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.

I think Kickstarter is a powerful tool, and I love all the new ways people and companies continue to find uses for it.

I like the idea of people making art projects, movies, murals, and getting seed money for a potential new business.

I like the idea of established companies using it to try experimental lines, see if there is any interest is in expanding existing lines, and even just using it for pre-orders.

I'm far more likely to invest in a kickstarter from an established company, I know the chances of them dropping the ball is much lower then a new start-up.

The only downside I see is cutting out Brick and Mortar stores, but at the same time a lot of model companies are starting to follow the GW model of having products available for retail, and products that are web-store exclusives.

I find a flaw in your analogy of giving money to the homeless or a rich person pretending to be homeless because with model and game based Kickstarters you back a project, and if they give you the product once it's finished.

This means that for established companies like PP, it's really another form of pre-order. If a potential backer either doesn't like the project or doesn't want to wait for the product, they simply don't back it.

Comic books have done this for years, they take orders for their comic lines, then print that exact amount. The supply perfectly matches demand, streamlining the entire process and also allows then to gauge how different comic lines are doing.

 the_Armyman wrote:


I'm kinda getting burned out on replying to three to four people. If what I've said so far makes no sense or you're inclined to go down the road of "stop liking what I don't like," that's cool. I won't give PP my money. If you do, I think you're dumb (but no hard feelings).

Well, you are the one that said healthy businesses don't borrow money, so that's a pretty accurate gauge of how much weight your opinion holds...

And FWIW, if I'm looking to get rid of money for "the feelz," I donate it to one of multiple charities we donate to. I don't go to KS. If that's why you're on KS then you're doing it wrong.

 the_Armyman wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
@the_Armyman

At what point does a company become too big to ethically use Kickstarter? Is it a specific amount of profit they have to make, cash on hand, or based upon amount of previous releases?

If the latter, just because a company could release a board game two years ago doesn't mean they could still afford to release another one today.

Do I have to know how much money they have on hand? Are you looking for a quantifiable net profitability or a certain number of employees? Do they have to have an HR department? Those numbers aren't public knowledge for a privately held company, so I have no answer for you. It's also irrelevant to the discussion. If you're an established company with employees and product and machinery and a warehouse, I'm not inclined to give you free money. Those are my totally subjective standards.

I'm kinda getting burned out on replying to three to four people. If what I've said so far makes no sense or you're inclined to go down the road of "stop liking what I don't like," that's cool. I won't give PP my money. If you do, I think you're dumb (but no hard feelings).

How exactly is it "free money?"

Is backing a KS for an established company really any different from pre-ordering something conventionally several months in advance? Or do you refuse to do that on the grounds of "it feels wrong" too?

I personally dislike the concept of ordering from a well established (say, employing a good dozen employees with a net turnover of a million plus) company on Kickstarter. Why? It's quite simple really. If I'm engaging in a Kickstarter, I'm giving a party my money, effectively without serious contract or expectation that I'll receive anything. It's an investment with no guarantee of repayment, which is why Kickstarters work so hard to convince me that they know what they're doing, and indeed, will repay me something. There's no risk for them, and whilst there's something of a moral obligation for them to give me my goods, if the project doesn't pan out for whatever reason, all that money I injected is gone down the plug hole.

Now the way I see it, the absolute only reason for me to inject my money into a business plan at complete risk to myself but none to the project creator, is if it would be difficult to impossible for them to raise the money for themselves. I then have to judge whether or not I want to see that plan come to fruition enough to risk my money.

With an established business, if they come to me for investment in this style, it tells me one of two things. That they either they do not have sufficient cash flow to fund their own business ideas, or they do not have sufficient confidence in their business ideas to risk their own cash. Neither of these prospects is appealing to me as an potential investor.

The one other alternative, is that despite possessing the cashflow/confidence, the business wants a risk free loan of money from me. Which sure, is great for the business. But I'm not a charity, and I don't do handouts. I have no desire to give a random business an interest free loan of my money so they don't have to spend theirs.

