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.

Uh, no. If you do mail order to customers in the US from Poland, reciprocity means you can be sued under both sets of laws, such as consumer protection laws.

https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=35820

 Warzone Resurrection wrote:

1) Origin of Customer Protection Act is Poland as the Invoice (contract) will be issued from Archon to each backer post pledge manager. Kickstarter is not providing any invoice to backers because they would be then accounted for not-delivering.

Invoice is a proof of payment. Invoice is an itemized bill for goods sold or services provided, containing individual prices, the total charge, and the terms.

Not true at all. Every KS I've participated in I get an email from KS stating:

Great news!
Thanks to you and XXX others, "NAME OF KS PROJECT" has been successfully funded. Your pledge has been charged, funds will soon be transferred to the creator, and they’ll begin working on their project.

If that is not 'proof of payment' I do not know what is. No one pays Prodos/Archon at the end of this BUT KS. The backers' money is collected by KS.

Edited.

Thanks.

As expected, more backers dropped:


But the total didn't really change:

Looks like Prodos "bought" a 6th $499 pledge to prop the total up.

I wonder how many backers have dropped from $99+ down to $1. The last 48 hours are going to be interesting, that's for sure.
____

If we do the math, it's 169 backers dropped.

If we look at the first couple big drops before Prodos started propping things up, they should have lost $136 per pledge for a total drop of $23k.

The true total should be under $200k, not holding at $222k...

If I were backing this dumpster fire, I'd declare shenanigans!

Any actual evidence that Prodos is the one "buying" the pledges to keep the total level? Or is it all just theory from those who dislike the company?

Because from what I can see it could very well be explained by backers switching to or otherwise taking painted pledges, and the backer total dropping due to $1 people deciding against it.

I have no vested interest one way or another, but saying Prodos is fiddling the numbers when the provided "evidence" can just as easily be attributed to backer behavior doesn't seem right, no matter how much you dislike the company.

 Warzone Resurrection wrote:

1) Origin of Customer Protection Act is Poland as the Invoice (contract) will be issued from Archon to each backer post pledge manager. Kickstarter is not providing any invoice to backers because they would be then accounted for not-delivering.

Invoice is a proof of payment. Invoice is an itemized bill for goods sold or services provided, containing individual prices, the total charge, and the terms.

What?

Warzone Resurrection / Archon / Prodos / Whoever wrote:As a manufacturer we have an access to Custom clearance system ECS. It means that every parcel we are shipping out is custom cleared by us in Poland. To explain in depth, 35% of the cost of shipping a parcel outside EU by courier like UPS for instance, is cost of custom clearance, we don’t have this costs as we do all the paperwork work by our self.

Also, what?

Normally I'm mocking you but I'm genuinely interested in what the hell you're on about in both of these.

.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Any actual evidence that Prodos is the one "buying" the pledges to keep the total level? Or is it all just theory from those who dislike the company?

Because from what I can see it could very well be explained by backers switching to or otherwise taking painted pledges, and the backer total dropping due to $1 people deciding against it.

I have no vested interest one way or another, but saying Prodos is fiddling the numbers when the provided "evidence" can just as easily be attributed to backer behavior doesn't seem right, no matter how much you dislike the company.

It is most easily attributed to backers changing pledges. The painted pledge is a phenomenal deal and others are switching to the pledge with the 'epic' figures.

And I m clearly NOT a Prodos fan.

EDIT: From BGG, someone seems to have 'done the math':

12 backers at $999... each of which covers 9 backers leaving from the early bird $100 pledge level = 108 backers.

5 backers at $499... each of which covers 4 backers leaving = 20 backers

Quite a few moving from $99 pledge to epic pledge at $250 which covers 1.5 backers leaving each

They have lost about 160 backers... of which some are assuredly $1 pledges (on a dakka post Archon said 47)... so lets say 115 actual backers lost.... of which all are covered just by the painted pledges.

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1583335/seven-day-exodus-backers-yet-funding-still-rising/page/3

It is, however pretty telling about the sort of backers that are dropping,

in general they look to be those who were in for the chance to moan at Prodos (once they knew they were involved), get the updates, find out about the mechanics or otherwise 'contribute' to the chat,

they're not the core support pledging $99 for the game (or more for the painted stuff), although a few of these are dropping too

so while it looks bad on kicktraq, it's not the disaster some other projects have hit where the people actually funding it started to leave (eg Thon)

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Any actual evidence that Prodos is the one "buying" the pledges to keep the total level? Or is it all just theory from those who dislike the company?

Because from what I can see it could very well be explained by backers switching to or otherwise taking painted pledges, and the backer total dropping due to $1 people deciding against it.

