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.

Yup I thought better of it, not that I didn't mean what I said, but what's the point really, you will interpret what you want out of anything I say and nothing more. And it would drag the thread off topic. As it did lol.

We can go back and look at the threads, they are all there. We can look at the posting frequency and content of posts from 3-4 people and we can total up the numbers, objectively, about what the ratio was and what percentage a tiny amount contributed to the totals, as well as note the consistency of posting. We don't have to be subjective about it.

Believe it or not, I agree with you that any one person, including Mods, repeatedly rebutting in favor of something is just as bad as any one person repeatedly rebutting not in favor. Everyone should just say their piece and move on, and leave room for other opinions. Let other people have their say, BOTH ways, including negative.

I will not deny that there was a minority that was overzealous in what would be perceived to be white knighting, even if I think they thought they were simply being 'fair' and not overly supportive.

In fairness to that too, I have no focused on that aspect of the interaction and it is not fair to ignore that as a contributing factor. If negative posting repeated by a single user too much should be considered spam, then so too a single user repeating positive points should be considered spam as well. In my opinion.

We are all fortunate neither of us are Mods maybe ?

Seriously though. Putting aside the fact I don't like the way you put things, and you don't like the way that I do... Can you not agree that if a thread is to be healthy, it can't be dominated by 3-4 posters who prevent the conversation from evolving in any way shape or form, and prevent 1:1 responses between other users from happening? Forget whether it is love or hate, people should be able to express their likes and taste politely without being hounded for being 'wrong' right?

PS perhaps we should take it to PM, or start another thread - a protracted debate on this, even though it started in relation to the kickstarter and the internal politics of handling both Dakka and a product based business at the same time, and is theoretically relevant, in practice would be focusing too much on this probably. If you want to keep discussing, by all means, PM, or send me a link to a new thread.

 BrookM wrote:
Could you guys take that to another thread please?

Yup. Sorry about that, BrookM.

I'm done with that. My B.

Personally I didn't back because of the miniatures (Specially the contractors, the angel reveal didn't help much either). I 'll probably get the rules at some points if anyone in my area is interested as I have confidence in SAS producing fun rules. I do really like the way SAS ran the kickstarter. HIPS, few add-ons, don't include shipping. It felt like a really trustworthy and solid plan. There is no doubt in my mind I would've backed for a decent amount had I liked the aesthetics.

I fell into the category of casual dislike for the ME minis. It stinks to think that the minis pushed me away from the project when they aren't even bad, but yea, the minis pushed me away from the project. I never thought of them as poor quality (except maybe the legs on the licorice angel) however, the designs were very bland and uninspired in my eye. Gaming (tabletop and video alike) is flooded with generic sci-fi soldier guys and all we were presented with here is two factions of sci-fi soldier guys. I understand that it is increasingly difficult to find a distinct look and faction identity in a grounded science fiction setting but everything from medge came off as dull.
Also, a wargame with only two factions sets off a ton of warning sirens in my head. I know the kickstarter was for a starter box to get things off the ground but a game needs at least three factions to survive -even more to thrive. If I am going to take part in a kickstarter campaign I want a finished product coming to me, not just the appetizer.
I have a great respect for the background and supporting material involved in ME and all the expense the crew have taken to give the game life. Still, this is generally not something I like seeing money go into on the front-end. I know it costs money but psychologically it is much more appealing to have such content subsidized my other goals. I think maybe the presentation of this sort of ancillary product could have been a bit better. I'm glad they made room for it though, it will help the passionate fans have more to sink their teeth into.

 MajorTom11 wrote:


Seriously though. Putting aside the fact I don't like the way you put things, and you don't like the way that I do... Can you not agree that if a thread is to be healthy, it can't be dominated by 3-4 posters who prevent the conversation from evolving in any way shape or form, and prevent 1:1 responses between other users from happening? Forget whether it is love or hate, people should be able to express their likes and taste politely without being hounded for being 'wrong' right?

Absolutely, you're 100% correct.

The problem, in my eyes, is that wasn't the direction those KS threads for ME evolved, and I believe it adversely affected the viewpoint of many when it came to the KS itself. I don't think the KS threads here were a good environment for honest and open critique, and I fear that a great deal of sycophancy was actually at play when it came to the faults of some of the designs that were committed to (very expensive) plastic. I mean, some of those problems should have never occurred (I'm looking at your broken Karist wrists).

