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.

Morgan Vening wrote:

 TwoGunBob wrote:
Lynx is pretty dead on in the assessment. It's falls in line that kickstarter HATES the $1 'trolling and pulling' but they are not policing creators so backers have the right to do it themselves. You might think that everyone knows about Palladium's failure to do the distance but there may well be a few people unaware that there is affiliation between Rogue Heroes and Palladium even if Rogue Heroes isn't a shell company and that backing a Rogue Heroes kickstarter is at minimum as risky as backing another by Palladium.

I'd hope that someone asks and hopefully gets it posted to the FAQ what the policy will be if Rogue Studios decides, or PB demands, it become further pulled into the Palladium umbrella. Everything else aside, that's the biggest concern I'd have, as it factors in everything else. The license expiring and reverting back, Carmen not feeling up to the task and handing it off, something related or unrelated happening to Carmen (he could be hit by a bus (rather than being thrown under it by Kevin)). If there's not a policy in place for that, and there's a refusal to answer it, anyone who signs up should expect to get screwed over.

I'm sorry, are you under the impression that if something is stated as to how something will be handled....that it will be handled this way when the time comes? Is there some sort of enforcement mechanism in place that we should be aware of?

Not to sound like too much of a dick (beyond the usual, naturally), but if those assurances and plans are given...so what?

Morgan Vening wrote:

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

Regarding Step 1, I wasn't saying that Kickstarter determines the timeframe for completion. I'm saying Kickstarter gives Palladium a reasonable period to come up with one. If Palladium want to turn around and say it'll be Eo2020, that'd be one thing. But it'd stop this "Eo2014, no, Eo2015, I mean Eo2016, sorry, Eo2017, we mean it this time!" bs. And that PB then have to take the criticism if they pick a ridiculous timeframe.

Probably did misunderstand. Ok, for this, are you saying a general case of "every project Creator should file a 'latest by' date", or are you being very specific for only the case of RTT? Because I was sort of thinking the former.

If specific to RTT, there must be awareness at KS that the project is a problem child. I have this feeling that while the KS Helpdesk rolls their eyes whenever the project comes up, KS management may not be aware of it at all. For anything to happen, some management review has to happen -- and typically, that means there has to be some form of potential of damages to KS before that would happen.

Basically, if we want KS to do some work on this, we have to point out a way that this mess would hurt them in actual financial or reputation. Otherwise, they would hide behind the ToS crap that they have been using all along.

To be honest, even if we successfully triggered KS management to look at this, what most likely would happen is a back-end discussion with Kevin, and he's notorious for not listening to anything. At that point, KS mgmt must consider whether they want to take a hit on Creator confidence in them, and throw Kevin under the bus. Which would be quite funny, for a change.

(Funny that you should mention these two, but the KDM1.5 KS did put a 2020 date IIRC...)

Morgan Vening wrote:
You argue that it'd open Kickstarter up to legal action. I'm thinking that the failure to hold Creators to the same Terms of Use that they suspend backers for, is more likely to eventually lead them to be co-named in a legal action. Showing that they aren't just about protecting backers from unaccountable creators, would go a long way to preventing that.

Oh I'm not trying to protect KS from legal actions. Either way could get them into trouble -- that's the risk of playing with two groups of users and trying to make money off them. The question is which one comes first, and how long would the wick burn.

I would like there to be a more solid community of Creators and Backers, right now it's honestly more of a pile of loose sand. But these things take a lot of time to reach maturity and KS should guide the development of the community.

Merijeek wrote:

Morgan Vening wrote:
I'd hope that someone asks and hopefully gets it posted to the FAQ what the policy will be if Rogue Studios decides, or PB demands, it become further pulled into the Palladium umbrella. Everything else aside, that's the biggest concern I'd have, as it factors in everything else. The license expiring and reverting back, Carmen not feeling up to the task and handing it off, something related or unrelated happening to Carmen (he could be hit by a bus (rather than being thrown under it by Kevin)). If there's not a policy in place for that, and there's a refusal to answer it, anyone who signs up should expect to get screwed over.