I have no vested interest one way or another, but saying Prodos is fiddling the numbers when the provided "evidence" can just as easily be attributed to backer behavior doesn't seem right, no matter how much you dislike the company.

While that is what Prodos claims, it is clear that they are lying. Again. As usual.

If you do the math, the total should have dropped by $23k. The 16 painted pledges amount to an increase of 6x +$399 + $12x +$899 = +$13.2k total. There is an extra $10k pledged that cannot be explained by Prodos' claims. Ergo, they are lying. Just like they lied about who was running the campaign. Just like they lie about Polish Consumer Protection Law.

Hey, Prodos - how come Polish Consumer Protection Law doesn't apply to AvP backers? Huh? How come American Consumer Protection Law doesn't apply to AvP backers? Where are those refunds that AvP backers requested and didn't get?

Anyhow, you are free to believe what you like, but the numbers just don't add up, even if you pretend that Prodos is telling the truth. Go add up the pledge values right now, and toss a buck for each backer that doesn't have a pledge. You should get $190k, not $222k - there is $32k floating around that cannot be explained.

A fair number of people get more than one copy of a game, either as part of a group to save postage (or because only one plays on KS), because they just want more than a single copy or to try and re-sell

and I'm sure there are some with no pledge level who have more than $1 there to hedge against a pledge level they intend to get before the end

(or even just to donate a bit more to a project they want to succeed, although I admit it's not so likely here)

That is all accounted for in the big drops on 5/24 and 5/26, averaging $136 per pledge.

Or are you saying that the remaining backers are going to spend more on a failing project?

No. The most rational course of action is to limit risk, going down to a minimal pledge, or a $1 placeholder, or dropping and waiting for late backer / pledge manager access.

But as I said, the final 48 will be interesting.

It is hard to call a 700% + funded project 'failing'.

Jarek/Prodos/Archon have stated that because they are doing all the figure production in house there is very little risk. Many backers believe this. The more expensive pledges (with the epic figures or the painted sets) are darned good value if you believe this. To these backers there is little risk, and they are not bailing out, they are sticking with the expensive pledges.

Unless KS pulls the project, the project is likely to fund at over 700%. That won't meet anyone's reasonable definition of 'failure'.

Now, how they (Jarek/Prodos/Archon) handle the production and delivery after KS passes off the funding is what is going to matter, and again, there are many (over 1k) backers that have faith it will all work out.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
No. The most rational course of action is to limit risk

I've already posted previously about this in the thread, but I don't agree with you that there is more risk in this project than others. As I noted, I only upped my pledge after the creators were revealed - because I have seen way too many "first time creators" struggle through things just like what Prodos did with their first projects, and even much worse when they are outsourcing production.

Project Elite, Torn Armor, and Total Extinction - Battle for Karnak are just a few that come to mind... outsourcing production is much riskier than a company, even if they're one many people dislike based on their early projects, who:

1. Have almost all the models already created
2. Have a proven production process that they are completing in-house
3. Have a lot of incentive to deliver

That last one is important to me. Of course, it's possible that Archon wants to burn their name to the ground right along with what has been happening to Prodos... but they are known in the industry, and provide models to many companies. Why in the world would they go to all this effort just to rip people off? It's similar to Mierce emerging from Maelstrom Games in some ways, except that Prodos is actually continuing to deliver to their customers (unlike Maelstrom completely cutting off customers suddenly and only honoring those who had paid for models of the line they were taking forward as Mierce). I bring up that example, because I was heartily opposed to Mierce at the beginning - but in hindsight, what did they have to gain by "starting anew" only to rip off more people?

Similarly, I think Archon is trying their hardest to make good here, and it's an attractive product. People who are opposing the campaign on principle are making it actually more likely that former backers of other projects will have issues, imo... whereas if this does decently well, it can only help with the fact that Archon can move forward with its own products (and since there is some overlap in personnel seemingly, it keeps the lights on so that Prodos can keep fulfilling their obligations). Opposing it really strongly seems to me to be putting an ideal over a practical reality... Archon is going to continue making miniatures for other companies regardless, but this campaign will likely help everybody who was involved with Prodos before, too. Not directly from the funding - but it'd be hard to imagine it could hurt.

Again, intent is important, and trajectory - an opposite example would be Defiance Games, who defrauded people badly, then ran a one-off campaign to defraud even more people, because they had no other obligations or income coming in from the industry. Archon seemingly has a lot of income to lose if they burn their reputation within the industry, and so I feel pretty confident that they will deliver well here. It is always a risk on Kickstarter - but the risk here is much lower than elsewhere, in my opinion (and speaking mostly as someone who is after the minis).