It isn't really interest free, and it certainly isn't a loan, as I've already mentioned, it's an investment and that's not the same thing.

It's a quid pro quo agreement, they get the money now in exchange for you receiving product at a discount (the interest,) or with exclusive availability, at a later date.

I also believe KS is increasingly becoming a marketing platform alongside anything else it may or may not be, and Kickstarting a product may be the actual thing that generates the sales that makes a product viable.

 Ketara wrote:
I personally dislike the concept of ordering from a well established (say, employing a good dozen employees with a net turnover of a million plus) company on Kickstarter. Why? It's quite simple really. If I'm engaging in a Kickstarter, I'm giving a party my money, effectively without serious contract or expectation that I'll receive anything. It's an investment with no guarantee of repayment, which is why Kickstarters work so hard to convince me that they know what they're doing, and indeed, will repay me something. There's no risk for them, and whilst there's something of a moral obligation for them to give me my goods, if the project doesn't pan out for whatever reason, all that money I injected is gone down the plug hole.

Now the way I see it, the absolute only reason for me to inject my money into a business plan at complete risk to myself but none to the project creator, is if it would be difficult to impossible for them to raise the money for themselves. I then have to judge whether or not I want to see that plan come to fruition enough to risk my money.

With an established business, if they come to me for investment in this style, it tells me one of two things. That they either they do not have sufficient cash flow to fund their own business ideas, or they do not have sufficient confidence in their business ideas to risk their own cash. Neither of these prospects is appealing to me as an potential investor.

The one other alternative, is that despite possessing the cashflow/confidence, the business wants a risk free loan of money from me. Which sure, is great for the business. But I'm not a charity, and I don't do handouts. I have no desire to give a random business an interest free loan of my money so they don't have to spend theirs.

I think that's a fine stance, and not overly far from my own views, but as I learned with Reaper Bones, when the deal is really good, I'm willing to preorder.

But that's no different from any other pre-order mechanic. Reaper, especially in Bones I, made it very worth my while to fund their kickstarter.

@Ketara - Like Azreal13, Insaniak and others have pointed out, a company might choose Kickstarter as a platform to market their product, in addition to, or perhaps independent of, any financial benefits.

In any case, if it's a well-established business that you trust, you should feel much more comfortable in giving them essentially what amounts to a discounted prepayment. After all, does anyone really think Privateer Press is going to take everyone's money and run? The risk is much smaller than, for instance, the guy who was selling foam cardboard boxes out of his garage. If they didn't launch, the amount of ill-will would be unreal.

There IS a cost to failing a Kickstarter, by the way. Namely, people won't trust you anymore. Reputation is pretty important, It hink.

@Azreal13 - It's "free money" in the sense that traditionally, if you have an idea but no money, you have to take your dog and pony show to investors until someone fronts you money, usually at cost that far exceeds what a loan from a bank would. With a Kickstarter, you still get to be profitable with your product that's essentially presold (like you said, presumably at some perceived discount). But you're right; it's "cheap money", not free.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I also believe KS is increasingly becoming a marketing platform alongside anything else it may or may not be, and Kickstarting a product may be the actual thing that generates the sales that makes a product viable.

The only problem is that you have to balance the opportunity for marketing (and lets be honest, direct sales) against the harm done to your retail partners in terms of hurt feelings. In many ways, nobody threads that needle as well as Reaper: they offer retailer only pledge levels, they don't deep discount current inventory (with a handful of specific examples, like starter paint sets), and the end product is a good seller for retailers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
In any case, if it's a well-established business that you trust, you should feel much more comfortable in giving them essentially what amounts to a discounted prepayment. After all, does anyone really think Privateer Press is going to take everyone's money and run? The risk is much smaller than, for instance, the guy who was selling foam cardboard boxes out of his garage. If they didn't launch, the amount of ill-will would be unreal.