I'm sorry, are you under the impression that if something is stated as to how something will be handled....that it will be handled this way when the time comes? Is there some sort of enforcement mechanism in place that we should be aware of?

Not to sound like too much of a dick (beyond the usual, naturally), but if those assurances and plans are given...so what?

It'd establish a legal groundwork we didn't have under RRT? The problem we have with nearly everything that's come out of the RRT project is that stuff was fudged in such a way that there's nothing explicit to hold on to. The lack of explicitness with regards the parts count, the lack of explicitness when it comes to who is running the damned thing, that, like the issue with PB hiding behind Kickstarter's skirt when it comes to accountability, well... makes things less accountable. Basically, if I had any interest in backing (current interest is -3%, +/-3%) I'd want something that would be legally arguable as fraud if it happened. While that might not stop things, having an explicit statement that can't be argued around, even in the most craven way ("Backers first!"), would go a long way to being able to TRY to hold them accountable.

I swear the KS rules should be:
You post a "best estimate ship date on KS funding launch" for full delivery.
You only get to change the ship date 3 times to a maximum of 6 months each time.
The amount of funds spent must be recorded with as detailed list as possible before an extension is allowed.
After missing the last date, you default and must refund as best able. The extension records shall be used to determine legitimacy of what money was available.

Wordy, but only thing I can think of as a corrective action for this garbage we are facing.

I would be tempted for them to have to submit some report before an "update" can be given and if one is not done before a 3 month period they again default.

 Lynx7725 wrote:

Morgan Vening wrote:

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

Regarding Step 1, I wasn't saying that Kickstarter determines the timeframe for completion. I'm saying Kickstarter gives Palladium a reasonable period to come up with one. If Palladium want to turn around and say it'll be Eo2020, that'd be one thing. But it'd stop this "Eo2014, no, Eo2015, I mean Eo2016, sorry, Eo2017, we mean it this time!" bs. And that PB then have to take the criticism if they pick a ridiculous timeframe.

Probably did misunderstand. Ok, for this, are you saying a general case of "every project Creator should file a 'latest by' date", or are you being very specific for only the case of RTT? Because I was sort of thinking the former.

If specific to RTT, there must be awareness at KS that the project is a problem child. I have this feeling that while the KS Helpdesk rolls their eyes whenever the project comes up, KS management may not be aware of it at all. For anything to happen, some management review has to happen -- and typically, that means there has to be some form of potential of damages to KS before that would happen.

Basically, if we want KS to do some work on this, we have to point out a way that this mess would hurt them in actual financial or reputation. Otherwise, they would hide behind the ToS crap that they have been using all along.

To be honest, even if we successfully triggered KS management to look at this, what most likely would happen is a back-end discussion with Kevin, and he's notorious for not listening to anything. At that point, KS mgmt must consider whether they want to take a hit on Creator confidence in them, and throw Kevin under the bus. Which would be quite funny, for a change.

(Funny that you should mention these two, but the KDM1.5 KS did put a 2020 date IIRC...)

Last thing first, I was meaning the original KDM Kickstarter which was almost two years late on it's original estimate for the core set, and additional six months late on most of it's remaining commitments (one remaining item got cancelled just before the new one started, and everyone was refunded for it).

And I meant more as a global thing. A project gets beyond 500% late (I think you could argue a MUCH lower timeframe), then it has to re-evaluate and give a completion date where backers are deserving (but not necessarily given) a refund. Some campaigns already allow refunds up to just before shipping, but I'm not expecting that, nor Kickstarter to enforce it.

Note, this doesn't require a campaign to give a completion date on launch. I don't mind that Kickstarter allow some flexibility when it comes to completion. Some things come up, things need to be rejiggered. Estimates should be estimates. But when a campaign goes so far beyond the pale that any reasonable person would be "What the hell?", then you THEN ask for a completion date.