When you get an 'echo chamber' of sycophantic white knighting, you don't get honest feedback, and that hurts the project as a whole. It's my opinion, based purely on speculative observation, that ME suffered from this, seemingly, at multiple phases along the timeline.

But then again, I'm a guy that was put off by it being called "Dakka's Game," so what do I know. I did at least back "Dakka's Gaming Accessory," though.

Finally, I'd be an atrocious mod. Terrible. Just awful.

It would seem then, that a very few people on the 'other side' spoiled the experience for both of us?

If we agree then, that repeated sycophancy, and repeated... I don't know a way to put it that doesn't make it sound like a crime instead of just annoying lol... 'gleeful critique with no qualifiers attached'? will put off the majority of middle of the road people, and make both sides feel unwelcome or unlistened to in a discussion...

Well that's why I brought it up as something so damned tricky for SAS. How do they intervene there? How do they not? Is it censorship to limit repetition? Is it moderation to participate?

It's in my mind really tricky, and I think that many had a negative experience in the discussions, both for and against, so quickly and pervasively, is something that needs to be rectified. Which is why I brought up the spamming aspect in regards to repeated critique from an individual poster. What I should have done, as you rightly pointed out, was to say it should also very much apply to rebuttal of critique by an individual poster too.

Again, just my opinion, but I don't think people should be allowed to squat on threads for weeks on end, it's never healthy or 'good' for anybody, including that individual, in my experience.

I hope that was brought back enough to the specifics of the Medge KS to be considered on topic again!

"I believe the visual and stylistic evolution is quite clear here. The first sculpt, probably produced around 2000-2001, is very reminiscent of the ‘heroic scale’ aesthetic: blocky and distorted, with a premium paid to game silhouette over sculptural quality. By contrast, the most recent sculpt was only just released this weekend and is an exercise in flowing lines, details and more elegant proportions*. I believe this not only represents increased proficiency with the tools of sculpting, but a growing comfort on the part of the game maker in the consumer’s sophistication: the maker trusts the consumer enough to indulge sculptural elements."

Buzzsaw, you're letting personal preference cloud your objectivity. I wasn't a great fan of the ME models, but the models you use as an example are pretty meh as well, IMO.

People are talking about background, comparing ME's to 40k, but what's so special about the 40k background?

IMO, not a lot. You've got pointy teeth and ginger beards, have your own space wolves codex. You're a woman with power armour, have a codex. We have a game system completely dominated by humanity, and alien races get paid lip service.

I'm a German in WW2, I've got night vision, but my Space Marine friend, 40,000 years into the future, armed with humanity's best tech, hasn't got night vision. Right...

The 40k universe falls flat when subjected to critical analysis, and the idea that it's inherently 'superior' to the background of another game, is laughable, IMO.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The 40k universe falls flat when subjected to critical analysis, and the idea that it's inherently 'superior' to the background of another game, is laughable, IMO.

If you're investing a lot of "critical analysis" time in a universe where 9 foot tall genetically enhanced super humans are waging war with demon forces that look like a giant, hulking Satan, you're doing it wrong...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Buzzsaw, you're letting personal preference cloud your objectivity. I wasn't a great fan of the ME models, but the models you use as an example are pretty meh as well, IMO.

I think you've completely missed his point there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

People are talking about background, comparing ME's to 40k, but what's so special about the 40k background?

20 years of development time?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The 40k universe falls flat when subjected to critical analysis, and the idea that it's inherently 'superior' to the background of another game, is laughable, IMO.

If you're investing a lot of "critical analysis" time in a universe where 9 foot tall genetically enhanced super humans are waging war with demon forces that look like a giant, hulking Satan, you're doing it wrong...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Buzzsaw, you're letting personal preference cloud your objectivity. I wasn't a great fan of the ME models, but the models you use as an example are pretty meh as well, IMO.

I think you've completely missed his point there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

People are talking about background, comparing ME's to 40k, but what's so special about the 40k background?

20 years of development time?

I haven't missed his point. His point was that he didn't like the ME models, and that they should have been more like models from a rival company. I think he was pretty clear on that.

