Kickstarter backers are getting the game now, for the rest of us we can preorder it for 48 GBP in the UK[1], on average each backer payed 104$ into the campaign, non backers can get a copy of the game now for 63$ (only 4$ more than the cheapest get a copy of the game option on kickstarter).
It's not that surprising that some people question what the money is actually being spent on during those KS campaigns, and with how many of them fail all the time due to mismanagement not to mention being potentially fraud cases to begin with I think it's a question worth asking.
I also think it's about time that Kickstarter forces companies to be more open and transparent about how they spend the money, Kickstarter already takes power from consumers because they become effectively investors but without any of the perks that come with being a shareholder and it just might be the time we get some of that power back.
[1]https://www.theboardgamehut.co.uk/preorders/116-scythe-preor...
For the cost of this project specifically, the cheapest version of Scythe on Kickstarter comes with quite a few extra things (extra game cards, better tokens, that kind of thing) that the retail version won't (maybe about $30 worth, although I haven't done the calculations). In addition, the project owner has been the best example of an owner keeping their backers up-to-date with production - check out the 39 updates on the Kickstarter! I think it's fair to say that I've learned a huge amount about the board game industry through his campaigns (although him supplying backers with the names of the ships that were carrying containers of the game from factory to distribution points brought me to new levels of shipping-anxiety), and I think that his price points have always been fair.
I have had some bad experiences with Kickstarter of course (Pebble's first Kickstarter was a farce even though they delivered eventually, Hello Sense haven't delivered on their promise), but Jamey's projects have never been one of them.
It's good to hear that your experience with this project was a good one, I still do not like crowdfunding, I more or less see it as capitalism at it's worst which allows for opportunistic people to operate without the most important restriction of the free market - responsibility towards your investors.
And while I do see the appeal in crowdfunding and I do understand that it might be the only way to grinlight certain projects or products, it seems to be used too much these days, and in many cases by individuals or companies that would not have issues getting funding through traditional channels which means they either want to profit more of their product (kickstarter funding is considerably cheaper than any other source of funding bar government grants) or the actual risk of that project is too high for any sensible investor to invest in it in the first place.
Whats worse is that Kickstarter has very little incentive to combat this type of behaviour since it's their source of revenue, they get their cut regardless if the project succeeds or not, they do not inherit any (or very little) of the risk, and without actual legislation that will define rules for crowdfunding I don't see them enforcing any real restrictions by themselves unless we as consumers stop playing their game, and based on the fact that Kickstarter only seems to get more popular with every disaster I don't think that day would arrive any time soon.
What I'm becoming more and more concerned about, however, is products which are clearly unviable, or just plain silly. There seems to be a surge in people saying 'A computer the size of a pack of cards? I can make that!' (to use a random example rather than picking on any particular product) and then collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce a low quality Raspberry Pi clone. Or even worse, nothing at all, and going bankrupt before they get the chance to refund backers (as if that was ever in their plan).
Jamey definitely didn't need to raise 1.8 million to get his game into production, (he asked for $33k I think). I imagine that the success was a bit of a shock, and he's considering pulling out of using Kickstarter in the future in favour of a more traditional pre-order route (he's written a fair amount about it on his blog http://stonemaiergames.com/e-newsletter/blog/, which is a very interesting read whether you like Kickstarter, the business of board games or neither).
However, that is not the case in the sleazy consumer products/Internet of Things area of Kickstarter, where it is common to do things like pay consultants 10-33% of money raised to pump up the campaign, something that's only viable if the development costs aren't significant enough for the project to turn out well.
I have seen this a lot, people suggesting that it is somehow wrong or destructive to use Kickstarter unless you have no other options.
Why? What if he just likes Kickstarter, it works well for his funding and pre-order needs, and his audience is familiar with it? Why should he stop using something that works to cobble together some other system that does the same thing? Why should he use a 20th century funding strategy and business structure when we live in a time when you can just fill out a form, press a button, and then run a business out of your kitchen? Isn't that kind of the dream?
The only argument I've heard is that it somehow takes revenue away from other more constrained Kickstarters. I guess the idea is that people go onto Kickstarter with a fixed budget and choose some number of projects to back within that budget.
But I have doubts that "is this within my budget for Kickstarter projects?" is a common purchasing constraint. And there is also the fact that by putting his projects on Kickstarter, he is repeatedly drawing his customer base to the site, many of whom will then browse for other related content, thus increasing the funding for other projects.
They're not taking anything from anyone. If you don't like it don't use it. You're using really alarmist language to talk about a website people go to voluntarily. It's not food and water. It's board games. Why do you care how other people chose to use their money?
Kickstarter and the rest of the crowd source services mix customers and investors into a mishmash that effectively strips you from the rights and privileges of either. You do not receive the rights and benefits of being an investor nor do you enjoy the guaranteed buyer protection as you would as a consumer buying a product.
And while you can try and hide behind the "it's a choice" argument this doesn't pass the simple smell test. Launching a product via crowdfunding is now cheaper and less risky than launching a product through normal means, like some one else have mentioned in this thread, there are too many companies that use it as a marketing and pre-order platform instead of what it originally was meant to be - a place to get funding for projects that would not be able to be funded through normal means. If this trend continues and everything moves to kickstarter like platforms you as a consumer suffer, you lose the rights and benefits that consumer protection laws provide, while still paying the same price and sometimes even a premium.