My biggest problem with RRT in this fiasco isn't that it's going to be at least 4 years late. If they'd said in November 2014 "It's going to be three years before you get Wave 2" and further clarified that failure of them to do it would result in refunds being offered, they'd have had to face some harsh judgement, but at least people would be assured of completion. The problem I have, is that they can continue to kick this can down the road until Kevin retires, and never be held accountable.

As for throwing Kevin under the bus, my suggestion means that Kickstarter gives Palladium every opportunity before it removes it's protection. Palladium get to set the timetable for completion. And can throw in contingency time. But it locks PB into a timetable, after which backers will be able to more easily pursue the "The creator is solely responsible for fulfilling the promises made in their project. If they’re unable to satisfy the terms of this agreement, they may be subject to legal action by backers." that is specifically stated in the Terms of Use. The point I'm arguing, is that as long as Kevin gets to hide behind Kickstarter's skirt of "Well, they technically haven't failed as they still say they're working on it", legal actions become increasingly difficult.

Stopping PB from having infinite extensions before Kickstarter drop the shield, is what I'm arguing.

I know I went into the RRT as a dumbass basically. I assumed a lot regarding backer protection and creator responsibility. Hindsight being what it is, the solution for me was to not use Kickstarter at all. I got 1 out of 3 projects I've backed and I know a lot of creators are good for the projects. And as I mentioned, I sidestep Kickstarter entirely now if there's a project I'm interested in. During the funding period you have the ability to ask hard questions and it's become apparent it's the only time a creator will respond. Does requesting firm deadlines give any more protection? Not from Kickstarter but should you finally get pissed enough to get a lawyer you can point at it as a firm mention of contract because you are an investor after all because Kickstarer is not a store as they are so fond of saying.

I'd grill the hell out of Carmen regarding every potential situation regarding how involved Palladium is and what kind of execution rights Kevster has on taking over the project. When do Carmen's rights revert back to Palladium? Who are the production companies for the miniatures? Is Palldium taking care of printing inhouse? Cause once he has his money he will run as silent as Kevin and start throwing a lot of meaningless words around.

Course, between Defiance, Prodos, Palladium, etc. are there mayn of us that have been burned that still jump into Kickstarter projects still?

 Talizvar wrote:
I swear the KS rules should be:
You post a "best estimate ship date on KS funding launch" for full delivery.
You only get to change the ship date 3 times to a maximum of 6 months each time.
The amount of funds spent must be recorded with as detailed list as possible before an extension is allowed.
After missing the last date, you default and must refund as best able. The extension records shall be used to determine legitimacy of what money was available.

Wordy, but only thing I can think of as a corrective action for this garbage we are facing.

I would be tempted for them to have to submit some report before an "update" can be given and if one is not done before a 3 month period they again default.

I can see legislation eventually coming down that will require a VERY transparent view into pledge fund management, especially once a project goes 'late', maybe?

Projects can run over projected times in big ways. I am working on one such project.
The significant difference is that the project team I am on provides proof of work, explanations of why things are taking longer and support that the extended time spent will provide value.
We communicate.

Yeah, keeping an open line of communication goes a long way.

I know I've kicked the idea around of having a % based target tied to losing some of the 'omg we're totes still working on it!' as both a reasonable target above and beyond the estimate, and even better, it incentivizes Creators to pad their estimates well.

If they know that Kickstarter will no longer tolerate their claims after 500% of target, that provides a rather good reason to give a healthy delivery estimate rather than aiming low and saying 'omg this is so haaaard' when things go sideways.

Set a target for 6 months, at the 2.5 year mark things could get uglier. Set it for 1 year, you get half a decade.