This is also a good point. While it is a low risk option for PP, if it funds, we can be virtually certain that something will deliver.

Now, the quality of that good is another question, but PP will fulfill their obligations to avoid a PR nightmare.

 insaniak wrote:

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.

And that is what gives some people a bad taste in their mouth when an established company comes to them with a Kickstarter.

The company is asking you to front the money and carry all of the risk for them. Why?

First, why are you asking?

Second, why should I?

It is a breeding ground for creating a hostile and/or antagonistic relationship with your customer base, which is why using Kickstarter really means trading one set of risks for an entirely different set of risks.

When you ask your customers to back a Kickstarter campaign, you are creating a set of expectations above and beyond your normal buyer/seller relationship because you are asking your customers to give more than they normally would as consumers.

This can be a great thing if you meet or exceed those expectations, but it can be disastrous if you don't, and I think it is fair to say that there are many more examples of the latter than the former.

Now, another thorny issue for the market as a whole is that creating those expectations can have implications far beyond a campaign in isolation. You are creating price expectations, for example, which every company is feeling both in and outside of Kickstarter.

Customers who approach a Kickstarter campaign that defies the typical or 'intended' nature of 'kick starting' a product or company tend to expect more traditional consumer-oriented compensation, e.g. reduced prices. This has an impact on the whole market, and especially within the Kickstarter ecosystem.

For example, large, established companies that can afford to offer traditional consumer-oriented compensation have created an expectation that all or most projects will come with those types of compensation. This makes it more difficult for smaller companies to use Kickstarter for its intended purpose.

 Talys wrote:


@Azreal13 - It's "free money" in the sense that traditionally, if you have an idea but no money, you have to take your dog and pony show to investors until someone fronts you money, usually at cost that far exceeds what a loan from a bank would. With a Kickstarter, you still get to be profitable with your product that's essentially presold (like you said, presumably at some perceived discount). But you're right; it's "cheap money", not free.

This is actually the only part that concerns me, but even then concern is too strong a word. I believe there should probably be some accountability associated with crowdfunding aside from just reputational risk, but I'm not sure how regulated it should be, if at all. I think we'll see something in the future, as the SEC has started to regulate crowdfunded investments as of Nov 2015, but for now I'm not entirely sure where that will lead.

 Polonius wrote:

 Talys wrote:
In any case, if it's a well-established business that you trust, you should feel much more comfortable in giving them essentially what amounts to a discounted prepayment. After all, does anyone really think Privateer Press is going to take everyone's money and run? The risk is much smaller than, for instance, the guy who was selling foam cardboard boxes out of his garage. If they didn't launch, the amount of ill-will would be unreal.

This is also a good point. While it is a low risk option for PP, if it funds, we can be virtually certain that something will deliver.

Now, the quality of that good is another question, but PP will fulfill their obligations to avoid a PR nightmare.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/677034.page#8392026

Nostromodamus' post indicates he is still waiting for fulfillment of the PP video game Kickstarter. Has anyone else backed that and not received their pledged items?

If PP haven't made good on that first campaign I'd be wary of backing another one of their campaigns. Though, Raging Heroes' second successful campaign proved that others don't share those same concerns so what do I know.

I forget how it ended, but I seem to recall the Wyrd RPG Kickstarter struggling for much of its run, with many thoughts similar to those raised here expressed pretty freely. I could be misremembering though.

For what it's worth, I find it slightly tacky for a company that could foot the bill to run a kickstarter like this. It's a board game, not something that requires a massive capital investment. I also know their track record of middling board games. Still, if they make the pot sweet enough for people to jump in, I won't blame them.

At the end of the day, crowdfunding by its very nature creates a set of moral obligations/expectations that are atypical from a buyer/seller standpoint.

It's changing the market, for both good and ill. I think it remains to be seen where the balance will end up in five, ten years.

