Another KS bites the dust...

Michael Barnes wrote: Who in their right mind would spend $200 to maybe get a game that looks neat according to its marketing materials?

I'm essentially guilty of this. In the late 1970s I purchased plenty of games solely based on their boxes and maybe an advertisement on TV. I don't think any single one of them was the equivalent of two hundred 2013 dollars, but I'll bet there were a couple of $100 jobbies in there, and I had about the same amount of information back then that Kickstarter provides me now. In a lot of ways Kickstarter and P500s in general (and let's face it, that's ALL Kickstarter is from a gamer's perspective) is returning us back to the level of information we had to work with pre-1994.

S.

Yeah, but the key difference is that you saw the game on a shelf in the store or in a catalog. You weren't giving money to a stranger to possibly make the game. You had a LOT more information at hand, chiefly "this is a product that exists".

Well, the box existed sure. That didn't mean the contents were of any value. I suppose I could have burned them for warmth.

I look at Kickstarter as throw-away money. It's Starbucks money, booster pack money, lottery ticket money. You take a leap of faith and get a certain amount of RoI just from the thrill of the hunt. I agree it's inspiring some pretty strange attempts (just saw "God loves you! Roll again!" in one) at board games, but the Stazi hasn't shown up to force me to buy anything.

Now excuse me while I go look at my health care options.

S.

Michael Barnes wrote: Yeah, but the key difference is that you saw the game on a shelf in the store or in a catalog. You weren't giving money to a stranger to possibly make the game. You had a LOT more information at hand, chiefly "this is a product that exists".

Not just that: the fact it was physical product on a shelf generally carried the promise that it had been designed, developed and tested into a rounded product. You could usually gauge whether this was the case from the production quality. No such guarantee with kickstarter, even if you do eventually end up with product.

I've yet to back anything on kickstarter. Even reprints of games I really want, like Kremlin, have passed me by. I can't imagine being excited enough by something to ever do it.

MattDP wrote: Not just that: the fact it was physical product on a shelf generally carried the promise that it had been designed, developed and tested into a rounded product.

That's based on the publisher's reputation. That hasn't changed. Kickstarter is for garage bands and when you buy you hope for the best, but that leap of faith can be fun too.

For the record I've backed exactly one Kickstarter, from Multiman Publishing. I don't buy lottery tickets or Starbucks coffee either.

S.

I'm bummed that Neal Stephenson's Clang isn't being made, but despite having read most of what he's written--oh wait, I was going to rant about Neal Gaiman reaching Tarantino-sequel levels of media saturation. Sorry, just got up from a nap.

craniac wrote: I'm bummed that Neal Stephenson's Clang isn't being made, but despite having read most of what he's written--oh wait, I was going to rant about Neal Gaiman reaching Tarantino-sequel levels of media saturation. Sorry, just got up from a nap.

Are those kids on your lawn again?

I've seen some bullshit Kickstarters come and go, and overall I don't think that the connection between Kickstarter and the boardgame world has been very positive for either party.

That said, I've backed a couple. Guns of Gettysburg ran so fast and smooth it was like mail-ordering a game, not pre-ordering it. I also backed Kremlin, which I haven't seen yet. That one really was almost coffee money level, though.

I kickstarted Kremlin too. It was promised for January of 2014, and all signals point that it's on target for the time being.

We'll see.

Not Sure wrote:

craniac wrote: I'm bummed that Neal Stephenson's Clang isn't being made, but despite having read most of what he's written--oh wait, I was going to rant about Neal Gaiman reaching Tarantino-sequel levels of media saturation. Sorry, just got up from a nap.

Are those kids on your lawn again?

I've seen some bullshit Kickstarters come and go, and overall I don't think that the connection between Kickstarter and the boardgame world has been very positive for either party.

That said, I've backed a couple. Guns of Gettysburg ran so fast and smooth it was like mail-ordering a game, not pre-ordering it. I also backed Kremlin, which I haven't seen yet. That one really was almost coffee money level, though.

Kickstarter doesn't absolve a buyer from being smart about what he or she is purchasing; in fact, as I think almost everyone understands, it demands a lot more due diligence than normal purchasing if the backer is at all concerned about getting something for his or her money.

I've only backed two boardgames: Colonial and Guns of Gettysburg. Both delivered, and I'm very happy with both games. I've backed one indie movie, one indie music release, and three theater projects: all produced. I've backed fourteen video games, two of which I knew were risky: all but the risky ones produced or are on-track, and I only donated 5 bucks to each of the risky projects, money I was prepared to lose.

Kickstarter isn't difficult. For every failed project I've seen, all the signs were there. People were fucking stupid to give CLANG and Stephenson money: as was very clearly stated, they were seeking a ton of money to produce a prototype, which they were then going to shop in hope of funding. How much more of a warning to do you need?