The percentage being given could be changed, I'm not saying it has to be that, but the idea that there's an Estimate, and then there's the hyper inflated 'thou shalt deliver by' estimate, holds more appeal than 'there is an estimhahahahaha we'll deliver when we damned well please'.

It could be opt-in. I would feel more comfortable backing future projects if the creator showed that level of dedication to actually completing the damned thing. It could be optional until a certain funding level was hit, or percentage of funding (perhaps used to provide incentive for creators to also accurately gauge their funding goal rather than lowballing for the sweet 'omg we're at 2,000% of target!' bragging rights and front page position.

I'm just spitballing here. I too don't foresee much changing until it has to, either because something so bad happens it damages Kickstarter's entire brand, or legislatively because... like, some Senator's grandkid gets ripped off for a couple of grand and they decide its time the money train has a few brakes added.

Having a 1 month project go to 6 months is unfortunate, but not the end of the world. Having a 7 month project looking to likely hit half a decade without completing is a different story altogether. Maybe a sliding scale would be needed, or a bellcurve, there's lots of potential changes that could be made aside from 'stick with the status quo' we currently have.

more canned spam from kickstarter:

Kickstarter Support (Kickstarter)
Mar 1, 12:48 PM EST

Hi there,

Here at Kickstarter, we expect creators to fulfill rewards, offer refunds if they’re unable to complete their project, and communicate with backers at every step along the way. While Kickstarter is the platform for this agreement, we are not a part of it. We do not investigate a project creator’s ability to complete their project, nor do we facilitate refunds or the fulfillment of rewards. While in most cases you’ll find that rewards are delivered as promised, it’s also important to realize that some projects might not fulfill as planned.

Our terms can serve as a basis for legal recourse if a creator doesn’t fulfill their obligations under the agreement. We hope that backers will consider using this provision only in cases where they feel that a creator has not made a good faith effort to complete the project and fulfill.

Best,
Katherine

 n815e wrote:
Projects can run over projected times in big ways. I am working on one such project.
The significant difference is that the project team I am on provides proof of work, explanations of why things are taking longer and support that the extended time spent will provide value.
We communicate.

That is the problem: being able to allow those who actually act in good faith to continue in a reasonable way or at least be made to take a good hard look at the progress if they genuinely got a little too excited and bit off more than they could chew.

What is needed is how to then deal with the "lip service".
The creator has a bunch of money and may not want to part with it easily and going as cheap, slow boat from China (hand casting in the rice paddies?) levels to maximize profit.
I have a serious issue with "pre-order".
I have been burned by fairly "normal" companies because they have your money already so then retail gets priority (since that is money they do not have yet).
Or being too free with it and "oops" ran out.
Or the creator being distracted by something shiny and the KS hits low priority.

Then, we may be facing "all of the above" with our Palladium good friends who know how to demonstrate what to guard against.

Another option: KS insurance. Some 3rd party company offers, for a small fee when you pledge, insurance. Up front, if the KS doesn't complete by some fixed time (say, original ship date + 6 months), they "purchase" your pledge (essentially a refund) and then they can tackle the legalities of going after the creator (and possibly hassling KS, at least enough to get an offending creator banned from future projects), taking that effort off of the consumer. If the KS delivers, they just get to keep their fee.

@Stormonu - KS should be building that insurance directly into their services fees.

There is one serious problem with calling or considering us "investors". Investors get protections. We do not. Investors can demand access to the books. We cannot. Thus we are not investors. Nor are we donors. Nor are we gift givers.

THAT is the problem with these crowd funding platforms and THAT is what needs to change.

Morgan Vening wrote:
I'd hope that someone asks and hopefully gets it posted to the FAQ what the policy will be if Rogue Studios decides, or PB demands, it become further pulled into the Palladium umbrella. Everything else aside, that's the biggest concern I'd have, as it factors in everything else. The license expiring and reverting back, Carmen not feeling up to the task and handing it off, something related or unrelated happening to Carmen (he could be hit by a bus (rather than being thrown under it by Kevin)). If there's not a policy in place for that, and there's a refusal to answer it, anyone who signs up should expect to get screwed over.