I don't care what people do with their money, I care about trends that could have a negative impact on myself or society now or in the future. For me this is no different than the twitter, google, or facebook "censorship" debate, you can claim these are private services and they can do what they want. I see it from a different perspective, in my eyes when you reach a certain market position you no longer can hide behind "I'm just a company I can do what I want" and you must respect the neutrality of information and the freedom of speech for everyone.
Yes you are.
> nor do you enjoy the guaranteed buyer protection as you would as a consumer buying a product.
Is this actually true? I mean when you order a product you pay for a contract, it's possible the company will not deliver and go bankrupt - isn't that exactly the same situation as when you order via Kickstarter?
> there are too many companies that use it as a marketing and pre-order platform instead of what it originally was meant to be - a place to get funding for projects that would not be able to be funded through normal means.
A lot of websites end up being used for something different from what they were originally intended for. Heck, the Internet itself was intended for quite different purposes than those it serves today. Who cares?
> If this trend continues and everything moves to kickstarter like platforms you as a consumer suffer, you lose the rights and benefits that consumer protection laws provide, while still paying the same price and sometimes even a premium.
In a competitive marketplace there is no anti-free-lunch. No-one is getting rich off board gaming. Rather, more and better board games are being created. Customers aren't being stupid, they're accepting the risks because they're worth it.
I agree with most of your points but this one I have a bit of an issue with.
I get that this may not have been the original vision of Kickstarter and similar platforms. But, in terms of consumer risk, this actually seems to be pretty far down the scale. Say I'm using Kickstarter to gauge interest in something I basically know how to do and have the capital to create. Is that really a problem compared to doing a Kickstarter for something that's a germ of an idea with many unknown development and production issues to come?
I do get that pre-orders are riskier than pre-orders on Amazon. But it still seems as if market validation of a concept/product is still useful for everyone concerned.
It's an interesting question about fairness to consumers. Honestly I don't know that fairness is relevant here, as the Kickstarter boardgame scene is thriving -- many new board games exist through kickstarter than would otherwise exist in the world, and the consumers know this and participate in the ecosystem. If the kickstarter was limited to raising money for development costs then it's not clear that the producers would be quite as incentivized to put projects up there.
The most interesting consumer side effect is one model has prices drop after launch, and the other has prices increase after launch.
One similarity is both models require extreme levels of customer participation, not a mere casual search at amazon for any game and expect it to arrive in two days, its a multi-month (year?) commitment of planning ahead and keeping up with the marketplace.
From having participated in some RPG kickstarters (admittedly slightly off topic) I sometimes think they aren't even beginning product development until some time after the kickstarter is funded, which will eventually lead to some spectacular inevitable fails.
GMT Games are a wargame company. They specialise in the classic style of wargames, with hexes and tokens with attack and defence strength and whatnot. That said, they have also published things like Reiner Knizia's 'Battle Line', and the famous Cold War geopolitics game 'Twilight Struggle'.
GMT Games release games using their 'Project 500' model. They develop games, and once one is nearly finished, they make it available for pre-order, at a discount. If they get 500 pre-orders, they produce it. If they don't get 500 pre-orders, they don't produce it, and the people who pre-ordered don't get charged [1].
MBT is a modern rewrite [2] of a classic hex-and-counter wargame from 1987 [3] which models tank warfare in Europe during the version of World War 3 which looked most likely at the time.
DVG is Dan Verssen Games, also primarily a wargame company. They have done a number of kickstarters. Some just sell the game at a modest discount, like Warfighter - World War II [4]. Some upsell pricey vanity options, like The Cards of Cthulhu [5].
Eurogames are a hard-to-define genre which, IMHO, emphasise mechanics giving rise to involving, complex play rather than realism. Settlers of Catan is the godfather. Further examples are Carcassonne, Ticket to Ride, Alhambra, Kingdom Builder, etc.
Grognards are players of classic hex-and-counter wargames [6], and, metonymically, such games themselves.
[1] https://www.gmtgames.com/t-GMTP500Details.aspx
[2] http://www.insidegmt.com/?p=498
[3] https://boardgamegeek.com/image/87628/mbt
[4] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/11606594/warfighter-wor...
[5] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/dvgames/the-cards-of-ct...
It's absolutely true that consumers are taking more risks than your average GameStop preorder. Stonemeier has an impeccable record, and so his company reaps the ongoing benefits of that lower delivery risk profile by using KS. Another way to think of this is that you are completely free to avoid project risk by purchasing from a backer via BGG/ebay, but will likely have to pay a premium for it. I imagine some people intentionally preorder two, just to pop one up for sale.
For a game like this where a big part of the appeal is the artwork there isn't really a clean divide between development and production, but it's fair to say a decent chunk of the money could be attributed to "production", sure.
What's the distinction you're drawing between kickstarter and preorder? Legally and practically they're the same thing, no? In any case I don't see what you could be considering "unfair".
Kickstarters that do not offer rewards, just to cover some development process, generally do not work as well. People want to get stuff.
Wouldn't it be more fair to consumers if only development cost was covered by the kickstarter and then production costs were covered by actual pre-orders?