The important thing to remember is that while Kickstarter is helping to expand the market by introducing table top games to a wider audience, it is also influencing how longstanding participants in that market behave. Table top gaming is niche, and I think it is fair to say that this makes it rather sensitive to evolutions like crowdfunding.

I think it benefits everybody to have these types of discussions; to take a step back and look at crowdfunding from a broader perspective than what's the beast deal you can get today. We should try to be aware of how crowdfunding is influencing our own perceptions, behaviors, and expectations; and how it is influencing the market.

Just like consumers who choose to buy local, or buy American, or by free range, or buy sustainable, or whatever other ethical/moral choices enter into your purchasing decisions, we should think about what it means to use crowdfunding, both in the short term and the long term.

Because crowdfunding carries an implicit set of moral/ethical expectations by its very nature, it is particularly apt to consider it in a moral/ethical framework, rather than a dispassionate price analysis.

Cost/benefit analysis has a lot more going on than an objective price/vale analysis. Otherwise why would you support a sustainable fishery or refuse to purchase the products of child labor?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/677034.page#8392026

Nostromodamus' post indicates he is still waiting for fulfillment of the PP video game Kickstarter. Has anyone else backed that and not received their pledged items?

Someone who says they haven't received their pledge items yet should specify whether they're talking about the video game or the models. And if they're talking about the models, I'm sure everyone would love to hear the tale, since those shipped out in April: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/409030043/warmachine-tactics/posts/803216

If they're talking about the video game: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/409030043/warmachine-tactics/posts/1461106

 solkan wrote:

Someone who says they haven't received their pledge items yet should specify whether they're talking about the video game or the models. And if they're talking about the models, I'm sure everyone would love to hear the tale, since those shipped out in April: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/409030043/warmachine-tactics/posts/803216

If they're talking about the video game: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/409030043/warmachine-tactics/posts/1461106

So it looks like the physical copies of the video game and sound track should be shipping out around the time the new KS goes live. *shrug* Seems reasonable.

Azreal13 wrote:It isn't really interest free, and it certainly isn't a loan, as I've already mentioned, it's an investment and that's not the same thing.

Re-read what I wrote please. I only called it a loan when I specified a scenario in which they already had the cash flow/product confidence. In which case, it's certainly no longer an 'investment' into a business plan, as the company has the ability and desire to produce the product regardless of my cash. The product will occur regardless of my input. Making my obligation-free infusion of cash into their company nothing more than a loan of my cash which they will use to sell me a pre-planned product at a profit to them.

Polonius wrote:

I think that's a fine stance, and not overly far from my own views, but as I learned with Reaper Bones, when the deal is really good, I'm willing to preorder.

But that's no different from any other pre-order mechanic. Reaper, especially in Bones I, made it very worth my while to fund their kickstarter.

Oh, certainly. But what is happening here is that you are weighing a tangible return in exchange for the loan of your capital, namely the discount. If PP set out here to make a product using a KS, and then sold it at equivalent retail price once produced, you'd have gained nothing.

The issue here, is that you often do not know what the retail price will be, making it difficult to judge if it is worth loaning a company your money in an obligation-free interest free setting.

Talys wrote:@Ketara - Like Azreal13, Insaniak and others have pointed out, a company might choose Kickstarter as a platform to market their product, in addition to, or perhaps independent of, any financial benefits.

In any case, if it's a well-established business that you trust, you should feel much more comfortable in giving them essentially what amounts to a discounted prepayment.

Not quite. It's the separation between the 'loan' and the 'investment' (roughly speaking here) that makes the difference. If the product would occur regardless as it's from an established firm, then I have no need to 'loan' them my cash. But if the product is from a new firm, it's a speculative 'investment', and I therefore assume I am risking my cash, on the basis that the product will not make it to market if I do not.