Well, KS isn't the only option Carmen has. Carmen stays the game designer, but Palladium publishes the game, through their website or retail, to loyal Palladium supporters. Carmen says the game is similar to Descent, so that means multiple scenarios. Chop the game up and sell the scenarios individually in plastic bags with a RIFTS adventure. Components would be cards, foldout map, and tokens. Sell the heroes as metal miniatures, either with the game, or a separate set. All components would be 28mm and compatible with sf miniatures games. Release the scenarios once or twice a year, depending on sales. Make small print runs. Obviously this is nowhere near the full-blown KS boardgame Carmen wanted, but it's pretty close to how hobby games were sold before KS. Metagames sold its small-scale Microgames this way in small polybags, and Cheapass Games sold its game in paper envelopes then cardboard this was as well. Cheapass eventually made its way to retail and KS, with its best-selling games. IIRC, In 1989, when West End Games sold its Star Wars Miniatures Battles games, they also did something similar to this.

Nowdays I prefer to walk into a casino and bet it all on black, one spin. It has about the same odds and return as any project on KS. If I win I go spend it at the gaming store.

 stanman wrote:
Nowdays I prefer to walk into a casino and bet it all on black, one spin. It has about the same odds and return as any project on KS. If I win I go spend it at the gaming store.

Unless you've had very, VERY bad luck on Kickstarter and possibly also with this campaign seriously coloring your views, that's just not a realistic view of the platform!

I've backed 142 (!) campaigns, and all of them have actually (eventually!) delivered or are still well on track to do so.

ced1106 wrote:

Morgan Vening wrote:
I'd hope that someone asks and hopefully gets it posted to the FAQ what the policy will be if Rogue Studios decides, or PB demands, it become further pulled into the Palladium umbrella. Everything else aside, that's the biggest concern I'd have, as it factors in everything else. The license expiring and reverting back, Carmen not feeling up to the task and handing it off, something related or unrelated happening to Carmen (he could be hit by a bus (rather than being thrown under it by Kevin)). If there's not a policy in place for that, and there's a refusal to answer it, anyone who signs up should expect to get screwed over.

Well, KS isn't the only option Carmen has. Carmen stays the game designer, but Palladium publishes the game, through their website or retail, to loyal Palladium supporters. Carmen says the game is similar to Descent, so that means multiple scenarios. Chop the game up and sell the scenarios individually in plastic bags with a RIFTS adventure. Components would be cards, foldout map, and tokens. Sell the heroes as metal miniatures, either with the game, or a separate set. All components would be 28mm and compatible with sf miniatures games. Release the scenarios once or twice a year, depending on sales. Make small print runs. Obviously this is nowhere near the full-blown KS boardgame Carmen wanted, but it's pretty close to how hobby games were sold before KS. Metagames sold its small-scale Microgames this way in small polybags, and Cheapass Games sold its game in paper envelopes then cardboard this was as well. Cheapass eventually made its way to retail and KS, with its best-selling games. IIRC, In 1989, when West End Games sold its Star Wars Miniatures Battles games, they also did something similar to this.

Yeah, but in that scenario you don't get hundreds of thousands of dollars up front - money that is deadline free, commitment free, and interest free.

Kevin and Carmen don't seem to have any money. So, that's kind of an obstacle. Plus, it's not like Carmen wants to be too closely associated with Palladium Books - that's the entire point of his fraud of a company.

 Stormonu wrote:
Another option: KS insurance. Some 3rd party company offers, for a small fee when you pledge, insurance. Up front...

Ack, I'm triggered! I backed Up Front, too.

Fortunately, RRT and Up Front are the only two real failures that I've backed out of 80-ish projects. I don't get extended warranties and I wouldn't purchase KS insurance. Just not worth it.

