Burro-crat's page

SombreroDeLaNuit wrote:

...the real question is why did Paizo let ND put the Paizo logo in The Who were are section of the Kickstarter... letting people believe that it was a joint venture... and now decline any responsibilities and knowing that nothing will come out ...

Our logo was present on the Kickstarter because it's a licensed product, not a "joint venture." Just like our logo is present on Pathfinder Battles minis boxes, and Q-Workshop dice, and Owlcat's Kingmaker video game, and pretty much every other licensed product ever. That's how licensing works.

Saying we are "declin[ing] any responsibilities and knowing that nothing will come out" is a gross mischaracterization. Please see Sara Marie's post above for what we're really saying.

Having a logo prominent on a product is one thing--I don't know how your licensing agreement reads, but the Kickstarter campaign itself is not a product. If the only Paizo logo present on the campaign site was on a mockup of the packaging for a mini or something like that, I don't think folks would be as justified in complaining. Rather, under the "About Us" section, Paizo is the first entity listed, and it goes beyond your logo. You can see how people would interpret Paizo as being either the primary or a joint partner, right? Or at a minimum, strongly vouching for ND?

At this point leaving this thread up is causing more trouble than it's worth with the same tired points being made over and over and over.

No, I daresay leaving this thread up is a lot less trouble than if the thread were deleted/removed/closed. For many people, that would send a very loud signal. Paizo knows that.

Plus, you can choose not to read it. The ball is ENTIRELY in your court.

The melodrama is reaching a fever pitch and everyone screaming about their lost money are getting out how hand, people aren't even reading the actual facts at hand here and just keep spiraling angrily until someone comes along to rationally defend the Golem... at which point it devolves into hyperbole and personal attacks which get deleted along with any post that the attack quoted.

I would also say that outside of a few moments, the tone of this thread has been pretty appropriate and measured and not outlandish. People have the right to be upset and angry, and everyone is out some amount of money, and for many, it's not an insignificant amount of money. If you'll notice, the flames of this thread tend to get worse right after apologetics are posted (which are almost always baseless). To be fair and clear, it has NOT been Paizo doing that. Customer Service has walked an appropriate and difficult line.

It's a nasty cycle that is only serving to MISinform the poor folks who just want news about the project they backed.

People are sharing information they have gathered from other sources on the internet. Don't act like it's all misinformation. I learned about ND breaking the silence on this thread. And about Archon's plans. There is useful information being conveyed.

If Paizo COULD come out and say anything they would, and temper tantrums being thrown and threatening to stop buy their products or boycott them is ENTIRELY MISSING THE POINT that they are NOT LIABLE for the poor handling, delays, and production issues that ND has. It only makes it HARDER for them to reply to your questions when the whole garden has been salted with bad info, hate, and trollfat.

Maybe, maybe not? I don't know if this is the agreed upon tactic, but a lot of companies get through bad PR by just not saying anything. It's probably the most common tactic. I don't think that's what's going on here since Customer Service has participated in this thread, but none of us can know for sure until the silence is actually broken.

Claiming Paizo is not liable at all is just as disingenuous as saying they are completely liable. Maybe a post or two suggested they are totally liable, but I can't recall any posts like that and the overwhelming majority--if not virtually everyone--who is upset is not claiming that at all. Too many of the apologetics involve forcing completely binary arguments like that one, and THAT is what's not helpful. If (1) Paizo hadn't been so publicly vocal about their confidence in ND and (2) the Kickstarter not had Paizo featured so prominently--and primarily really--as the owner of the Kickstarter, I don't think this situation would be where it was. There is no doubt that this Kickstarter had WAY more participants because of those two issues.

Acting like the ground has salted here is, in itself, a melodramatic statement. Folks have been pretty patient considering it's been a couple months since this thread was re-animated and yet there are still no real developments.

If this is true you cannot really blame a company for being forced to make a decision like this instead of taking a huge tax hit. I'd personally expect them to maybe bulk sell the items on ebay before that point though to at least recoup some of their lost revenue but I'm no business/tax guru so who knows?

I am assuming they cannot sell them, mostly likely per the contract with ND.