As for your 20 years of development time, if you'd been following the chapterhouse case, then you'd know that GW's idea of 'development' is adopting popular fantasy and sci-fi tropes from popular culture. I, you, could do that in 20 days, never mind 20 years! On this, GW's 'extended' background is no better than ME's IMO.

"If you're investing a lot of "critical analysis" time in a universe where 9 foot tall genetically enhanced super humans are waging war with demon forces that look like a giant, hulking Satan, you're doing it wrong..."

How should it be done? It's no different to what happens in the art world, or film, or tv, or literature.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
[

I haven't missed his point. His point was that he didn't like the ME models, and that they should have been more like models from a rival company. I think he was pretty clear on that.

Thank you for clarifying that you did, in fact, miss his point.

His point when in reference to the Privateer Models was that they've undergone an evolution away from the 28mm "heroic" scale. He was pretty clear about that, and used the pictures to substantiate it with a company that was notorious for absurd proportions.

As for your 20 years of development time, if you'd been following the chapterhouse case, then you'd know that GW's idea of 'development' is adopting popular fantasy and sci-fi tropes from popular culture. I, you, could do that in 20 days, never mind 20 years! On this, GW's 'extended' background is no better than ME's IMO.

Oi vey. Not even sure how to respond to this. Are you at the pub?

How should it be done? It's no different to what happens in the art world, or film, or tv, or literature.

The same way we should consider a Michael Bay movie when compared to an Ang Lee movie.... FFS.

So what if the privateer models have undergone an evolution since the 1600s or whenever

Do you like these models? Yes or no. That's all that matters at the end of the day.

As interesting as his evolution idea was, I thought the PP models were bland, myself. That's my opinion. You, on the other hand, may think they're the best thing since sliced bread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The same way we should consider a Michael Bay movie when compared to an Ang Lee movie.... FFS

Popular isn't always bad, and critically acclaimed isn't always good.

Again, it's all a matter of personal preference.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
So what if the privateer models have undergone an evolution since the 1600s or whenever

Do you like these models? Yes or no. That's all that matters at the end of the day.

As interesting as his evolution idea was, I thought the PP models were bland, myself. That's my opinion. You, on the other hand, may think they're the best thing since sliced bread.

I haven't offered a single judgment on the models.

In that example neither did Buzzsaw. He produced an example of a company that made heavy use of heroic scale evolving their sculpts over time to be more closely aligned with a realistic 28mm scale.

What part of that are you missing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Popular isn't always bad, and critically acclaimed isn't always good.

Again, it's all a matter of personal preference.

EDITED: Removed unnecessary snark.

Folks, please keep it civil considering Rule Number One is Be Polite.

Thanks Buzzsaw and Legoburner. Sometimes it is fun to get into the business side of the hobby and look at how it really works. I appreciate the glimpse behind the curtain. You both had interesting points.

For what it is worth, I didn't get into MEdge because it just didn't grab me. I perceived that it was just a company sitting down and trying to make a "better 40K". This applied to game play, model design, and setting. I have just moved past that now and am looking for something different than that.

However, I look forward to see where they evolve as a company.

 Easy E wrote:
Thanks Buzzsaw and Legoburner. Sometimes it is fun to get into the business side of the hobby and look at how it really works. I appreciate the glimpse behind the curtain. You both had interesting points.

I agree, it was fantastic reading and cool to see both an analysis of the campaign and some of the factors involved in the various elements (with things like no add-ons being such a big factor in the average pledge per backer). This is what I love about Dakka. Cheers guys!

 RiTides wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Thanks Buzzsaw and Legoburner. Sometimes it is fun to get into the business side of the hobby and look at how it really works. I appreciate the glimpse behind the curtain. You both had interesting points.

I agree, it was fantastic reading and cool to see both an analysis of the campaign and some of the factors involved in the various elements (with things like no add-ons being such a big factor in the average pledge per backer). This is what I love about Dakka. Cheers guys!

Did he do one of your campaign?

Buzzsaw, your postmortem has provided a lot of food for thought. Still trying to digest some of it.

