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.

The only reason I can see an established company going for Kickstarter over just posting a pre-order on their own store is that they want to abuse a loophole in KS or at least they want the possibility of abusing it if they need to down the line. Either way, it's not behavior that should be encouraged.

Nothing to do with KS having much longer reach than the website of a company many KS supporters have never heard of, let alone visited, then?

If it was a KS for a new Warmahordes faction, I could feel a bit of ire welling up at moving an established core business to KS. When it's little side-projects, then it makes perfect business sense depending on how it's run.

If they say "here's a game we thought about making, but we're not sure there's demand for it" and put up the actual production costs (maybe less what they're willing to invest as a company), then that's kind of exactly the point of the KS platform; to get things made that otherwise wouldn't be. As a business, wholly-new products are a huge risk, and one wrong gamble can set in motion the events to sink your company lock, stock and barrel (see also: THQ and the uDraw). This will no doubt be shocking information, but sometimes people are wrong and they think an idea is great and then it flops miserably. The reverse however is also true that someone has an *awesome* idea that they talk themselves out of and leave it behind to the detriment of all, even though we don't know it because it wasn't ever a thing. Using KS to gauge interest in an idea in this way is a perfectly sound business choice, and doesn't seem at-odds with the intent of the site.

However, if they're an established and reportedly successful business and they insist on playing the "normal" KS games of a transparently too-low funding goal and then adding things that were rather clearly always planned for the "final" product as stretch goals (e.g. - "we'll upgrade the paper tokens to cardboard!"), then yeah, I find it less acceptable. At that point it would appear to be solely trying to transfer all the risk to the backers while saving on the interest of traditional financing.

So, a rhetorical question here: what if Games Workshop had started a KS for its new Specialist Games Studios and wanted to produce a board game? Would that have been okay, too?

 insaniak wrote:

 the_Armyman wrote:
Let's be honest: KS is a preorder mechanic that allows large game companies to avoid the normal distribution channels, make a ton of money on a product upfront, and not risk a single dime of their own money.

If the end result is companies offering games that they otherwise might not choose to take the risk on, I don't have a problem with that.

Let's be honest - neither the banks nor the distributors work as a means of funding for new games, anymore.

The reason that KS has been so successful is that traditional means of lending have become less effective - and distributors have been proving less willing to take risks on new lines, even from established companies.

I approve of Privateer Press going the Kickstarter route.

The Auld Grump


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_Armyman wrote:
So, a rhetorical question here: what if Games Workshop had started a KS for its new Specialist Games Studios and wanted to produce a board game? Would that have been okay, too?

Yes.

In fact, I rather hope that they go this route - gauging reaction could be the first step in actual market research.

And I don't even buy GW material anymore!

The Auld Grump

 Azreal13 wrote:
Nothing to do with KS having much longer reach than the website of a company many KS supporters have never heard of, let alone visited, then?

That really depends on how many backers various projects get from people browsing KS at random vs. people hearing about a product from friends or a news outlet and going there. If it turns out people just browse KS everyday looking for new things to buy then you have a point, but my impression is that it is not the case.

My KS was clearly successful in large part due to KS internal traffic, and I'd certainly not say it's a frequent thing, but I back interesting looking KS projects I find by browsing.

 the_Armyman wrote:
So, a rhetorical question here: what if Games Workshop had started a KS for its new Specialist Games Studios and wanted to produce a board game? Would that have been okay, too?

That would be freaking Awesome , since it would allow them to accurately gauge how many to produce... Rather than the current arrangement, which results in stuff either selling out in preorder, or sitting on shelves for ever...

I think it would be too risky for GW to do due to the lack of control they would have over the backer comments.

TheAuldGrump wrote:
The reason that KS has been so successful is that traditional means of lending have become less effective - and distributors have been proving less willing to take risks on new lines, even from established companies.

A healthy company doesn't borrow money. A healthy company does market research and has some skin in the game. The more the gaming industry chooses to skip the B&M in favor of pure profit, the less healthy the entire business ecosystem becomes. It's short-sighted and I think we're already starting to see the damage at the street level.

insaniak wrote:

 the_Armyman wrote:
So, a rhetorical question here: what if Games Workshop had started a KS for its new Specialist Games Studios and wanted to produce a board game? Would that have been okay, too?

That would be freaking Awesome , since it would allow them to accurately gauge how many to produce... Rather than the current arrangement, which results in stuff either selling out in preorder, or sitting on shelves for ever...

