This conveniently forgets to mention the number of opinion pieces and articles that support this:
one,
two,
three,
four.
I did not conveniently forget to mention them but simply did not come across those in my Google search. Please do not misattribute my motives.
Leaving aside for a moment that you've flat-out said that it's "not a store," I think it's operative to note that you say that it "can" be one, and it's here that I think there's a subtle yet very important difference. It's not so much that it "can" be one, but that people treat it as though it were one. Likewise, I'm not sure what you mean by ignoring the "broader uses" of Kickstarter, because there aren't any per se. Whether you treat it as a form of charitable donation, or an investment return, or even as a store, your personal approach to the process doesn't matter in terms of what the thing itself actually is. Just because you treat it like a store doesn't change the fact that all Kickstarter projects are, well, projects that you're helping to fund. That's all.
This is a semantic argument. Kickstarter is not a store, no. But it functions as one. That was the whole damn point of the paragraph. Whether or not it is literally a store is irrelevant if it serves the same function. For purposes of this discussion, we can treat it as a store.
Whether or not Kickstarter is literally or functionally a store has no bearing on whether or not Kickstarter engages in competition with stores in the same way that a KFC competes with McDonald's despite not being a burger store.
The salient point here is that these were sales that were being used to ad hoc creating something. That's prima facie similar to crowd-funding that is used as though it were a storefront, but similarity - even similarity in use or purpose - is not the same. For one thing, not all pre-orders are utilized to finance printing a book that wouldn't otherwise exist. Likewise, pre-orders are most often not limited to publishers directly; you can place a pre-order for things via most traditional retail outlets that sell goods or services, but that's not the case whereby you can use those outlets to actually finance the creation of something that doesn't exist yet. You can't pre-order a book on Amazon as a method of financing that book's writing, for instance.
Amazon is irrelevant as you are pre-ordering something that exists or will exist. We are specifically talking about gaming products not products in general.
And many, many 3rd Party gaming products (prior to Kickstarter) very much were funded in part by pre-orders. Sometimes this worked (Tome of Horrors Complete) and sometimes it didn't work out so well (Razor Coast… for a time). Kickstarter replaced this function of the publisher's online store. It has taken over part of the storefront.
It's not correct to use "does not sell a set number of copies" as an example of reaching a pre-set goal, because there are no Kickstarters that rely on a certain number of rewards being opted for. Likewise, you are not refunded your money is a Kickstarter doesn't fund, because you never gave them your money in the first place; Kickstarter funds are not charged to you until the project reaches its end date and unless the project meets its initial goal. This is distinct from a pre-order, where money has actually changed hands. This is another example of things that appear the same at a casual glance being different when you look deeper.
I never said Kickstarter refunds you. I said that prior to Kickstart, publishers would occasionally issue refunds on pre-orders for failed projects. It's not identical, but functionally similar to the Kickstarter process
It's worth noting that it is incorrect that the backers must necessarily all receive some reward. All Kickstarter pledges have a built-in option (as part of the platform) to allow backers to donate without receiving any reward at all.
Has anyone ever done that though? Not for Kickstarter in general but RPG Kickstarters.
I imagine it would be possible to compare backer numbers with claimed rewards. I expect a statistically irrelevant sampling.
That said, the remainder of the point here goes back to the popular perception of Kickstarter as a storefront, even though the reality of it is different. A lot of people now take the rewards as a given, and virtually always choose to receive them, most often in the form of a copy of the finished product. But that's still an issue of perception, rather than actual functionality. As noted above, no money is actually changing hands when they make their pledge.
Again, I'm not claiming Kickstarter is a storefront. That's a misrepresentation of my argument. I'm saying it serves the same purpose and competes with stores, both digital and physical.
This makes the existence
Alderac web store rather awkward.
That was an error on my part. I was actually referring to Agate RPG (of Agate Éditions). I googled to correct my spelling (which was wrong), and Google said "Did you mean…". I wondered and wanted to go back and double-check but forgot.
In any event Agate RPG does not operate a store where you can buy their physical books.