In my opinion, though, the Angel does convey something interesting: a sense of focus and confidence. If I may indulged for a moment, the angel appears to be stalking across the battlefield completely unconcerned about anything his enemies might throw at him, sort of like how Bruce Lee would just stroll up to some brute and wreck his torso, only in this case Bruce Lee is a space mantis made of liquorice. But I admit I am in the minority here.

 legoburner wrote:
We were extremely tolerant of critique and negative discussion on Dakka which, being the core of our marketing focus, really did end up having a negative impact. We had split populations to allow neutral testing of this, and those who were exposed to critical comments on the models from the dakka community, compared to those who came in and saw the kickstarter page and models fresh from our marketing literature without seeing the opinion of others first led to a difference of 1 vs 1.7 backers. A pretty major price to pay to ensure Dakka is kept independent even when it would have made significant financial sense for us to be merciless with moderating.

First off, I'm sorry to have been part of anything that hurt the campaign. If you had posted these results during the campaign, I would have backed off. I'd be interested in seeing how the study was done. I also suspect (but can't prove since I don't have a team of people or any financial incentive) that the people who backed despite the criticism are more likely to stick with the problem long term and remain satisfied customers should they encounter any prevailing negative opinion down the road.

Also it seems to me like most backers and nonbackers made up their minds on the first day or two, long before the criticism became regular and entrenched.

Merciless moderation might have made financial sense for a very short term compared to the harm it would do to Dakka (and ME by extension) in the long term. Save one product; kill the brand.

One other fun bit of data for you - the 48 hour remind me button ended up bringing in a mere 26 people, echoing the relatively poor perception we created at the start. The rest of the ks-end boost was the fact that our marketing was heavily timed to be around the end of the project so that time pressure played a factor in people's decisions and they didnt just look and then leave thinking they'd check it out later as mid-point marketing would have done.

I question the accuracy of the information presented to you by Kickstarter. 26 people may have come to your campaign by clicking the link directly, but how many people saw the 48 hour notice, then went to Kickstarter and searched for your project? Or clicked to Dakka to catch up and then clicked to your project?

You use a lot of numbers in your projections and percentages, but how are you getting those numbers? Where does your data come from?

 cincydooley wrote:

Doubly so with fiction, etc attached.

So why do so much of it immediately? Wouldn't these things have been better served to save until later, when there was more establishment of the game and the setting? Hell, it took Privateer nearly 8 years to start releasing "actual" fiction so they could focus on their game...

I personally found that the fiction, the whole approach to creating a full setting in fact, really made Medge stand apart from other games. It spoke to their intentions to create a much more well-rounded experience for certain kinds of gamers. Look at how much the Black Library fiction has done for GW, and now BL is dying off. D&D fiction has been tremendously important in shaping the game, as well as an entire set of similar games. In the other direction, Mantic has been very neglectful of their fluff, and still have to release lists so players can use KoW rules to play games in other companies' settings with other companies' minis. There is nothing at all to make someone want to build a purely Mantic army outside of model aesthetics, which are often considered insufficient.

Where is the estimate that you're able to get "63% of the market" at retail coming from? Your market as it stands is 800 backers. Your hope, now, is that someone in Cincinnati or Cheybogan was one of the 800 people to pick up a pledge on KS and can convince their LGS to carry the game. I'm curious what makes you so confident that will happen?

I would also like to see how the sausage is made here. What happens if their financial Psychohistory encounters some kind of retail Mule?

 MajorTom11 wrote:
I too think they would have greatly benefitted from having the characters just to generate buzz for the core content and attract the add-on junkies. I also think showing concepts of longer term things to unlock, even if it was stated, this would be in late 2016 to late 2017 or something, would have been good to.

This I agree with completely. Even if they just had some sketches or told us a bit more about the other factions in the game, they could have created a lot more interest. More character, more factions, more diversity, more hooks to catch passers-by.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Honestly, despite the troubles, ME is in a very good position to rebound. All they have to do is just deliver on this kicksarter in a reasonable amount of time. That should be easy enough since the molds seem ready.

No. The hard part still isn't over. They need to hit the retail release with a lot more preparation than they hit the KS campaign. They expect the retail release to reach magnitudes more people, so they have to make first impressions all over again. They can really nail it if they bring their A game, but they will crash and burn if they rest on their KS laurels.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

People are talking about background, comparing ME's to 40k, but what's so special about the 40k background?

