RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I was just pondering ("If they call then sad meals, no one would buy them.") if it is time to add a 'Kickstarter' subgroup. There are a number of groups now using Kickstarter, and just thinking all the Kickstarter things in one section (separate from compatible products) might be best.
I agree* (maybe a broader "crowdsourcing" category). It would be very useful to me (I struggle to browse the kickstarter site effectively, but a place here for people to spruik their projects would be very convenient).
* With Matthew, not with TOZ.
Good idea. I could hide the forum and avoid temptation. :)
That wouldn't work for me, I don't check my email, instead I check the site for updates, and I'll usually notice something else of interest.
I feel like a kickstarter section would take away from the specific subsections that already exist that cover the same things: games, miniatures, and technology being the primary ones.
|
|
yeah, but for compatible products, for example, a kickstarter notice, or several, could bump existing products off the top of the list (and thereby away from folks doing a quick perusal of the thread topics). Conversely, a KS post could be lost if a slew of new product threads go up at once. Having all the KS threads in one place would alleviate the potential for either scenario as well as make it easier to locate KS notices.
I think kickstarters are getting out of hand. It seems like every company is wanting money from kickstarters to produce products. They probably would be making the product anyway and are just making extra money from kickstarters. I am sure there are exceptions. You just need to take a hard look at what is offered and at what price.
I think kickstarters are getting out of hand. It seems like every company is wanting money from kickstarters to produce products. They probably would be making the product anyway and are just making extra money from kickstarters. I am sure there are exceptions. You just need to take a hard look at what is offered and at what price.
Well firstly of many companies are turning to kickstarter as an alternative to traditional funding. IE banks. Many companies would make the product eventually but using kickstarter they managed to make there product better and to gauge customer reaction.
Best example I can think of was Steve Jackson said outright that he would be reprinting Ogre with or without kickstarter, but he did not know what the interest would be and he likely would have only done a very small print run. Because that kick starter did amazing well he knew before the product was printed how many copies he should make and was able to make the product much better.
Evil Baby orphanage is one I put money into and they where able to upgrade expansions and the printing material because of the success of there kickstarter.
And of course you should take a hard look at what is being offered and for what price. That's called anything you spend money on.
Going through Kickstarter is like digging through a oile of cow dung to try and find a diamond. There are a few nice ones on there but a whole lot of junk too.
I think kickstarters are getting out of hand. It seems like every company is wanting money from kickstarters to produce products. They probably would be making the product anyway and are just making extra money from kickstarters. I am sure there are exceptions. You just need to take a hard look at what is offered and at what price.
How is more choice a bad thing? If it's too expensive, dont sign up - the problem with kickstarter is not the potential for overcharging, it's the transferral of risk from producer to consumer.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well firstly of many companies are turning to kickstarter as an alternative to traditional funding. IE banks. Many companies would make the product eventually but using kickstarter they managed to make there product better and to gauge customer reaction.
Best example I can think of was Steve Jackson said outright that he would be reprinting Ogre with or without kickstarter, but he did not know what the interest would be and he likely would have only done a very small print run. Because that kick starter did amazing well he knew before the product was printed how many copies he should make and was able to make the product much better.
Evil Baby orphanage is one I put money into and they where able to upgrade expansions and the printing material because of the success of there kickstarter.
And of course you should take a hard look at what is being offered and for what price. That's called anything you spend money on.
If I may add two more examples, the Goblinworks quickstarter I signed up for to benefit myself, the book itself is what I want, and that's what I'm after. Their goal (to produce a 'demo reel' for the MMORPG) didn't coincide with mine. The incentive (the Pathfinder RPG book) was why I chipped in.
The other example is Rappan Athuk. Bill said Mrs. Frog God wouldn't let him 'front' the money to have it published, so kickstarter was his alternative.
The risk should be from the producer and not the consumer. If the product is not good enough then the company should lose money. The consumer should not be paying for a product they have not seen unless they are very familiar with the company and the product. How can anybody think it is the consumer who should have the risk and not the producer of a product?