I feel mislead. The only reason I backed RRT was because we were told that Ninja Division was running it. I didn't trust PB back then to make any reasonable ship date based on their previous performance and I trust them even less now.

It is shocking that the consumer protection division of the MI attorney general's office hasn't gotten interested in this case. Maybe not enough MI residents have complained?

 Alpharius wrote:

 stanman wrote:
Nowdays I prefer to walk into a casino and bet it all on black, one spin. It has about the same odds and return as any project on KS. If I win I go spend it at the gaming store.

Unless you've had very, VERY bad luck on Kickstarter and possibly also with this campaign seriously coloring your views, that's just not a realistic view of the platform!

I've backed 142 (!) campaigns, and all of them have actually (eventually!) delivered or are still well on track to do so.

I've backed 19 Kickstarters:
- 16 fully-delivered
- 2 partial delivery, unknown completion (RRT & Journey)
- 3 in-process
Some were very slow (Kingdom Death), but they fully delivered and the final quality justified the wait!

 Ctaylor wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Another option: KS insurance. Some 3rd party company offers, for a small fee when you pledge, insurance. Up front...

Ack, I'm triggered! I backed Up Front, too.

Fortunately, RRT and Up Front are the only two real failures that I've backed out of 80-ish projects. I don't get extended warranties and I wouldn't purchase KS insurance. Just not worth it.

I feel mislead. The only reason I backed RRT was because we were told that Ninja Division was running it. I didn't trust PB back then to make any reasonable ship date based on their previous performance and I trust them even less now.

It is shocking that the consumer protection division of the MI attorney general's office hasn't gotten interested in this case. Maybe not enough MI residents have complained?

Honestly, I've sometimes wondered if Kevin's "lawyer" IS the MI attorney general. That, or the AG has their hands tied/full with the water issue in Flint.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:

 stanman wrote:
Nowdays I prefer to walk into a casino and bet it all on black, one spin. It has about the same odds and return as any project on KS. If I win I go spend it at the gaming store.

Unless you've had very, VERY bad luck on Kickstarter and possibly also with this campaign seriously coloring your views, that's just not a realistic view of the platform!

I've backed 142 (!) campaigns, and all of them have actually (eventually!) delivered or are still well on track to do so.

I've backed 19 Kickstarters:
- 16 fully-delivered
- 2 partial delivery, unknown completion (RRT & Journey)
- 3 in-process
Some were very slow (Kingdom Death), but they fully delivered and the final quality justified the wait!

Myself, 29 projects. Several have been 'disappointing' but technically delivered all that was promised, and a couple miss-shipped my order and it never got straightened out. RTT is the only 'serious failure to deliver' I've encountered.

Just remember when backing a KS you're getting a sales pitch. Reality seldom lives up to ANY sales pitch. Drinking Bud Lite doesn't get you smokin' hot (insert preferred gender here) either.

So when does rifts launch?

 Alpharius wrote:

 stanman wrote:
Nowdays I prefer to walk into a casino and bet it all on black, one spin. It has about the same odds and return as any project on KS. If I win I go spend it at the gaming store.

Unless you've had very, VERY bad luck on Kickstarter and possibly also with this campaign seriously coloring your views, that's just not a realistic view of the platform!

I've backed 142 (!) campaigns, and all of them have actually (eventually!) delivered or are still well on track to do so.

I have backed a total of 32 KS. Of those:

- 25 Have already delivered everything, on time or delayed, or are on track to do so. I am really happy with a significant amount of those, even if there are some disappointments in there.
- 5 I have yet to receive anything but they are from companies I trust and are going very well.
- 2 have gone by the wayside: this one and Mekton Zero (credit where credit is due, I got a partial completion out of RRT, even though nowhere near the value of what I paid for and the disappointment I've gotten out of it).

So... quite good, all in all.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:

 stanman wrote:
Nowdays I prefer to walk into a casino and bet it all on black, one spin. It has about the same odds and return as any project on KS. If I win I go spend it at the gaming store.