There were 1884 ($223,603) backers before backers started to drop. At the time of this post there are 1717 ($223,014) backers. Kicktraq does shows a loss of 169 backers but we can only guess how many are at what pledges. We know there were at least quite a few at $1 to comment. They could have also gone in at a high amount to comment and then dropped as well. Those are things we don't know. Since $1 isn't a pledge level, we don't actually get to see how many are sitting at that level.

What Kicktraq doesn't factor or show is shipping and they inflate true totals. For example looking at the current list

1308 backers $99 ($111 US, $124 RoW) - $145188 - $162192
167 backers $99 ($111 US, $124 RoW) - $16533 - $20708
117 backers $249 ($261 US, $274 RoW) - $30537 - $32058
6 backers $499 ($517 US, $530 RoW) - $3102 - $3180
9 backers $999 ($1017 US, $1030 RoW) - $9153 - $9270

1607 backers, which means at least 110 are most likely $1 pledges. - $204,623 US - $227,518 RoW

Without actually tracking the backer totals for each pledge, the total backers and amount isn't a lot of help. The difference is you assume all backers are in the US (which we know isn't true) is $18,501. That is just based on totaling up base pledge amounts, not accounting for additional pledge dollars. If people in the comments are assumed telling the truth, quite a few have added additional dollars for Epic miniatures and add-ons.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Any actual evidence that Prodos is the one "buying" the pledges to keep the total level? Or is it all just theory from those who dislike the company?

There is not any actual evidence that Prodos is "buying" pledges or fluctuating. It is a believed theory because some people see backers loss but the campaign is back to where it was before they started losing. It doesn't take in account how many $1 pledges they are that started to drop as well vs real pledges. It doesn't make sense to buy pledges either, at least I haven't heard a good reason to support it yet.

I say, a skunk doesn't change its stripes.

Good luck to any of you who pledged.

 CptJake wrote:
Unless KS pulls the project, the project is likely to fund at over 700%. That won't meet anyone's reasonable definition of 'failure'.

I would point out that AVP funded at 1083% and the cummulative result years later can reasonably be called a failure.

http://www.kicktraq.com/projects/513277403/alien-vs-predator-the-miniatures-game/

Funding definitely doesn't automatically equate to long term or retail success (the opposite of failure) as evidenced by Archon's I mean Prodos' own AVP as well as other (in)famous projects like Robotech Tactics. I realize you're talking specifically about the KS campaign but figured I'd stress that more important ultimate end goal.

@Warboss - If you check, there is no AvP project on Kickstarter...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@Warboss - If you check, there is no AvP project on Kickstarter...

No gak, Sherlock. That's why I linked to kicktraq instead.

 warboss wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Unless KS pulls the project, the project is likely to fund at over 700%. That won't meet anyone's reasonable definition of 'failure'.

I would point out that AVP funded at 1083% and the cummulative result years later can reasonably be called a failure.

http://www.kicktraq.com/projects/513277403/alien-vs-predator-the-miniatures-game/

Funding definitely doesn't automatically equate to long term or retail success (the opposite of failure) as evidenced by Archon's I mean Prodos' own AVP as well as other (in)famous projects like Robotech Tactics. I realize you're talking specifically about the KS campaign but figured I'd stress that more important ultimate end goal.

Which is why my last sentence, which you cut out, is pretty relevant:

Now, how they (Jarek/Prodos/Archon) handle the production and delivery after KS passes off the funding is what is going to matter, and again, there are many (over 1k) backers that have faith it will all work out.

 CptJake wrote:
It is hard to call a 700% + funded project 'failing'.

Jarek/Prodos/Archon have stated that because they are doing all the figure production in house there is very little risk. Many backers believe this. The more expensive pledges (with the epic figures or the painted sets) are darned good value if you believe this. To these backers there is little risk, and they are not bailing out, they are sticking with the expensive pledges.

Unless KS pulls the project, the project is likely to fund at over 700%. That won't meet anyone's reasonable definition of 'failure'.

Now, how they (Jarek/Prodos/Archon) handle the production and delivery after KS passes off the funding is what is going to matter, and again, there are many (over 1k) backers that have faith it will all work out.

Theres also a question of expectations and funding requirements for proper companies. $200k for a little start up is fantastic. $200k for a large company doesn't pay the electricity bill. Prodos wants to be in the realm of CMON funding at the least. Steamforged just got well over $5 million in pledges. When your pledges are a magnitude less than your effective competition it doesn't look like a success.

I would like to point out that Archon is not only miniatures company. Archon's main source of income is in manufacturing of bespoke automotive parts for well known brands.