It's pretty obvious that you are not a fan of 40k's background, and your impression of it seems to come directly from the codices, which are the shallowest end of the fluff, so I won't try to discuss the content. I will just say that 40k's background has been able to support multiple New York Times bestselling novels and an expanding line of "fluff done right" RPG supplements through FFG, so there is clearly something there that is special. If Medge is able to leverage their NYT bestselling and award winning authors for even a hundredth part of that advantage, they'll be way ahead of the pack.

As for your 20 years of development time, if you'd been following the chapterhouse case, then you'd know that GW's idea of 'development' is adopting popular fantasy and sci-fi tropes from popular culture. I, you, could do that in 20 days, never mind 20 years! On this, GW's 'extended' background is no better than ME's IMO.

First of all, there is nothing new under the sun. You will be very hard pressed to find any new Science Fiction or Fantasy book that doesn't include a collection of old tropes and ideas. It's what an author does with existing ideas that makes a novel great.

Second, if you think you could create a universe as full and iconic as GW's in 20 months, let alone 20 days, you should do it right now! Might I suggest the pen-name "Dunning Kruger"?

It may have been mentioned and if I missed it among the walls of text, I'm sorry.

I think another point against the project was the strong association with DakkaDakka. I saw a few posts on other forums where people immediately dismissed the game due to their dislike of this forum. I suspect we would see the same posts here if, say, BOLS or Warseer started a new game.

I would tend to agree with that, Dakka itself is a polarizing topic in the general hobby a lot of the time...

 MajorTom11 wrote:
I would tend to agree with that, Dakka itself is a polarizing topic in the general hobby a lot of the time...

You take that back.

It's hard being the biggest, active and bestest wargaming forum on the interwebs. Of course people are going to be jealous.

I think the lack of finished rules was and is a problem. It's one thing to bring models to market, but rules are marketing material and you're really putting the cart before the horse if you're hoping to sell rules using models.

BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 MajorTom11 wrote:
I would tend to agree with that, Dakka itself is a polarizing topic in the general hobby a lot of the time...

You take that back.

BrookM wrote:It's hard being the biggest, active and bestest wargaming forum on the interwebs. Of course people are going to be jealous.

When I was a moderator and still active within the community as a painter, I met a lot of people, some of them 'hobby celebs' and they knew me as a painter first. Then when I told them I was a moderator here, I would often get an 'ugh, Dakka' response. The funny part was, it was completely split, when asked the reason why for that reaction, between 'too moderated' and 'not moderated enough/full of d-bags saying whatever they want'! lol... Ironically, of the people who had stronger reactions, most of them had never actually been a member. Reputation, true or false, tends to precede us it seems.

Whereas with BOLS or B&C, not so much. Warseer had a rep for being over-moderated from what I heard too though.

In any case, the 'ugh, Dakka' part was the relevant part, there is definitely a slice of the potential audience that would not feel positive towards Medge due to the association. Or simply use it as a convenient excuse to take a few shots.

That being said, the size of Dakka and the ability to get eyes when needed should trump 'forum factionalism' on sheer scale though. Theoretically.

I am in it mainly for the rules, so I think you are right up to a point.

However the upside of issuing only beta quick play rules at this stage is that extensive player testing can be done before the rulebook is finalised for the final production run.

Lots of people wanted to have input into how the campaign develops. The beta rules offer that opportunity.

Interesting analysis and something I find myself agreeing with. Always fascinating to read these threads Buzzsaw - shame you've not done much KS postmortens lately. On the background and miniatures themselves, I think enough has been said, but for me, they were a non-starter even after I'd seem them at Salute. On the Medge kickstarter itself, here's part of a post I made in the miniature discussion thread which echos some of the points made by Buzzsaw:

So what I did was go looking outside of dakkadakka to have a discussion or at least read up on what other people are saying, look at their opinions. And there really wasn't anything. There was a handful of so-so responses on [TMP] and Beasts of War and a generally short but negative thread on Warseer, but nothing else anywhere. Nothing on CMON, PlanetFigure, WAMP, BoLS or other places I went to. No talk, no knowledge, no visibility.