But please recall that there is also the options whereby an established firm is using KS because lack confidence in their product/cashflow. In either case, it is possible the product will not make it to market without my input (making it more of an investment in the latter), but frankly, coming from an established firm, neither are encouraging signs.

After all, does anyone really think Privateer Press is going to take everyone's money and run? The risk is much smaller than, for instance, the guy who was selling foam cardboard boxes out of his garage. If they didn't launch, the amount of ill-will would be unreal.

I think my money will not vanish into the night. But likewise, I feel no need to give an established firm an cash interest free loan of my capital to help their business along. I can find far better uses for my money than minimally boosting the liquidity of a multi-million pound firm for a 10% discount on some product that was going to appear regardless in six months.

And if it wasn't going to appear? Then either PP are cash strapped (making them a risky proposition for obligation free lending), or have so little confidence in their success of their product they wouldn't make it otherwise(which means that they're probably making bad business decisions in pursuing it to begin with).

I'm probably not going to back this because PPs boardgames really really aren't great. I have Level 7, both high commands, Undercity and they're all missing something. Undercity was especially bad with only 8? scenarios with no variability in terms of scenarios. Which for a game with a 95 dollar RRP is pretty damn horrible.

And the sad part is PP will never improve on this it seems because they think that what they're doing is good enough/meets boardgame standards. They think the plastic they're using is the standard for board games and most of the users on their board agree with them. It's almost like they don't know what modern boardgame figures are like.

Even if Kickstarter were a 'loan' then I would still like game companies to use it.

I would rather see the companies paying the 'interest' to gamers than to the bank.

So, Bones III is from a well established company, for an increasingly well established line.

And it is worth it to me to 'loan' Pugh et ali a few hundred doallars, knowing that in the fullness of time, the 'interest' will come to me in the form of loverly unpainted plastics that I can spread on the floor and roll on, in orgiastic glee.

What was the question again?

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Even if Kickstarter were a 'loan' then I would still like game companies to use it.

I would rather see the companies paying the 'interest' to gamers than to the bank.

So, Bones III is from a well established company, for an increasingly well established line.

And it is worth it to me to 'loan' Pugh et ali a few hundred doallars, knowing that in the fullness of time, the 'interest' will come to me in the form of loverly unpainted plastics that I can spread on the floor and roll on, in orgiastic glee.

What was the question again?

The Auld Grump

Good for you. Some of us don't see the need to give interest free loans to established companies and assume all the risk of their pet project in exchange. While Kickstarter has produced has produced a few excellent gaming products, most of it has been run of the mill junk. If flooding the market with low quality junk was the mission, then Kickstarter has been a resounding success. There are only so many $$$s out there to give, and contrary to the bleatings of fanboys, the industry is not always better off when there is a flood of projects. Good ideas get lost in the all the blather of the Mantics and PPs hawking their next wave of low bidder produced Chinese junk.

It hurts, if not outright murders local game store sales, which everyone is always crying about, and does not build a community of gamers when all demand for a product is satisfied in a campaign. Then the product is DOA on a store shelf. And don't even get me started on the thieves that actually run Kickstarter, taking their cut, and shrugging their shoulders at outright fraud and abuse on their 'service'. Enjoy it while you can. The Robotechs and Up Fronts are going to bring an end to the Wild West era of Kickstarter.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/677034.page#8392026

Nostromodamus' post indicates he is still waiting for fulfillment of the PP video game Kickstarter. Has anyone else backed that and not received their pledged items?

If PP haven't made good on that first campaign I'd be wary of backing another one of their campaigns. Though, Raging Heroes' second successful campaign proved that others don't share those same concerns so what do I know.

Wasn't there a closed beta or something for people who pledged? It does seem like a super-long time ago that the video game went to KS, though, either way.

PP doing a video game is quite a bit different than PP doing a board game (or miniatures product), though. I would actually forgive PP for screwing up a video game, as it's not part of their core competency. Like, a lot of people vastly underestimate the amount of money, effort, and talent required to get a game from concept to a marketable product, and how high player expectations are today. Not to mention, how quickly the landscape and tools change.