Just to give you an idea of what process I am talking about (not out photo, nda, but process is the same)

We love board and war games! This is why we are introducing uni-cast to miniatures market. There are some other major goals for us as manufacturer to achieve with LOAD KS: for instance delivery on time proving capability of our process to our customers and partners.


Thanks.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Ergo, they are lying. Just like they lied about who was running the campaign. Just like they lie about Polish Consumer Protection Law.

Hey, Prodos - how come Polish Consumer Protection Law doesn't apply to AvP backers? Huh? How come American Consumer Protection Law doesn't apply to AvP backers? Where are those refunds that AvP backers requested and didn't get?

I see that Prodos dropped by, but somehow missed my bolded question above...

Prodos - why should we believe you now, when you lied to all of the AvP backers?

I LOVE seeing the Prodos logo representing the Archon work in the above image.

Yet when it is convenient for Jarek and crew we must believe they are completely separate entities.

Good stuff.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Gomezaddams wrote:
So I've been trying to find some information regarding Archon, Archon Ltd, Archon games Ltd (you get the idea) but... aside from whats been said here nothing.

So... whats the actual name, and wheres the company held? Is it a limited company in its own right, or is it an arm of Prodos Ltd? I can't image its a limited UK company because theres no contact details or addresses on the website.

And out of curiosity, whats Wastefall Games? This seems to be another company using the UK postbox address Prodos uses but again, no actual details.

For that, you should go to boardgamegeek.com... They will give you the accurate, unbiased information - unlike some other parties which might only want your money...

..... all information is provided above your post, also, a reiminder : I am missing PM with your pledge manager KS emial address, thanks

Are you refering to my pledge?

If you are that really does show what fantastic attention to detail you guys pay. I sold this pledge about a year ago after trying for months to get a refund. I'm still owed £5 by the way from when I submitted my pledge during the testing phase. I've never EVER had a response about that.

And you still havent responded to my question regarding Wastefall games.

Prodos - attention to detail is are mide nam

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I say, a skunk doesn't change its stripes.

Kevin Siembieda of Palladium.

Paolo Parente of DUST Tactics.

Dionysius of GameZone.

Erik Chevalier of Forking Path.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RiTides wrote:
I've already posted previously about this in the thread, but I don't agree with you that there is more risk in this project than others. As I noted, I only upped my pledge after the creators were revealed - because I have seen way too many "first time creators" struggle through things just like what Prodos did with their first projects, and even much worse when they are outsourcing production.

We all have different tolerances for risk.

Myself, I avoid "First Created" projects, or at least start researching the company more heavily than I would one with prior KS experience. Frex, With Monolith, I checked every non-artist name affiliated with the project, even the name of the BGG user who posted image pictures for the Conan database entry. Prodos / Archon is unusual in that most creators with poor reputations don't try for a second KS. Some KS backers do not fund a project from a creator until they receive their rewards, which is another way of asking a creator to prove themselves that they can fulfill before a backer will pledge for their next project (I should have done this myself with one of my KS!).

Still, I hope with LOAD, Prodos will prove the nay-sayers wrong and fulfill their backers as well as they cast their miniatures. While I can only look back at history, that doesn't mean there's no future.

Yeah,
prodos what's happening with the clear predators?

Can you answer somewhere?

When will I get them?
And all the other stuff you owe the AVP backers?

...

LOAD - Customers this is what you can expect in 5 days time.
Prodos take your money and shut down communications.
3 years later you wonder what happened???

Save your money, buy at retail.
In our experience you will get your miniatures cheaper and quicker than backers.

Panic...

 CptJake wrote:
I LOVE seeing the Prodos logo representing the Archon work in the above image.

Yet when it is convenient for Jarek and crew we must believe they are completely separate entities.

Good stuff.

Yeah, the idea that they are at all independent companies is a pretty laughable lie.

 TheWaspinator wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I LOVE seeing the Prodos logo representing the Archon work in the above image.

Yet when it is convenient for Jarek and crew we must believe they are completely separate entities.

Good stuff.

Yeah, the idea that they are at all independent companies is a pretty laughable lie.

Legally it's a fact, not a lie.

But as it's the same people running things, don't expect wildly different outcomes and results. After all, the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.

MaxT wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I LOVE seeing the Prodos logo representing the Archon work in the above image.

Yet when it is convenient for Jarek and crew we must believe they are completely separate entities.

Good stuff.

Yeah, the idea that they are at all independent companies is a pretty laughable lie.

Legally it's a fact, not a lie.

But as it's the same people running things, don't expect wildly different outcomes and results. After all, the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.

Hi MaxT. This is MaxZ. It sems I am only a few posts behind you.

Hi MaxZ !

(gets further ahead)