Kroothawk wrote:

You can go on claiming that the world has only 3 companies capable of doing scifi miniatures (and including ND in that list of "large" companies).

Everyone else knows this is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.

I will give you the same answer I've given before when this ahs come up.

Please list other companies that have the capability & willingness do do said project and provide a letter from them verifying they have the capability and would have said yes if approached.

Arguing that Paizo should have turned down ND's offer AT THE TIME WITHOUT KNOWING HOW BADLY IT WOULD TURN OUT, and gone to another, as of yet mythical company, because while people like you continue to spout off about how many there are, but no one has listed a single viable alternative is just nonsense.

If you want anyone to take you seriously you need to back up your claim as to the existence of these mythical companies that would have jumped at the chance to provide minis.

While true, just because ND is the last one standing doesn't mean a business arrangement should have been made. Maybe Paizo did exhaust all their options. Maybe their other options were also riskier. Maybe the two big boys on the block legitimately weren't interested. Maybe they weren't given enough time. Maybe the financials of the licensing deal didn't make sense to them. I don't know. But I do know a game can occur without minis and virtually all do. I mean, minis never come out for a while with even Paizo's games. Plus, the cardboard pawns were out fairly quickly if folks really needed something for verisimilitude.

I take as false any overt or implied argument from any party that the minis were "essential" for the success of Starfinder--whether this argument is being used to justify going into a deal with ND or to explain, in hindsight, while a deal the deal was made. As a business you seek out any revenue streams you can get--especially if they are low cost revenue streams--but let's not act like this licensing deal was one of the major revenue streams.

Furthermore, I think this argument is often being used to distract from the real issue for many. Paizo assessed their risk/reward with licensing to ND, but ultimately, the entirety of the immediate financial risk was borne by Kickstarter backers--and that possibility had to be known at the time of entering into a business engagement with ND. So, what was it, that made Paizo comfortable? I don't suspect we'll ever know, but I sure hope--and suspect--the reason is more than "well, we aren't the ones who will bear the financial risk, so let's do it."

Kroothawk wrote:

Are they able to do sci-fantasy miniatures?
ND said yes, but everyone in the business including customers knew: No, not for a while.

The minis they have delivered disagrees with that.

As for everything else, it's what's been stated. Others turned them down or couldn't meet what they were needing, ND promised them they could. So it was ND or nothing.

Just because ND *said* yes doesn't mean they could. Nor does it mean that that simple answer was enough, given their performance history.

And to be clear, it wasn't "ND or nothing," but rather, "[ND delivers OR ND completely wets the bed and severely ticks off some chunk of customers] or nothing." At the time, that was apparent.

We will probably never really know but I wish we could learn what ND said/did/showed to Paizo made the Paizo brass feel comfortable. That may lead to further frustration--or it may lead to some sympathy. I think that's what many people are really upset about--that we can't square how Paizo would go with this company--and let this company use Paizo's reputation as a security net on this Kickstarter--given the company's history and all the warnings from customers. And closure may never occur.

The Kickstarter backers and GameOnTabletop late pledges are not customers of Paizo nor Ninja Division. We freely gave our money, not for a product, but to assist a company in developing a product. That is the fundamental basis of Kickstarter.

So our relationship to ND is not one of customer-retailer, but rather closer to patron-artist. As far as the failed Kickstarter goes, Paizo slapped their name all over it but they have no legal obligation or business connection to us at all. It's simply marketing.

By entering into a licensing agreement with ND and by allowing the use of Paizo's name, Paizo absolutely has skin in this game. It may not be in the narrowest legal sense (which is probably moot, since ND is broke), but to think Paizo has no responsibility here is an overly academic position.

So because an artist failed in their artistic endeavor, that makes them liable to suit from those that patronized them? That seems an unfair precedent to set.

You are making an illogical leap here. You went from saying in the binary designation of "customer-retailer [relationship]" or "patron-artist [relationship]" (the binary designation is debatable, but let's go with it), our relationship to ND is more of a patron to an artist--to that holding an "artist" liable would be an unfair precedent to set. First, if you contracted with an artist for some sum of money to be exchanged for a fairly specific work of art--and the details of that art, as well as mockup, were well documented before the exchange of money--and all that artist produced is a very small part of that work of art, you would have legal standing. That doesn't mean it's prudent to sue, but "doing art" doesn't absolve responsibility of the artist.