This is a manipulation of the definition. Even if we discount the time taken on in-store pro-orders (which you hold are the same) to be fulfilled, there's a more notable point here - that the same good "or" service is offered; you do not need to meet both criteria. In this case, you're discussing the same goods being offered; since it fulfills that criteria, then if you want to pursue the question of "does Kickstarter compete with retailers, and if so how?" you need to look at this from a question of direct competition, rather than indirect. After all, that would mean that saying "you have to drive to your local game store, but online retailer goods are mailed to you, so they're not directly competing" justifies online retailers as only being indirect competitors to physical retailers.
This is a lovely semantic argument that doesn't actually debate ANY of my claims, and just points out possible errors in my terms. It's arguing without actually advancing the discussion.
I accept that I made an error in direct versus indirect competition because of the use of "or" rather than "and". I can therefor "upgrade" Kickstarter to being in direct competition with retail stores and the rest of my argument continues unchanged.
But this overlooks the more salient point; if the product is available at your local game store, then you don't have the option of receiving it from Kickstarter - literally, it can't be for retail sale at your local FLGS while the book's publishers are seeking to procure funding to create the book in the first place.
Yes. This also applies if the product is not available in stores but with a lapsed Kickstarter.
However the argument is NOT that Kickstarter replaces retail stores - that's not a requirement of competition - only that it takes away business and money.
Insofar as the price being generally cheaper, that's a shaky claim to make. While the pledge level that procures a copy of the finished product might be less than the MSRP, that doesn't take into account the regularity with which retail outlets, even brick-and-mortar ones, will make it available at lower prices. There are a lot of stores that offer discounts to customers for various reasons.
But this is not guaranteed. Many stores do not do sales, have only limited sales, or exclude premium items. And some stores also charge more than the MSRP, especially for non-standard or exclusive goods. The only local game store in my area (primarily a comic store) is pretty bad at gouging.
But this is irrelevant because we're working with average price as set by the MSRP rather than variance based on local sales, exchange rate variance, local interest in games, used copies, etc.
"Buying" a product via a Kickstarter isn't done "over" a game store; as noted above, if it's on Kickstarter, then it cannot - by definition - also be available at your game store for you to choose as an alternate venue. If you really want a board game seen on Kickstarter, then at that point there's nowhere else that you can get it. Likewise, the arguability of how fast Kickstarter rewards reach the backers is notable, since the cases where there are delays tend to be the most visible. Similarly, the costs of the product are required all at once; you pay once the project reaches its end date, if it's funded.
If I hear about a game on Kickstarter and opt to buy it at my FLGS I can expect a wait similar to that of backers if not longer. Thus, for purposes of that individual product, the wait does not matter.
Over the lifespan of a game, from funding to being in stores, there will be a finite number of sales. Prior to Kickstarter 100% of those sales would take place in a store of some kind, be it physical or digital. Now games are being acquired through Kickstarter and some percentage of sales is being taken away from stores.
While not all of those games would have been made without the easy crowdfunding Kickstarter provides, some would have been funded through other means: investors, bank loans, getting into debt, or traditional pre-sales.
Additionally, people have a limited amount of disposable income that they spend on hobby entertainment. When those funds are spent on a Kickstarter they cannot be spent on another game. I have not yet purchased the card game Superfight entirely because I backed a couple Kickstarters and have no more disposable funds. (Kickstarters are also on a deadline, which adds the ticking clock element. The other game will be there later, making it easier to procrastinate.)
That's also shifting the point of comparison considerably, as you've just changed from direct competition (e.g. the same product) to indirect (e.g. a different product that fulfills the same need).
Wait… what?! When I wrote this, I was already assuming indirect competition.
You literally just corrected me on direct vs indirect, then changed your mind and criticized me for shifting my point of comparison. In the same post!
Except that this is fairly simplistic, because it leaves out things such as shipping costs, taxes, retailer discounts, etc.
I mention shipping costs later.
Taxes are important. I pay them on most purchases in stores but not all Kickstarters. That's another 5%.
Brick-and-mortar retailers cannot sell PDFs of products (there may be some exceptions that I'm not aware of, but if so these certainly aren't widespread). Saying that the Kickstarter is cheaper because it also offers something that your local FLGS literally cannot sell you isn't a fair comparison.