So, because GW is incompetent in gauging its customer's willingness to purchase a product, you'd rather reward them for taking the easy way out just so you have easier access to stuff? KS grants access to stuff I like, therefore it's okay. That's fine if that's how you feel. I just want to clarify.

 the_Armyman wrote:

TheAuldGrump wrote:
The reason that KS has been so successful is that traditional means of lending have become less effective - and distributors have been proving less willing to take risks on new lines, even from established companies.

A healthy company doesn't borrow money. A healthy company does market research and has some skin in the game. The more the gaming industry chooses to skip the B&M in favor of pure profit, the less healthy the entire business ecosystem becomes. It's short-sighted and I think we're already starting to see the damage at the street level.

You may want to do some basic research - because, right there?

You are just plain wrong.

It is a standard practice - and not just for gaming companies.

The Auld Grump

 the_Armyman wrote:
So, a rhetorical question here: what if Games Workshop had started a KS for its new Specialist Games Studios and wanted to produce a board game? Would that have been okay, too?

I'm pretty sure there are people attempting to bribe, cajole, entice or persuade Black Library to do just that. "Hello, yes, we would like to fund your project development for the next two years to bring this game back. We won't even mind if you ignore all of this marketing research we're leaving outside your doorway, either."

 the_Armyman wrote:
A healthy company doesn't borrow money.

Healthy companies borrow money all the time.

It's the fact that they're healthy that allows them to borrow money, and it's their ability to borrow money that allows them to develop new product.

Doing so is always a risk, though, regardless of how much market research you do... because sometimes, the conclusions reached through market research turn out to be wrong.

The more the gaming industry chooses to skip the B&M in favor of pure profit, the less healthy the entire business ecosystem becomes.

That might have been the case 10 years ago. But the simple fact is that this is the age of the internet and B&M stores, not just in gaming but retail in general, are rapidly becoming irrelevant. Businesses that find ways to adapt to that changing retail environment are the ones that will survive.

And Kickstarter is one of the tools that will let them do that.

I'll admit, when I saw that email this morning, I had a bad taste in my mouth. My gut told me that PP keeps wanting to get into board games, and knows that board game kickstarters (as opposed to minis) do fantastically well.

The problem is that people want good boardgames. I'd be excited for a titan legions boardgame. I like the IP, and I have some faith that they'll produce a quality product. I simply cannot get that excited about a PP boardgame.

 the_Armyman wrote:

So, because GW is incompetent in gauging its customer's willingness to purchase a product, you'd rather reward them for taking the easy way out just so you have easier access to stuff?

No, because GW is incompetent in gauging their customer's' willingness to purchase a product, I would rather see them adapt the way they produce new product in order to take advantage of a service that allows them to gauge their customers' willingness to purchase said product.

Yes, I know companies large and small borrow money. Yes, it appears on the surface to be normal and healthy. The fact is that a company that has little or no debt is better off than one that has debt, even with all the ridiculous financial tools and benefits that a generous tax code allows. PP is not Ford or Intel or Microsoft. They exist in a niche market and debt IS NOT a good thing. Contrary to what people pushing FICO scores tell you, it's better to have a FICO score of 0 than I is to have one that's 800+. I dislike having to explain that to intelligent people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 the_Armyman wrote:

So, because GW is incompetent in gauging its customer's willingness to purchase a product, you'd rather reward them for taking the easy way out just so you have easier access to stuff?

No, because GW is incompetent in gauging their customer's' willingness to purchase a product, I would rather see them adapt the way they produce new product in order to take advantage of a service that allows them to gauge their customers' willingness to purchase said product.

Why not do it internally and intelligently rather than ask me to front capital for them?

 the_Armyman wrote:
Why not do it internally and intelligently rather than ask me to front capital for them?

Because people actually opening their wallets and throwing money at you is a more reliable gauge of customer interest than just asking people if they are interested.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_Armyman wrote:
Yes, I know companies large and small borrow money. Yes, it appears on the surface to be normal and healthy. The fact is that a company that has little or no debt is better off than one that has debt, even with all the ridiculous financial tools and benefits that a generous tax code allows. PP is not Ford or Intel or Microsoft. They exist in a niche market and debt IS NOT a good thing. Contrary to what people pushing FICO scores tell you, it's better to have a FICO score of 0 than I is to have one that's 800+. I dislike having to explain that to intelligent people.

And BEHOLD!, here's this website that gives companies an extremely handy avenue for producing new stuff without having to go into debt...

insaniak wrote:

 the_Armyman wrote:
Yes, I know companies large and small borrow money. Yes, it appears on the surface to be normal and healthy. The fact is that a company that has little or no debt is better off than one that has debt, even with all the ridiculous financial tools and benefits that a generous tax code allows. PP is not Ford or Intel or Microsoft. They exist in a niche market and debt IS NOT a good thing. Contrary to what people pushing FICO scores tell you, it's better to have a FICO score of 0 than I is to have one that's 800+. I dislike having to explain that to intelligent people.