So, if PP messed up a video game Kickstarter, I wouldn't give them more money for another video game kickstarter, but it wouldn't rule out giving them money for terrain boards or a miniatures boardgame. If they screwed up a miniatures or boardgame Kickstarter, I'd really lose faith in them. Maybe I'd still buy stuff, because I'm a sucker for nice shiny things in front of me, but I'd definitely think less of them as a company.

 totalfailure wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Even if Kickstarter were a 'loan' then I would still like game companies to use it.

I would rather see the companies paying the 'interest' to gamers than to the bank.

So, Bones III is from a well established company, for an increasingly well established line.

And it is worth it to me to 'loan' Pugh et ali a few hundred doallars, knowing that in the fullness of time, the 'interest' will come to me in the form of loverly unpainted plastics that I can spread on the floor and roll on, in orgiastic glee.

What was the question again?

The Auld Grump

Good for you. Some of us don't see the need to give interest free loans to established companies and assume all the risk of their pet project in exchange. While Kickstarter has produced has produced a few excellent gaming products, most of it has been run of the mill junk. If flooding the market with low quality junk was the mission, then Kickstarter has been a resounding success. There are only so many $$$s out there to give, and contrary to the bleatings of fanboys, the industry is not always better off when there is a flood of projects. Good ideas get lost in the all the blather of the Mantics and PPs hawking their next wave of low bidder produced Chinese junk.

It hurts, if not outright murders local game store sales, which everyone is always crying about, and does not build a community of gamers when all demand for a product is satisfied in a campaign. Then the product is DOA on a store shelf. And don't even get me started on the thieves that actually run Kickstarter, taking their cut, and shrugging their shoulders at outright fraud and abuse on their 'service'. Enjoy it while you can. The Robotechs and Up Fronts are going to bring an end to the Wild West era of Kickstarter.

Sadly the facts contradict your excellently constructed rant, and people need to stop using loan interchangeably with investment, it makes it look like you don't know what you're on about...

If people supported them then, for at least some of them they were worth it, likewise before boardgames reached the level they are now, many duds were released and frankly now KS cuts a lot of the duds by people not supporting them, which is good for both the creator and the market, cutting the clutter and giving instant feedback on the creator.

As with every market KS is in the process of maturing at least in the boardgame genre each year more and more work is needed for a project to fund and even more for it to be a success, it will not be long before the rate of good games increases just because the bar will be held high enough.

 totalfailure wrote:
Good for you. Some of us don't see the need to give interest free loans to established companies and assume all the risk of their pet project in exchange. While Kickstarter has produced has produced a few excellent gaming products, most of it has been run of the mill junk. If flooding the market with low quality junk was the mission, then Kickstarter has been a resounding success. There are only so many $$$s out there to give, and contrary to the bleatings of fanboys, the industry is not always better off when there is a flood of projects. Good ideas get lost in the all the blather of the Mantics and PPs hawking their next wave of low bidder produced Chinese junk.

I think SWM terrain boards started off as Kickstarter, and those are great. I do concur that most things coming out of Kickstarter for gaming are not great, which is why personally, I just wait for it to come out and pay the full price.

 totalfailure wrote:
It hurts, if not outright murders local game store sales, which everyone is always crying about, and does not build a community of gamers when all demand for a product is satisfied in a campaign. Then the product is DOA on a store shelf.