The risk should be from the producer and not the consumer. If the product is not good enough then the company should lose money. The consumer should not be paying for a product they have not seen unless they are very familiar with the company and the product. How can anybody think it is the consumer who should have the risk and not the producer of a product?
Because I recognise that there are products I will never see if I wait for some company to take the risk on my behalf. It's nothing to do with quality - it's about popularity and certainty of sales. My desire to contribute to kickstarter projects comes with wanting esoteric/unusual products - I have to be prepared to stump up money, in advance or the project just isnt going to happen since the things I want are not the things producers can be comfortable they're going to sell. I'm happy to take a risk on some of these kickstarter projects. Why shouldnt I be allowed to? I'm not forcing anyone to get involved.
Furthermore, it presents an ideal way for consumers to dictate how much they'll be involved. I can (and have) contributed more than a kickstarter project has asked of me. The producers can make more expensive 'luxury' or 'expanded' options available to those who want them without having to guess how many they're going to sell. Where's the harm in that?
If you're pledging for kickstarter projects and not recognising the risk you're taking (ie that the product may never be delivered or may be delivered very later or very differently from what you expected) then you are making an error of judgement.
There's no problem with crowdsourcing existing alongside more standard capital raising methods provided everyone understands that putting money into a kickstarter is not the same as going to a shop and buying a product.
How can anybody think it is the consumer who should have the risk and not the producer of a product?Kickstarter backers are not customers, they are investors. They accept that risk when they pledge their money to a project.
This is correct, I agree with TriOmegaZero. That is also why a well ran Kickstarter offers a reward. All risk investments bring the opportunity for reward as well as loss. The key is to understand your risk and limit your exposure by understanding your risk level.
How can anybody think it is the consumer who should have the risk and not the producer of a product?Kickstarter backers are not customers, they are investors. They accept that risk when they pledge their money to a project.
I was about to point this out when TOZ did so quite well.
The question about whether Paizo should have a kicksttarter section is really one of interest for the company itself. Paizo is not likely to use a kickstarter (although Goblinworks did) for it's products.
1. Is it in their interest to provide advertising for other company's products from which they will not directly benefit?
2. Given the uncertain nature of kickstarter results should they, indirectly by their presence on the Paizo boards, pitch them to their customers?
They get posted about anyway (I've done it myself) but is crowdsourcing something Paizo wants to promote? Does it suck business away from them? Will people hold them responsible for failures (legally not possible I know)? There are a lot of things to consider beyond this.
You could argue for or against it, but it isn't a simple decision.
*sigh* Back to work. Done playing hooky. Grading is not fun...
They're really obstinate about not making new fora. We can't even get a forum for discussing online campaigns in general! (As opposed to just ooc threads for ongoing games.) I don't see it happening.
How can anybody think it is the consumer who should have the risk and not the producer of a product?Kickstarter backers are not customers, they are investors. They accept that risk when they pledge their money to a project.
Very much so!
I'm helping some teenage kid send his school science project into (near) space. Am I a consumer? Nope, I'm an investor. In this case I am an investor in 'goodwill' and perhaps this eager young pup is the guy who gets us to Mars one day.
HEARTsat.
Some of these Kickstarters are just helping someone somewhere get their dream into reality, and frankly I don't mind shelling out a few bucks here and there for it to happen. That we might get some cool gaming stuff going on is a bonus. The Reaper deal, for example, was the best of both worlds - get some dirt cheap product & help bring jobs and industry back to America.
The risk should be from the producer and not the consumer. If the product is not good enough then the company should lose money. The consumer should not be paying for a product they have not seen unless they are very familiar with the company and the product. How can anybody think it is the consumer who should have the risk and not the producer of a product?
Because niche consumers want products that are not obvious ecconomic successes.
Why should an investor invest a couple hundred thousand to multiple millions of dolars for something like a point and click adventure game when video game sales/advertising people think the genre is dead? Double Fine on the other hand was able to go to its potential customers and ask if people want it, and now multiple other point and click adventure games are getting enough funding to at least pay for production costs.