And BEHOLD!, here's this website that gives companies an extremely handy avenue for producing new stuff without having to go into debt...

I would disagree... The problem with Kickstarter currently is that people have started to assume that all that money is a loan, which is why they get so bent out of shape when a project doesn't actually deliver.

A Kickstarter pledge is an investment towards the development of a product, not a loan. Delivery is not guaranteed... the only obligation that the project creator has is to attempt to deliver on their promises.

 insaniak wrote:
I would disagree... The problem with Kickstarter currently is that people have started to assume that all that money is a loan, which is why they get so bent out of shape when a project doesn't actually deliver.

A Kickstarter pledge is an investment towards the development of a product, not a loan. Delivery is not guaranteed... the only obligation that the project creator has is to attempt to deliver on their promises.

Yes, that's the technical rules. A kickstarter pledge is essentially an investment in which you agree to accept repayment in kind. Obviously with any investment there is the possibility of the enterprise failing, and there being no ability to repay investors.

As with any investment though, the more established a company becomes, the more the expectations and relationship between investors and company changes. An angel investor in a start up has very different expectations of risk and loss than a person buying AAA bonds in a blue chip corporation.

For a company like PP, non-delivery is essentially only an option if the company fully collapses. Which means that this is basically an interest free loan for somebody at PP to develop a pet project, despite there being no evidence that PP can create marketable board games. That shouldn't dissuade a person from pledging if they like the project, but it's a very valid point to raise.

For that matter, few people would argue that Reaper Miniatures wasn't, and isn't, a well established company, going much further back than PP.

Yet the Bones Kickstarters are immensely successful.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
For that matter, few people would argue that Reaper Miniatures wasn't, and isn't, a well established company, going much further back than PP.

Yet the Bones Kickstarters are immensely successful.

The Auld Grump

That's a great point, actually. I think I can distinguish them, but there is precedent for pretty established companies going to this particular well.

For me, the difference is that Reaper was developing molds that were pretty expensive. They likely could have gotten financing, and clearly were able to produce a few models on their own. The injection of capital allowed the range to explode. A board game is a pretty small ticket item compared to a range of metal molds.

There was also a lot of pent up demand for low cost, easy to paint minis. It was a completely new product, in a way that a board game simply can't be.

Honestly, I'm guessing the biggest difference is that Reaper made the kickstarters into amazingly good deals, in a way that I think is difficult with a board game due to lack of add ons and options.

 the_Armyman wrote:

TheAuldGrump wrote:
The reason that KS has been so successful is that traditional means of lending have become less effective - and distributors have been proving less willing to take risks on new lines, even from established companies.

A healthy company doesn't borrow money. A healthy company does market research and has some skin in the game. The more the gaming industry chooses to skip the B&M in favor of pure profit, the less healthy the entire business ecosystem becomes. It's short-sighted and I think we're already starting to see the damage at the street level.

This is just flat out wrong.

One very basic principle of running a successful business is don't pass up an opportunity to use someone else's money instead of your own.

the_Armyman wrote:

insaniak wrote:

 the_Armyman wrote:
Yes, I know companies large and small borrow money. Yes, it appears on the surface to be normal and healthy. The fact is that a company that has little or no debt is better off than one that has debt, even with all the ridiculous financial tools and benefits that a generous tax code allows. PP is not Ford or Intel or Microsoft. They exist in a niche market and debt IS NOT a good thing. Contrary to what people pushing FICO scores tell you, it's better to have a FICO score of 0 than I is to have one that's 800+. I dislike having to explain that to intelligent people.

And BEHOLD!, here's this website that gives companies an extremely handy avenue for producing new stuff without having to go into debt...

And you have just encapsulated the whole problem with KickStarter: no one actually believes that all that money is a LOAN!

It isn't. It's an investment, it's giving somebody money with a promise of a return, but both parties understand there is a potential risk of that return not happening. If I loan you money and you don't repay it, I have recourse, if I invest in you and, fraud and negligence aside, you don't give me the promised returns, I learn from the experience and move on.

 the_Armyman wrote:
So, a rhetorical question here: what if Games Workshop had started a KS for its new Specialist Games Studios and wanted to produce a board game? Would that have been okay, too?

Yes and if they use it to introduce new IP to the company (NEW IP, not grimdark in sci fi and fantasy flavors) even more so.

Kickstarter is a fine way for companies to gauge interest in ideas they have before investing heavily into it and damaging themselves.