Unless you've had very, VERY bad luck on Kickstarter and possibly also with this campaign seriously coloring your views, that's just not a realistic view of the platform!

I've backed 142 (!) campaigns, and all of them have actually (eventually!) delivered or are still well on track to do so.

I've backed 19 Kickstarters:
- 16 fully-delivered
- 2 partial delivery, unknown completion (RRT & Journey)
- 3 in-process
Some were very slow (Kingdom Death), but they fully delivered and the final quality justified the wait!

Journeys so weird, it's like we all know it's not going to finish, but don't really complain, because we still hope it does. Strange they failed at the same degree as Palladium, but managed to not "Palladium" their backers.

ced1106 wrote:

Morgan Vening wrote:
I'd hope that someone asks and hopefully gets it posted to the FAQ what the policy will be if Rogue Studios decides, or PB demands, it become further pulled into the Palladium umbrella. Everything else aside, that's the biggest concern I'd have, as it factors in everything else. The license expiring and reverting back, Carmen not feeling up to the task and handing it off, something related or unrelated happening to Carmen (he could be hit by a bus (rather than being thrown under it by Kevin)). If there's not a policy in place for that, and there's a refusal to answer it, anyone who signs up should expect to get screwed over.

Well, KS isn't the only option Carmen has. Carmen stays the game designer, but Palladium publishes the game, through their website or retail, to loyal Palladium supporters. Carmen says the game is similar to Descent, so that means multiple scenarios. Chop the game up and sell the scenarios individually in plastic bags with a RIFTS adventure. Components would be cards, foldout map, and tokens. Sell the heroes as metal miniatures, either with the game, or a separate set. All components would be 28mm and compatible with sf miniatures games. Release the scenarios once or twice a year, depending on sales. Make small print runs. Obviously this is nowhere near the full-blown KS boardgame Carmen wanted, but it's pretty close to how hobby games were sold before KS. Metagames sold its small-scale Microgames this way in small polybags, and Cheapass Games sold its game in paper envelopes then cardboard this was as well. Cheapass eventually made its way to retail and KS, with its best-selling games. IIRC, In 1989, when West End Games sold its Star Wars Miniatures Battles games, they also did something similar to this.

problem is there is a very big cost difference between the start up costs of a board game and game books. and there in lies the rub. right now I don't think PB can even afford to print off books.

There is anecdotal evidence to indicate that is true.

 Alpharius wrote:
I've backed 142 (!) campaigns, and all of them have actually (eventually!) delivered or are still well on track to do so.

Egads! You are hard-core.
I had no idea.

Well, any of us who had any contact with Palladium had a suspicion they do not fit in any category remotely like "normal".
It is easy to obsess with the idea that "these methods worked when dealing with all other companies", it is a whole different matter when faced with a supplier that really does not care: self interest with extreme short sighted behavior is the rule.

I have slowly got into some other Kickstarters and have found them working out.
Problem is the RRT project has made me a bit paranoid which makes me appear more "high maintenance" for creators.
I just do not regularly drop a couple hundred dollars on my hobbies in one shot in retail.

My sugar-mama wife may have something nasty to say if I get too costly.

 stanman wrote:
Nowdays I prefer to walk into a casino and bet it all on black, one spin. It has about the same odds and return as any project on KS. If I win I go spend it at the gaming store.

Sheesh, I thought the joke would be obvious, but I apparently needed one of these at the end

Some of you guys back a horrific amount of KS projects, I've only backed 4 one of which was RRT :(

Kick starter stance is something like PayPal, they try to only assist with the transaction and nothing else. But they need to resolve issues like this because most people have lost trust and now back fewer projects. They could even improve the bottom line by fining companies that are clearly dodging the issues. If palladium knew they had to complete in a certain time or get fined over and over, I think they would either refund or finish.