Distributors declining games based on BGG ratings

All that will happen now is that there will be a league of good and evil sock-puppets organized to manipulate the ratings. They'll also employ paid Barkers for the Ballyhoo.

Gary Sax wrote: I'm going with outrageous. This was sort of always the big fear with BGG ratings, that at some point it would mean something besides a consumer "suggestion."

Someone should have filed an anti-trust suit when they bought BoardGameNews. They have become far too powerful and profit directly from both distributor and publisher relationships. This pretty much guarantees that anyone trying to self-publish a game will fail, unless it's a Kickstarter game.

Michael Barnes wrote: Kickstarter products SHOULD NOT be in retail at all. The business model does not support retail, especially B&M. B&M stores rely on consistent, quality product and things like organized play and in-store support. Kickstarter is about direct sales from some dude that has this "awesome" idea for a game- or a publisher that is using the crowdfunding fad to cover a production up front. It's all hype. Witness Myth. I feel for CSI, they can't seem to give away their copies of it. Who knows how many they are sitting on.

I know some of you guys have Kickstarter projects and as always I hope you guys get to buy a gold house and a rocket car from your proceeds- best of luck. But I think that _without exception_ that distribution should be actively excluding these products simply because there is no viable metric for determining the marketplace sustainability of any of these games or the "businesses" that are publishing them.

Beyond my own self interest, I disagree with the blanket statement. 99%, probably yes, but I think that there is absolutely the possibility for quality evergreen titles to come out of KS funded initial print runs. Look at it similar to what the PnP, or even mini personal print runs, were doing years ago. Once in a while someone comes up with something that is really great and for whatever reasons decides to not go with a big publisher out the gate. You have some breakout titles like The Resistance that started as a free set of rules you played with a regular deck of cards and is now selling consistently and is a pretty solid crossover hit.

KS means that there is generally a much larger pile of shit to wade through, but I think we can continue to expect to see titles that started on KS break through. Crash Games is a solid example; Patrick is a serious publisher interested in building a brand and company for the long term, who's putting out well received titles and using KS as a means to front load costs and raise capital. He's still getting into distro, he just had a French edition of Council of Veron get licensed, and the same game is going to be on Tabletop. So it would seem to be very possible to start on KS and still create a hit of the sort that stores and distros will carry; the odds just seem worse now with so many more mediocre games looking for attention.

Barnes, as usual, lets ideology get in the way of his understanding of the market.

If people want to buy things, there's no plausible reason that people should not be selling them. That's how the market generally works. If a game has shown its value by being Kickstarted successfully, well, that is a great indicator of interest, and I'd argue a thousand times more salient a market indicator than some arbitrary number that 20 people plug into a computer screen with a witty quip about "How they can't wait for this, but have never played it!".

People put their money where their mouths are regarding KS projects, and that's far more telling a market indicator than BGG ratings.

Well, it is Friday.

SuperflyTNT wrote: People put their money where their mouths are regarding KS projects, and that's far more telling a market indicator than BGG ratings.

It also means that the distributor is in the second line of distribution, one that invariably is selling the product at a higher price and likely with less materials.

I don't think the original discussion was regarding Kickstarter specifically. Any homegrown game could fit the category. I think the issue is more about product promotion and advertising than it is about source.

Curious that this hasn't popped up on BGG yet.

S.

There's a difference between direct sales and distribution, and I see little difference between Kickstarter and FFG's store, from a customer perspective. The retailer/OLGS will always sell it lower than the store, and Kickstarter is nothing more than a preorder. I think people understand that you get a price discount for preordering product, and that's fair.

But I still think distribution does itself a disservice by using a totally subjective and wholly irrelevant metric with which to judge demand if it's using BGG's numbers, especially when there's so much better of a metric to use, such as using "WishList 5's" or "Want To Buy" data, let alone the number of Kickstarter backers.

Edit: Come to think of it, why the hell doesn't BGG have a "Backed This Project" tickbox beneath "Want to Buy/Owned/Used To Own..." etc?

SuperflyTNT wrote: Edit: Come to think of it, why the hell doesn't BGG have a "Backed This Project" tickbox beneath "Want to Buy/Owned/Used To Own..." etc?

"Preordered"

I actually think this has been a solid/interesting discussion, not friday freakout, from both sides... thanks!

Taking the Spartacus game as an example, maybe that game shouldn't have made it to distribution, because I;ve seen it being dumped in a few clearance sales. I bought it myself when it was under $25*, and surely nobody is ordering in pallets of $50-$60 MSRP games hoping to get back $25 (is that even break-even for a retailer?)

*great for me, not so great for the store? They got me eventually with the expansion, though.