And this leads to the big problem with the Kicsktarter in my view- there was no build up, no big attempt at hyping or getting people excited, just BANG, Kickstarter. A GW Style out of nowhere release. In fact, it was worse than GW. At least with GW we may get a couple of weeks notice through some rumours or shaky White Dwarf photos bouncing around that we can use as indicators to put aside cash. I also feel a massive opportunity was missed in asking the general Dakka unwashed on their opinions - concept art, ideas, background. I don't mean design by committee, but market research in the traditional sense. SAS are in an enviable position of having a vast audience of their core market on tap as well as being able to command the respect to be listened to and get responses from the said unwashed. But, I didn't see anything in the way of that done. A missed opportunity. As involvement could have potentially created a sense of shared inclusion. Something that would have benefited the campaign enormously and even built a large core of evangelists to take the word out there.

There really was hardly anything done at all, outside of Dakka. To be honest, in hindsight, the dakka < - > Medge link should have been kept hidden and gradually hinted at and revealed over time. It seemed to cause more problems both on the forums (the general userbase caution, perception, over-moderation accusations and echo-chamber effect) and outside (dislike of Dakka, ex-users talking it down and the echo-chamber effect, again).

On the moderation topic itself, again, this is based on my own perception rather than any truth:

In other threads, sometimes a joke crops up or some Off Topic debate happens, nothing nasty and if it goes on a little too long, the Mods usually chime in with a "Very funny lads, now back to topic". With MEdge, the Mod responses felt subtly different. Sort of along the lines of "Stop it now" and "No No, not to be discussed here". And that was that...

To be honest, the mod team had a thankless task on their hands - how do you tread the line between too little and too much? Too little and it becomes a literal flamewar and scares people off from a brutal thread. Too much and you loose a lot credibility and risk turning Dakka into Palladium/GW Forums/pick other ghost town forum. And that kind of leads back to was announcing the association up front a good idea?

Finally, on criticism itself, the game and models will need to survive on the open market. What happens when the above mentioned forums and blogs get a hold of it? Penny Arcade? Frothers? Random blog? People are going to be posting their own thoughts, and some will be brutal. So, by letting more critical and harsher elements on Dakka do a review, it can be a good test to see how it fairs for when conversations happen outside of your control...

I think the association was unavoidable given that the two owners of DakkaDakka are also two of the important members in the Spiral Arm Studios.

It would have been unethical not to make this clear at the beginning, and would surely have caused even worse trouble if/when it eventually came to light.

 Polonius wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Excellent review from buzzsaw and rebutal from legoburner. I think both posted many fair points to mull over.

I just have one addition. I think the models are fine and will enjoy painting them.

I don't get anybody have any strong opinions on the models, to be honest. I think they're fine, but nothing I've seen has grabbed me, either in terms of concept, execution, character, or overall look. They're just sort of generic sci-fi troopers that were nicely executed. I think that Buzzsaw's point, while perhaps amplified by his own tastes, is a good one. The models are perfectly fine, but unlike a lot of other kickstarters, there doesn't seem to be visceral reaction to wanting them.

I agree, and I think that a lot of the criticism of Buzzsaw's post mortem on this point is frankly misplaced.

Not only has there been plenty of anecdotal data here on Dakka to support the idea that the models themselves aren't terribly attractive to plenty of potential customers, but I think Buzzsaw's analysis of the aesthetic direction of the table top miniatures market is both spot on and objective.

The MEdge models don't line up with where a quickly growing segment of the market is headed. They line up with a decade old aesthetic that, as Buzzsaw mentioned, makes the models seem dated rather than new and innovative. At a casual glance the models don't seem to shatter any boundaries or preconceptions the way that the plastics of Wyrd and Dreamforge do. They are cheap, dependable, serviceable models that don't really line up with the progressive, groundbreaking, never been done tone of SAS's advertising. There's an inherent disconnect.

MEdge promises a dependable game with dependable models with a dependable fictional universe. Dependable doesn't make me excited now.

And the fact that people still buy Cadian Shick Troops in droves is honestly not, in my view, a good justification for the aesthetic choices of MEdge, unless SAS wants to litterally siphon off GW's extant customer base. How many GW customers are steeped in the GW 'ecosystem' for lack of a better word? How many new customers is GW acquiring?

Is GW on the forefront of growth in the table top miniatures market? I think it is more than fair to answer that question with an emphatic "no." Even GW's extant and former customers are following market growth if the success of folks like Victoria Lamb, Scibor, Max Mini, Puppets War, Anvil Industries, Avatars of War, and even Forge World, is any indication.