This is actually a pretty good point. I never really thought about that, and it's really true. Kickstarter stuff doesn't sell at the only local store here that stocks any significant amount of such things because most of the people who are would have been excited already got it at the Kickstarter stage. Ironically, it's probably a reason why that store doesn't stock a lot of Mantic. If they can't make money off of them, why stock it, and if they don't stock it, they won't ever grow their sales or develop a community.

 totalfailure wrote:
[

Good for you. Some of us don't see the need to give interest free loans to established companies and assume all the risk of their pet project in exchange. While Kickstarter has produced has produced a few excellent gaming products, most of it has been run of the mill junk. If flooding the market with low quality junk was the mission, then Kickstarter has been a resounding success. There are only so many $$$s out there to give, and contrary to the bleatings of fanboys, the industry is not always better off when there is a flood of projects. Good ideas get lost in the all the blather of the Mantics and PPs hawking their next wave of low bidder produced Chinese junk.

It hurts, if not outright murders local game store sales, which everyone is always crying about, and does not build a community of gamers when all demand for a product is satisfied in a campaign. Then the product is DOA on a store shelf. And don't even get me started on the thieves that actually run Kickstarter, taking their cut, and shrugging their shoulders at outright fraud and abuse on their 'service'. Enjoy it while you can. The Robotechs and Up Fronts are going to bring an end to the Wild West era of Kickstarter.

Awe...did one of them touch you in a no-no place?

Of the 80 some projects I've backed, I'd say I've been unhappy with less than 10. But then again, that's probably just the bleating of a fanboy.

 Talys wrote:
Kickstarter stuff doesn't sell at the only local store here that stocks any significant amount of such things because most of the people who are would have been excited already got it at the Kickstarter stage. Ironically, it's probably a reason why that store doesn't stock a lot of Mantic. If they can't make money off of them, why stock it, and if they don't stock it, they won't ever grow their sales or develop a community.

This sort of assumes that the local store would be doing anything to grow a community if the stuff was available to them rather than through Kickstarter... Which in a lot of cases simply isn't so.

People who have a store that promotes gaming and builds community involvement seem to assume that this is the default for all stores. It most certainly is not. A lot of stores are there for nothing more than to sell product, and they'll only stock what they think will sell... which excludes most of the traiditionally-developed and released games out there as well as the Kickstarter stuff.

While I can understand why those who have a good local store would want to support them and don't like to see them getting cut out of the sales chain, for an awful lot of us that's simply not a consideration in our purchasing. The existence (or not) of a local store, and the range they choose to stock (or not) has absolutely zero impact on my gaming.

 Talys wrote:
PP doing a video game is quite a bit different than PP doing a board game (or miniatures product), though. I would actually forgive PP for screwing up a video game, as it's not part of their core competency. Like, a lot of people vastly underestimate the amount of money, effort, and talent required to get a game from concept to a marketable product, and how high player expectations are today. Not to mention, how quickly the landscape and tools change.

You are a more generous person than I am, then.

Quite frankly I don't think a company should be seeking funding for a project if they don't have the competency to see the project through. If said company are breaking into a new market they better have their gak in order or else they deserve all of the bad blood their failure will heap on them. Especially if they are experimenting with other people's money.

 Talys wrote:
So, if PP messed up a video game Kickstarter, I wouldn't give them more money for another video game kickstarter, but it wouldn't rule out giving them money for terrain boards or a miniatures boardgame. If they screwed up a miniatures or boardgame Kickstarter, I'd really lose faith in them. Maybe I'd still buy stuff, because I'm a sucker for nice shiny things in front of me, but I'd definitely think less of them as a company.

PP tried to get into comics and action figures at one point and those ventures bombed. That was before crowd-sourcing was really thing, but if those projects were Kickstarted and they had left backers hanging, I wouldn't give PP the benefit of the doubt if their next KS idea was more in line with their wheelhouse. For me PP would have already proven that they weren't good stewards of backers money and I'd have to be really wowed by whatever new proposal they had to even consider giving them a dime.


And just so I am not misunderstood, I am not implying PP failed with their Warmachine: Tactics video game. I am merely speaking hypothetically.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Quite frankly I don't think a company should be seeking funding for a project if they don't have the competency to see the project through. If said company are breaking into a new market they better have their gak in order or else they deserve all of the bad blood their failure will heap on them. Especially if they are experimenting with other people's money.