Furthermore, ND is not an artist. Backers did not ask them to produce something of some indeterminate or nebulous quality. ND said they would create a very tangible, understandable, generally ordinary product (albeit for a particular piece of intellectual property). Outside of the specific look of Starfinder, we all understand what minatures are, generally how they're made, and we knew exactly how many ND said they would produce--and which ones--based on the money provided. That they asked for money up front to deliver a very explicit, specific product implies an unwritten contractual obligation to the people who provided money. That the commercial transaction did not occur in a more traditional medium does not make it less of a commercial transaction.

We knew upfront that this money was effectively lost the moment we spent it. There's a whole section of every Kickstarter description devoted to potential risks, so we can't say we weren't aware what we signed up for.

This is a pretty acrobatic apology. Yes, we all know there's risk when we engage in a Kickstarter. However, folks that funded it DID expect it was likely they would get a product. To suggest otherwise is silly. Moreover, that Paizo's name was allowed to be used all over this Kickstarter provided additional "reasonable assurance" that the Kickstarter would at least largely be fulfilled. Therein lies the skin in the game.

And again, there is no contractual obligation for ND to provide us a product. Now, if it came out that they defrauded everyone with 0 intention of delivering anything, just to take the money and run, then maybe we'd be able to go after them in court. But that's a really high bar to clear. And the fact that some people did receive miniatures (however few) shows they at least attempted to do what they said they would. They just failed.

The absence of a written contract does not mean there is no contractual obligation, just like the presence of a written contract does not mean that the written contract is full-proof. Again, you're posing a very binary view of things (complete, outright fraud v. earnest but failed management of a project), which is particularly problematic since it's likely neither one of those options encapsulates ND's intentions. Producing a fraction of the product promised does not mean ND earnestly tried to fulfill their obligations as presented in the Kickstarter campaign. I, as many others think, suspect ND was raising funds to pay off moneys owed to others, hoping they would catch lightning in a bottle and make themselves and everyone whole. Those don't equate to earnest intentions of fully fulfilling the Kickstarter campaign.

Does it suck? Yes. Do I wish someone else would have taken the license and made SF minis? Absolutely. But to keep blaming Paizo or demanding some recompense for mistakes we made is pointless. I know I'll take a hard pass on anything associated with Ninja Division or the people who work(ed) there in the future. Lesson learned. Let's move on. I've got Infinity miniatures to paint!

Edit: I really appreciate that Sara Marie and Paizo in general are not giving up on this and continuing to work behind the scenes. But I'm honestly treating anything we might get in the future as a surprise bonus. ND failed us and trying to punish them now is pointless.

Suggesting that Paizo is either "completely" or "not at all" responsible is disingenuous. I don't think any of the critics are saying they're completely responsible; we are saying that Paizo has skin in this game, and they know it. Even if no legal action occurs--and I expect no legal action to occur--this is a bad look for Paizo given that they (1) engaged in a license with what is in their business a known bad operator, (2) allowed free and generous use of their name in the solicitation of funds, (3) are profiting from the same product, albeit through a different legal mechanism, by selling the exact, same minis on their website (no one can convince me that the funding ND acquired from Kickstarter and any funding ND acquired from Paizo for developing those same minis can be properly segregated), and (4) didn't address this issue publicly until there was a robust and protracted outcry from customers.

Fully absolve all you want. Many won't, and they are justified in doing so.

I do think that Paizo has the responsibility to explain to some extent how they are selling the miniatures yet the Kickstarter backers are left in the cold. I understand this may be the best way for the Kickstarter to get funded, and there was certainly a different contract for Ninja Division (oh, how the name is so fitting) to deliver product to Paizo than the agreement around the Kickstarter, and blah blah blah--but Paizo's name is ALL OVER the Kickstarter page. Paizo has skin in this game. And Paizo hasn't spoken to this at all.

Maybe instead of allowing their name to be linked to the Kickstarter in such a prominent way, they should have done their due diligence on this company. Clearly, they didn't.

To me, the answer's simple: no Kickstarter fulfillment, no more Paizo purchases.