So where does that leave MEdge? Is SAS looking to smoothly transition disaffected GW customers into its own ecosystem by offering a familiar product with a familiar level of support? That seems to be the case. Handfuls of D6s, HIPS, kitbashing, fictional support, spinoff products, and aggressive Heroic scale are all hallmarks of GW. If you look at GW's relative market share, I suppose it makes sense to try to capture that segement of the market, but the big question, I think, is who exactly are those customers?

I, for one, will never again assemble a model that is anything close to a Cadian, my thousands upon thousands of points of boxed up IG notwithstanding. I look at those models now and I wonder what the Hell I was thinking years ago. How did I think that looked cool? I look at MEdge and it looks like exactly what I do not want in a table top miniatures product. Am I the sum total of the table top miniatures market? No, certainly not. But I look around the internet and the FLGS and I see a lot of familiar faces.

First, let me thank folks for their kind words and considered feedback, and especially legoburner, for taking the time to bring out so much in the way of interesting information, even if I tend to quibble with some of his rebuttal.

While I am digesting some of the feedback, there are a few points that I want to try and clear up, either because I phrased things arcanely, because my points are being misconstrued, or I was simply not clear on a technical matter;

 legoburner wrote:
It is always entertaining to read your kickstarter postmortems and I always appreciate the thought and angles from which you approach your kickstarter analytics, but it is much more enlightening seeing them from the other side of the fence where we have access to all the analytics, business plans and metrics which drove the campaign I hope you wont take it personally if I say that your dislike of the models and project shows through in your write up in the form of 'I think this way, so it is logical that many do', which certainly could have been made more neutral if you are presenting it as an exploration and robs your work of some of its value in my opinion. Still, it is a reasonable assumption if that is how you frame your perception of the product as a whole which I would likely do if our positions were reversed, though we do have actual data on it which makes the conjecture largely irrelevant.

 MajorTom11 wrote:
Buzzsaw, I think you are pretty spot on for most of it, but I think you had some big misses in your assessment too on a few points. As has been mentioned, I think your personal viewpoint is really coloring the review in specific parts, i.e, very subjective when you are trying to ascribe reasons to data. You don't like the models, therefore the main issue must be hatred of the models. It may well be mind you, but your charts do nothing to support this, you are just filling a gap with a reason for an event when you can only see a result that could have had a million reasons combined and not one main one.

First, let me clarify that I attempted to have each step of my post mortem stand on its own. My graphs are not intended to support my contention that aesthetics specifically were the problem, the point of the graphs is only an attempt to determine if there was a problem, an effect. Having determined from the analysis of the available data (quite true that I do not have access to the analytics that Lego refers to) that there was an effect, I then attempted to answer the question "if there is an effect, what is causing it?"

Further, while I would not attempt to claim I am a big fan of the project, I have done my best to remain neutral and impartial in my analysis. This is why I did not simply assert that the models of ME are 'bad/lacking/ugly', but rather, I attempted to demonstrate that there has been a marketplace shift away from a particular style/aesthetic. I would argue that this marketplace shift is an empiric observation, one of the reasons I showed multiple product lines in demonstration of this shift. I recognize that my evidence may not be completely convincing to some*, but in the interest of read-ability I didn't want to over-egg the pudding, so to speak.

If we grant that there has been a marketplace shift away from the heroic scale (which I contend there has been), I then attempted to demonstrate that the ME miniatures (the Epirian contractors especially) are of the style that the market has shifted away from.

It is entirely fair to say that all of the above may be true, but unconvincing. To that end, I can only say that in a matter of aesthetics complete dispassion may be impossible. There is only so much data available, and it is only so usefeull, in aesthetic matters. One bit of anecdotal evidence I would muster in favor of my evaluation of the miniatures is the pattern of argument about them on the forums, and appears in a form in MajorTom's post:

 MajorTom11 wrote:
That being said, heroic scale was a bit of a surprising issue to me, given most people were or are heavily invested in GW, and still buy 15-20 year old sculpts like space marines and cadians in droves… I would think if a Cadian or Spacemarine can be tolerated, when their proportions are (to me) even more distorted than the contractor… but hey what do I know lol… still, the fact you can use a lot of Medge bits for 40k, in theory, one would have thought it would have been a good draw. I agree on the chaps and arms, though of the two only the arms really bug me. But the torsos look pretty darn good to me, as do the heads if you want a ball cap security look.

