Kickstarter Too many Kickstarter projects? Is Kickstarter the new d20 glut?

ColonelHardisson said:

Well, yeah, depending on whose Kickstarter you throw money at. When Steve Jackson started the OGRE Kickstarter, I don't think anyone expected it to come to nothing. They probably fully expected to get a product for the money, just as they do when they order from Steve Jackson Games.

Click to expand...

A failed kickstarter by a well established company would be fairly damning, as the people that are most likely to contribute are the biggest fans.

ahayford said:

A failed kickstarter by a well established company would be fairly damning, as the people that are most likely to contribute are the biggest fans.

Click to expand...

I agree. That's why it's significant that Jackson did it. He also led the way for others to follow, if they chose to. Sure, some other known game designers had Kickstarters, but none with the name recognition of Jackson. That helps legitimize the process.

Plus, these letters (caution: there is some strong, non-Grandma-friendly language in them) by Patton Oswalt to comedians and the gatekeepers of the comedy industry, such as it is, could also be applied in a general sense to the RPG industry - things like blogs and now Kickstarter are game changers for the RPG hobby.

Kickstarter is a way for game designers to do things their way, for better or worse, and go directly to the audience. Certainly it's just one tool in a whole set of tools that should include an online presence where content could be generated and a reputation established. But, it's a way for designers to not have to worry about the whims of an editorial staff, and simply be concerned with how their potential audience reacts. Kickstarter is one way to separate the wheat from the chaff; those who simply take the money and run only get that one chance at it, and those who deliver will have more.

Kickstarter = the Ladders

I'm sorry if I'm rehashing arguments -- I haven't read the entire thread -- but I've been contemplating a blog entry on this for some time now.

I got blasted for suggesting that Kickstarter is, or will soon become, like this commercial for "the Ladders" job hunting site: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhqqAUh1VPU]The Ladders Ad - YouTube[/ame].

The arguments we're even on point, showing that the people (who I later found out, not surprisingly, to have Kickstarter projects) weren't even listening to what I was saying because they didn't want any chance of having to admit it was true.

I've contributed to a couple of Kickstarter projects, and so obviously I concede that there's a time and a place for them; however, the model will eventually collapse on itself because a necessary component of business is missing from these projects: risk. If you take away risk by having other people contribute the entire start up capital without giving them a well-deserved ownership stake in the project, then you're going to get far too many projects getting financed that never should see the commercial light of day. What's to stop me from doing a half-a$$ed job on an expensive project with little chance of success or marketability? Not my finances, because I'm not paying for it. Of course, if I'm trying to break into the gaming industry, I don't want garbage out there with my name on it, but I don't fall into that category. I might as well go for it, especially if things are so bad that I need help paying my phone bill. Fortunately for you, I have some sense of ethics, but far too many people don't.

If Kickstarter merely asked a few questions and held people to a certain standard (e.g., at least tried to require backers getting either a) an ownership stake, or b) a good value for the money they've put in), then the system would improve even though it would be impossible to enforce perfectly either option. Anther option would be to require an accounting so that a significant portion of the project is being financed by the creator him/herself, though that would hurt too many of the projects for which Kickstarter was created. All of this might be more trouble than it's worth for the Kickstarter powers-that-be, but if so, as I said, it's a doomed endeavor. There are going to be too many people with projects simply because they can, like the teenage girl putting on make up on the tennis court at Wimbledon. Why not?

As I said, I don't know whether Kickstarter is there yet or just headed there, but it's already to the point where it's so crowded, I don't even bother to look anymore. When i get announcements via email, I don't even read them. I delete them as if they're spam. I'm still on the mailing list because, well, you never know.... I predict that the entire community will reach that breaking point eventually. That's a shame for those creators that really have something to contribute but otherwise couldn't without this basic model in place; not because they're cheap, but because they really don't have the money to get a great idea off the ground.

Kickstarters replace marketing dweebs and literally let customers vote with their dollars. Win-Win.

drnate29 said:

My main issue is that some of them seem to have rather high pledge numbers: a couple of shorter softcover books and a map or two shouldn't need a $100+ kickstarter pledge.

Click to expand...

Agree. Kickstarters with meager backer rewards are not much better than panhandling.

Umbran said:

Here's the question that really comes to mind: How many of the kickstarter projects actually end with good product? Or even a product at all?

Right now, there's a ton people saying, "If you give me money, I'll do X!" Unfortunately, I expect many of them to fail to deliver X. And that will quickly begin to sour people's taste for Kickstarter.

Click to expand...

I've pledged to four Kickstarters in the past six months. Three of them have already delivered. The fourth is set to deliver later this year. So far I have been happy with the quality of the products I've received and would happily kick in for future Kickstarters if they are things that interest me.

Agamon said:

I didn't know this. I can back KS products through Amazon.ca. Is KS just NA-based?

Click to expand...

You can back a KS project from anywhere in the world. You can only start one with a US bank account, though.

A Kickstarter is not an investment (nor could it ever be due to investment laws), it's an extreme preorder. Depending on the project and how the project is described, what you exactly preorder can indeed be 'a good feeling', but most often it's a product, a collection of products and/or a service. That means the company/individual starting the Kickstarter is obliged to deliver what was promised. The problem is that a lot of these companies/individuals that start the kickstarter and cannot deliver the product are pretty much broke and can't give you their money back, so suing is kind of counter productive (can't pluck a featherless chicken). It still can be a horrible product/service, nothing you can do about that.