As to the original question, I've always been very curious as to how large Privateer Press actually is. Is it a $10m a year company? $20m? $50m? $100m?

insaniak wrote:

 the_Armyman wrote:
So, a rhetorical question here: what if Games Workshop had started a KS for its new Specialist Games Studios and wanted to produce a board game? Would that have been okay, too?

That would be freaking Awesome , since it would allow them to accurately gauge how many to produce... Rather than the current arrangement, which results in stuff either selling out in preorder, or sitting on shelves for ever...

Yeah, no kidding.

insaniak wrote:

 the_Armyman wrote:
A healthy company doesn't borrow money.

Healthy companies borrow money all the time.

It's the fact that they're healthy that allows them to borrow money, and it's their ability to borrow money that allows them to develop new product.

Doing so is always a risk, though, regardless of how much market research you do... because sometimes, the conclusions reached through market research turn out to be wrong.

Healthy companies borrow money, but companies that have more cash than they know what to do with don't. A company that can do something with its cash to grow itself is almost always better off doing that than paying out dividends.

In my opinion, it wouldn't be a bad thing for GW to engage in a Kickstarter type of prepaid deal, but not for cash reasons. GW could actually do it much more intelligently: Here is our planned products and stretch goals; this is the price if you buy into it now. We guarantee you will get X at Y dollar investment, or your money back.

Like you said, they'd be able to avoid epic failures in over and underproduction, but also gauge how much interest there is for the product line in general. And it would build up excitement for a product line.

 Polonius wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
For that matter, few people would argue that Reaper Miniatures wasn't, and isn't, a well established company, going much further back than PP.

Yet the Bones Kickstarters are immensely successful.

The Auld Grump

That's a great point, actually. I think I can distinguish them, but there is precedent for pretty established companies going to this particular well.

For me, the difference is that Reaper was developing molds that were pretty expensive. They likely could have gotten financing, and clearly were able to produce a few models on their own. The injection of capital allowed the range to explode. A board game is a pretty small ticket item compared to a range of metal molds.

There was also a lot of pent up demand for low cost, easy to paint minis. It was a completely new product, in a way that a board game simply can't be.

Honestly, I'm guessing the biggest difference is that Reaper made the kickstarters into amazingly good deals, in a way that I think is difficult with a board game due to lack of add ons and options.

For that, I look at Zombicide. (And, in a weird, twisty sort of way, Deadzone... which is technically a boardgame, but let us be honest....)

Boardgames and miniatures games can have compatible bits.... (My good lady was introduced to fantasy gaming and miniatures gaming by HeroQuest....)

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
My good lady was introduced to fantasy gaming and miniatures gaming by HeroQuest....

Whoa. Mine too! Though she didn't play anything else after that until Advanced HeroQuest, and then just last year, Sigmar, lol.

 Talys wrote:

insaniak wrote:
Healthy companies borrow money all the time.

It's the fact that they're healthy that allows them to borrow money, and it's their ability to borrow money that allows them to develop new product.

Doing so is always a risk, though, regardless of how much market research you do... because sometimes, the conclusions reached through market research turn out to be wrong.

Healthy companies borrow money, but companies that have more cash than they know what to do with don't. A company that can do something with its cash to grow itself is almost always better off doing that than paying out dividends.

I believe even company like Apple which doesn't even know what to do with all their liquidity, do sometimes borrow money for operational purposes. Not all of their 'cash' is laying in big piles of money around their office, or located in one big account named 'APPL00001'. In short term it might be better to borrow some money for operations rather than start liquidating and moving the cash reserves.

Publicly owned companies are usually expected to return some of their profits to the investors who financed the company, either in way of dividends or stock buyback programs. Growth is a mean for bigger profits, not an end in itself.

It's just plain silly to borrow money when you don't need it, and in my mind, it's silly to give money to someone who doesn't need it in the hopes for a few extra baubles that you may or may not receive a couple years down the road. Thanks for the replies. We'll just have to agree to disagree

 the_Armyman wrote:
it's silly to give money to someone who doesn't need it in the hopes for a few extra baubles that you may or may not receive a couple years down the road.

Ignoring the multiple fallacies in that statement for a moment... Why?


But then to address the fallacies in there - Clearly, any business needs money. That's why they sell stuff in the first place.

So you're not 'giving money to someone who doesn't need it'... you're giving money to a business for a product that you want.

By the 'extra baubles' I assume you're talking about stretch goals or the like thrown in? To be honest, those don't factor in to my decision to back a Kickstarter, since they may or may not happen. I back Kickstarters if they are offering a product that I want at a price I'm happy to pay, and being run by someone I trust to deliver on their promises. Any extras that wind up getting thrown in are a bonus, not a reason for backing.