By its very nature, though, Kickstarter is always going to result in a lot of projects being run by people who thought they knew what they were doing right up until it came time to actually do it... and suddenly they start to find out the hard way how much they didn't actually know.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

PP tried to get into comics and action figures at one point and those ventures bombed. That was before crowd-sourcing was really thing, but if those projects were Kickstarted and they had left backers hanging, I wouldn't give PP the benefit of the doubt if their next KS idea was more in line with their wheelhouse. For me PP would have already proven that they weren't good stewards of backers money and I'd have to be really wowed by whatever new proposal they had to even consider giving them a dime.

And just so I am not misunderstood, I am not implying PP failed with their Warmachine: Tactics video game. I am merely speaking hypothetically.

Yeah, I'm with you there. If they (hypothetically) fail at one side venture, or took so long that it was no longer relevant, I wouldn't pony up money up front for something else that they weren't proven to be competent at. Don't get me wrong... I wouldn't be happy about losing my money and it'd leave a sour taste in my mouth; but I'd understand the "why" of it (especially with video games), and I don't think I'd stop buying nice models or rulebooks that they make over it.

The far more intelligent thing for them to have done with the video game if there were uncertainties, I think, would have been to spin off another company, and do the Kickstarter under that. People would have still backed it, being an official Warmachines title.

And here I thought the Kickstarter was going to be set 6 of Monsterpocalypse... finally.

 totalfailure wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Even if Kickstarter were a 'loan' then I would still like game companies to use it.

I would rather see the companies paying the 'interest' to gamers than to the bank.

So, Bones III is from a well established company, for an increasingly well established line.

And it is worth it to me to 'loan' Pugh et ali a few hundred doallars, knowing that in the fullness of time, the 'interest' will come to me in the form of loverly unpainted plastics that I can spread on the floor and roll on, in orgiastic glee.

What was the question again?

The Auld Grump

Good for you. Some of us don't see the need to give interest free loans to established companies and assume all the risk of their pet project in exchange. While Kickstarter has produced has produced a few excellent gaming products, most of it has been run of the mill junk. If flooding the market with low quality junk was the mission, then Kickstarter has been a resounding success. There are only so many $$$s out there to give, and contrary to the bleatings of fanboys, the industry is not always better off when there is a flood of projects. Good ideas get lost in the all the blather of the Mantics and PPs hawking their next wave of low bidder produced Chinese junk.

It hurts, if not outright murders local game store sales, which everyone is always crying about, and does not build a community of gamers when all demand for a product is satisfied in a campaign. Then the product is DOA on a store shelf. And don't even get me started on the thieves that actually run Kickstarter, taking their cut, and shrugging their shoulders at outright fraud and abuse on their 'service'. Enjoy it while you can. The Robotechs and Up Fronts are going to bring an end to the Wild West era of Kickstarter.

Sucks to be you then, doesn't it?

Nice rant, by the way - but completely misses the point.

The banks weren't loaning them the money - so game companies had to look elsewhere.

The distributors cut far back on what they were distributing - as fewer but larger distributors took over. (Alliance actually carried less product than either Chessex or Armory., as an example.) Look back at the 1990s and early 200s - when a large number of game companies vanished, due to both the banks and the larger combined distributors, that only stocked what they considered to be sure sellers.

So, no, if you want to point at who is 'murdering' the poor innocent gamestore, point at distributors and banks, as well as all of the people that buy online rather than go to their local store.

As for 'interest free loans' - correct me if I'm wrong, but I do typically get more in product from the Kickstarter than I would purchasing retail, yes?

The 'interest' is in the form of the product that I would have been purchasing in any event, at a discount.

So, let me pretend to brush away an imaginary tear.

Because Kickstarter is merely stepping into a vacancy left by traditional methods failing to fulfill their purpose.

The Auld Grump