Producers can take on significantly less risk by using kickstarter because they do not need to make profit to pay external investors. Their initial costs are hopefully paid for by the crowdsourcing, so anything they make is just gravy. Investors on the other hand want to maximize profits on their investment, and so they will take their money where there is the most potential gain. They will pass over niche products they are unsure of. Kickstarter allows people to make what they want without having to wory about being able to attract large audiences to secure funding.
How can anybody think it is the consumer who should have the risk and not the producer of a product?Kickstarter backers are not customers, they are investors. They accept that risk when they pledge their money to a project.
This. I have done many, and a couple have not come to fruition. So be it. The ones that HAVE are fantastic. I just got Coolminiornot's Zombicide in the mail and it was worth every penny.
Reaper's recent Bones Kickstarter is another. Who would have thought there would be 3.4 million dollars in investment capital for miniatures? Those who invested at $100 level get their minis for pennies apiece. Also, a respected miniature company gets some sorely needed capital to upgrade their molds to the latest technology, which is a win-win for the community.
Outside of gaming, artists like Amanda Palmer are able to use crowdsourcing to fund their own artistic vision without having to kowtow to the dictates of the recording industry. Thus, a pure artwork is created without corporate compromise.
I'd rather take a chance and let the actual market dictate what the people want than wait for some corporate clown to hold a meeting and decide "what our customer's want" which is usually wildly wrong. IMO it's no riskier than buying something and discovering it isn't what was advertised. Plus, the investor gets to see the process (and in some cases shape it) from start to finish.
|
So far I have these KS projects.
Patrons of the Monstrous Arts - 2 years overdue (PDF has been released, no hardcover.)
Journeys To The West - 2 months overdue
Quantum - 4 months overdue
It Came From Beyond The Stars - 3 months overdue
Order of the Stick Reprint - In progress
Elevation Dock - Delivered
Oddly Normal - On schedule
Anime Angels - Delivered
Myth and Magic - Delivered (not quite the final, but the PDF was all I was getting.)
Midgard Tales - On schedule
Rappan Athuk - In progress
Diamond Trust of London - Delivered
Castles and Crusades - Delivered
Mask of Death - In progress
HazzaH - Unfunded
Reaper Miniatures - On schedule
InKarnate Toolset - Funding
Phantasmaburbia - On schedule
Ultimate Psionics Hardcover - Funding
Out of 20, 1 is barely avoiding vaporware, 3 are behind schedule, and 5 are fully satisfied. I'd say my risks were well taken overall.
I've pledged to 54 successfuly funded prjoects.
Vaporware - 1 so far has obviously become vaporware.
More than 1 month behind:
Kittens in a Blender - held up in customs
Sentinels of the Multiverse -production delays & held up in customs
Legend of Eisenwald - recieved so much money they are reworking things, causing a January release instead of a November release.
On Schedule: 38
Half of these finished within the last 2 months and have ~6 month delivery times, so not expecting many until November at the earliest.
Partially Fullfilled & more pending: 5
These are not only on time but have provided me with at least part of what they promised.
Delivered on time: 6
Now, I will see how many of the ones on schedule end up disappearing. I expect 1-2 of them to fail, and a few more to be not as good as I was hoping, but I know what to expect with each, and of those delivered only 1 did not exceed my expectations.
I think kickstarters are getting out of hand. It seems like every company is wanting money from kickstarters to produce products. They probably would be making the product anyway and are just making extra money from kickstarters. I am sure there are exceptions. You just need to take a hard look at what is offered and at what price.
I don't know how true that is, most of the kickstarters I've seen are either, no name brand new small publishers or publishers trying to create products that are out of their current budget.
Kaidan Campaign Setting Kickstarter for example is covering the cost of 1 to 3 soft cover printed campaign setting guides.
Rite Publishing has released 8 supplemental Kaidan products without needs for a Kickstarter, all produced with inhouse funding.
Now the Curse of the Golden Spear adventure trilogy was produced by a Rite Publishing inhouse patronage - like Kickstarter, but like the campaign setting was a far more costly product, so required outside funds.
So it depends on the budget required and project needs whether a Kickstarter is necessary or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am a big fan of the kickstarter. Fits right in with the SELF MADE American ideal......even if some aren't American.
Why go to the banks? Its a win win for everyone really.