Is Enworld reporting to many Kickstarter projects? Absolutely. Imho, only report the special ones, the famous ones, and the most successful ones.

To be honest, I really dislike the current news page I liked the daily one far better, probably more work, but that was why I came to Enworld (news and discussions). And with the abysmal presentation of the news, I don't check the site as often as I used to...

I only bought into in one project so far (Shadowrun Returns), I wanted to buy into a couple more, but due to lack of a gaming budget, haven't been able to.

Frylock said:

I'm sorry if I'm rehashing arguments -- I haven't read the entire thread -- but I've been contemplating a blog entry on this for some time now.

I got blasted for suggesting that Kickstarter is, or will soon become, like this commercial for "the Ladders" job hunting site: The Ladders Ad - YouTube.

The arguments we're even on point, showing that the people (who I later found out, not surprisingly, to have Kickstarter projects) weren't even listening to what I was saying because they didn't want any chance of having to admit it was true.

I've contributed to a couple of Kickstarter projects, and so obviously I concede that there's a time and a place for them; however, the model will eventually collapse on itself because a necessary component of business is missing from these projects: risk. If you take away risk by having other people contribute the entire start up capital without giving them a well-deserved ownership stake in the project, then you're going to get far too many projects getting financed that never should see the commercial light of day. What's to stop me from doing a half-a$$ed job on an expensive project with little chance of success or marketability? Not my finances, because I'm not paying for it. Of course, if I'm trying to break into the gaming industry, I don't want garbage out there with my name on it, but I don't fall into that category. I might as well go for it, especially if things are so bad that I need help paying my phone bill. Fortunately for you, I have some sense of ethics, but far too many people don't.

If Kickstarter merely asked a few questions and held people to a certain standard (e.g., at least tried to require backers getting either a) an ownership stake, or b) a good value for the money they've put in), then the system would improve even though it would be impossible to enforce perfectly either option. Anther option would be to require an accounting so that a significant portion of the project is being financed by the creator him/herself, though that would hurt too many of the projects for which Kickstarter was created. All of this might be more trouble than it's worth for the Kickstarter powers-that-be, but if so, as I said, it's a doomed endeavor. There are going to be too many people with projects simply because they can, like the teenage girl putting on make up on the tennis court at Wimbledon. Why not?

As I said, I don't know whether Kickstarter is there yet or just headed there, but it's already to the point where it's so crowded, I don't even bother to look anymore. When i get announcements via email, I don't even read them. I delete them as if they're spam. I'm still on the mailing list because, well, you never know.... I predict that the entire community will reach that breaking point eventually. That's a shame for those creators that really have something to contribute but otherwise couldn't without this basic model in place; not because they're cheap, but because they really don't have the money to get a great idea off the ground.

Click to expand...

I think you're wrong. There is a lot of chaff in their database right now, but many existing companies that have a reputation to worry about have used the model and site to great affect. I think the Kickstarter website itself (technology) isn't very good, and could use with some updating. I'm not even sure the website itself is completely necessary. Coolminiornot essentially built their own when one of their projects was removed from the website and used it to successfully fund their project.

Talking Points:

1) I think the parton/kickstarter model is awesome for existing companies to judge product interest, award their fans, and to bypass venture capitalists

2) I think for some new companies/creators, it allows them a chance to pitch their idea and see what the public thinks. A professional pitch with sample product has a decent chance of getting funded, and a decent chance of actually fullfilling the project.

3) If you spend a few minutes to evaluate the pitch, its pretty easy to tell who is likely to succeed and who is likely to fail. Engage your critical thinking and judge the complexity of the project and the state of what the creator is showing you.

4) The kickstarter webpage is, largely, unnecessary to the process (imho)

5) A lot of the chaff that you see, never gets funded anyway.

6) Any person or company that gets funded and fails to finish the project, is unlikely to get funding from crowdsourcing again....nor are venture capitalists likely to touch them. I'd say thats a pretty strong reason *not* to fail and provides that "ownership" that you refer to.

Well after reading that 'reveal article' and looking at my current Kaidan Campaign Setting Kickstarter Project which is just at 10 days from the start-up, I am almost at 75% to my Tier 1 goal of minimum funding ($4000). It looks like it will definitely be funded, with the possibility of even funding Tier 2.

One of the few statistics given to Kickstarter founders is that whatever you collect in the first week of a Kickstarter Project is 90% likely to be 33% of whatever the total is collected at the end of the project - this is looking at all successful projects in the past.

Being realistic, it is unlikely that my project will reach the hoped for Tier 3 and 4 goals, but really this Kickstarter is for the production of 3 books - a GM's Guide, a Player's Guide and a Bestiary. If only the GM's Guide gets funded (and it's looking that way), we'll most likely start follow up Kickstarter to cover them in the months to follow - after the release of the first book.

All in all, so far, my experience of getting my first Kickstarter to succeed seems to be a good one. I am very hopeful.

Note this is not the first setting release for my project. Although I am still new at this, Rite Publishing (my imprint publisher) has released 10 products for Kaidan, prior to the start of this Kickstarter. So Kaidan, is not an unknown quantity.