What comments I have seen on other forums about ME's figures are along these lines: a general feeling that they are of a piece with GW's aesthetic. When people criticize the ME models, the general rejoinder tends not to be "you're seeing things that aren't there/you're just crazy/you have no taste" type that I tend to see when otherwise loved Infinity sculpts (for example) are criticized. Instead the rejoinder has been as MajorTom puts it above: 'they are about the same as what GW has been selling, so why complain?'

-------------

 legoburner wrote:
Certainly I dont dispute we could have done a better job with the kickstarter, and there are three notable mistakes which we made:

1. As you've touched upon, the perceived value at the start was too low (hence the big refresh a week in), though for the mid and end of the project, any reasonable person would not disagree that 39 multipart plastic models for $90 is a very fair deal indeed, let alone all the extra goods like the VIP discount for 2 years, free content, card game, digital copy of the rulebook, etc. That does not stack well in a kickstarter environment filled with PVC models that cost a cent or two each to produce though.

I think that this is a good place to point out the interplay between aesthetic preferences and abstraction: that is, when you say "any reasonable person would not disagree that 39 multipart plastic models for $90 is a very fair deal indeed", I think that you may be making an evaluation that may be accurate, without being reasonable.

What may constitute a "multipart plastic model" may be one thing as a technical matter, but quite another in the mind of the buyer. To be clear, the model count is, according to the main kickstarter page;


The count of "39 multipart plastic models" includes 21 humanoid models, 4 Angel Minnows, 8 small drones, 4 larger robots and 2 large Angel models. Is it really fair to count Angel Minnows and Drones in the same way as humanoid troops? On the other hand, is it fair to count the Mature Angels and Hunter robots the same as human troops? My point here is that there is no hard and fast answer, as each backer makes his own decision and evaluation.

It's also worth pointing out that the market today is not what it was even 5 years ago: if we are to justify purchases based on what X dollar amount will get you in plastic, we must ask: how much plastic does X actually get you on the market these days? The answer is, thanks in no small part to kickstarter, a very great deal.

For example, if I wanted to spend $90 with the sole purpose of getting multipart sci-fi models (in the tabletop arena, excluding things like Japanese model kits) consider how much $90 buys you of DFG kits from the Warstore (again, for example);
$33.99 Eisenkern Stormtroopers (20 Stormtroopers)
$20.99 Eisenkern Panzerjager (10 female Stormtroopers)
$16.99 Eisenkern Stormtrooper Accessory Set (accessories compatible with male and female Stormtroopers, also includes 3 'Mule' robots)
$17.99 Eisenkern Valkir Support Troopers (5 heavy support troopers in power armor)
Total: $89.96 For that you get 30 Stormtroopers, with a huge amount of customization (seriously, the accessory kit is mind boggling), 5 heavy weapon troopers and 3 robots, a total of 38 models. That's available right now.

Again, please do not misunderstand: I am not saying "your game is bad and you should feel bad", I'm saying that the marketplace is evolving. The argument of "I could just by DFG figures which roxxor" is not defeated by "this is a better deal", but by "this is a totally different product that has it's own aesthetic and utility, it stands on its own" (though DFG does roxxor).

Similarly, it's entirely appropriate to say one simply doesn't like DFG, or Wrath of Kings or Relic Knights or Zombicide or whatever. But that's a different argument: what is indisputable is that GW is no longer the only supplier of ~28mm sci-fi figures, and any campaign that comes to market must be cognizant of the fact that the consumer can purchase, right now, 28mm sci-fi figures of high quality for around $2 or so.


*By the by, in the argument about evolving aesthetics between Do_I_Not_Like-That and Cincydooley, Cinc has the right of it: I am most emphatically not saying ME should look like Warmachine. I am merely using Warmachine figures to illustrate a trend.

 cincydooley wrote:

 MajorTom11 wrote:
That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Glad I quoted your personal attack for posterity's sake.

If you think that's a personal attack, operating in the real world must be very scary for you. Here's an example of a real personal attack:

 cincydooley wrote:
I guess we're all fortunate you're no longer a mod.

 Ozymandias wrote:


If you think that's a personal attack, operating in the real world must be very scary for you.

'

So very. Hold me.