed to make a profit. Smart KS's build in contingency funds for use on a variety of things, be it emergency repairs to their facilities in order to continue working, or to cover a shortfall or three (oh noes, shipping has gone up again!).

Campaigns are not expected to account for every single penny in advance. Doing so would be insane and doom just about every campaign ever. We all know that life happens, that X now costs double because the price of oil has gone up, and Y now costs triple because 'feth you' that's why, etc.

Which brings me back to my point on context and proportionality. If they spent 10% extra to double the number of boxes coming in, I would've been annoyed if they hadn't taken advantage of that. If they spent 190% of the amount to get 200% of the boxes and THAT is what has led (in a large part) to them being out of cash, that's another story. There's a gradiation present between "fraud and embezzlement and call Judge Judy!' and 'sensible business practices'.

Arguing whether or not they could use KS funds for retail seems like a moot point, and I'm pretty sure everyone does it, whether it's legally or just ethically against the Kickstarter's TOU. Does anyone really think that Reaper or CMON or my beloved Dwarven Forge very specifically pays JUST for backer boxes out of KS funds and then very carefully goes to their own accounts for retail/online distribution?

That said, any campaign that JUST produced backer rewards with zero excess is still ahead of the game. While shipping and factory slots and labour and materials and whatnot aren't free, having the artwork paid off, the molds cut, etc, trims that cost significantly. Any company that can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars getting all that infrastructure in place but can't cover off even a short additional run for their stuff (ideally alongside the backer production) probably should take a good long look at their business model. As noted above with contingencies and potential profits and whatnot, they're not expected to run on a razor's edge, and doing so would crush even more campaigns than we already see flounder and fail.

Of course, profits and contingency money should be freed up AFTER everything else has been covered, and the more reasonable issue/view that perhaps they had even a thin line and then the mold costs (doubled), the shipping (roughly doubled?), thousands in wasted advertising (if not counter productive advertising, as it showcased their ongoing inability to set a target and hit it), possibly wasted factory slot (allegedly procured in early 2013), they might well have chewed through those margins and then some. In which case, yes, I could see hoping to turn $X into $2X by bulk producing wave one and looking to recoup it in strong sales (short sightedly ignoring what happens if sales fall flat... ooops...).

Basically I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with anyone here, just trying to interject a little nuance. I think we're all adult enough here to know by now that hard black and white stances without ANY room for the realities of life are just angry talking points.

And I say this as someone who continues to harangue PB as a hobby at this point.

If Jaymz's source can produce documentation showing that Wave 1, in its entirety, cost them a million dollars, and then they blew every last penny on excess stock, sure, get the Seal Team Six of Lawyers onboard and let's light some fethers up.

But for good or ill, among the myriad of factors present in Kickstarter as a platform, I'd need more info/context to really call foul (above and beyond those I'm contractually obligated to participate in, that is).

from what I have observed of PBs actions is that they are trying to raise money anyway they can. I do think they want to finish this project. Given the latest PB update, I think they are looking into licensing out their IP to raise the money. So someone else might be putting out a Rifts Miniature wargame.

BoC is the way to go. I was going to give them until their current projected deadline or if they change the date again.

the Robotech License renewal, if true, is just to put a stop to that issue imo. Given HG though, it is probably true.

PB really need to come clean if they want to try and rebuild trust. I don't think their is any possible way to re-launch the game though.