Unfair competition is still competition. This is like claiming Paizo.com doesn't compete with game stores because they can offer print + PDF bundles.
Again, your comparison is flawed; you cannot buy an add-on by itself. There's another cost attached that you haven't factored in here.
I was using it as a representative example of the general discounted price of Bones bought via Kickstarter rather than separately and individually. It is a huge discount.
Oh, and yes you can buy the add-on. As you yourself mention, you can select "no reward" when backing. So you can add onto a $1 donation, for an insignificant price increase. (I did this exact thing for Bones 3, opting not to get the core sets and just add-ons.)
And it would be nice to buy it from Kickstarter for that price right now, except that that option is no longer available. Hence, that $5 discount isn't competing with the game stores that are trying to sell this game to their customers. Of course, once they sell it to their customers they'll make a profit that they wouldn't have otherwise if the Kickstarter hadn't had any money given to it, since then the retailers wouldn't have a product to offer in the first place.
That it is no longer available is irrelevant. What is relevant is that 8,396 who want the game and would likely have otherwise bought the game from a store instead bought it elsewhere.
And, again, Kickstarter just provides a new option for funding. Cryptozoic Entertainment is an established company who has made other games and could have gone into debt to make the game or approached other investors. (Or even done pre-orders on their store website.) There is very much a possibility they could have funded and made this available in stores without Kickstarter, but Kickstarter is just faster and likely more profitable. After all, they had enough money to acquire the licence to make a game for a popular IP.
As noted, this is actually one of quite a few variables, many (if not most) of which are harder to note and control for. It's why the price comparison issue isn't a very good way of measuring the issue of Kickstarter versus retailers.
Agreed. But price was too big not to talk about. It's not always relevant, but it's relevant often enough.
Kickstarter has a lot of advantages, but that doesn't mean that they're advantages that place them into a state of direct competition with FLGS outlets.
No, of course the advantages don't place them in direct (or indirect) competition.
The fact that they're taking money for similar products is what puts them in competition. The advantage affect if Kickstarter is coming off on top of the competition or not. Or how often it's better to go with Kickstarter.
Except that we know that this advantage, in terms of what Kickstarter has that local outlets do not, doesn't really hold up due to the pervasive influence of social media. The same thing that allows for people to easily share a Kickstarter allows brick-and-mortar retailers, as well as customers, to engage in that same sharing via Facebook and Twitter. If you're following your local stores on social media, the same way you would a publisher, then you're going to be alerted when they have a new product in stock, when they're having a sale, or anything else that could be considered noteworthy. In fact, this actually better serves the local retail outlets, because any announcement that gets people in the store increases the chances that something else will be bought, either instead of or in addition to the original item that drew the customers' interest. Even customers can do this, as everything from a quick Tweet or Facebook update from their phone (possibly with a selfie if they want to make sure there's a picture) can achieve the same effect.
Online word-of-mouth works for everyone, not just Kickstarter.
True. But not every game store has as much social media savy as Kickstarter, is as well known, or has as much reach. If I find a cool game at the local comic shop that means nothing to someone in a different province or the States. But everyone knows Kickstarter and recognises it.
People are always talking about new Kickstarter projects or sharing them because the information (and a link) is easy to transmit. If I discover a great new game, I can mention it but unless I find a link to the game's site it's just that little bit harder to investigate. There's a barrier there, even if ever so slight...
I flat-out disagree with this. You can very much go into a game store just to browse, particularly if you happen to already be in the area. Likewise, saying that you're less likely to "find a gem of a game" because you're looking for another product is dubious at best. Quite the contrary, just being in the store increases the chances of finding something to pick up, which isn't the same as looking at something on a Kickstarter. Not to mention that this again ignores that physical stores (and customers) have access to the same social media venues that Kickstarter does.
It's not impossible, but browsing a game store is significantly less common than browsing Twitter or Facebook.
A game store might be active and social media and attract your attention with something cool, but as often as not, game store advertising is less focused and unrelated products. But people you follow on Twitter or Facebook with similar interests linking a Kickstarter project is instantly more attractive and relevant, being the ultimate in targeted marketing.
Summarizing, not all game stores are equally present in social media, and even the ones that are are unlikely to be as focused as a good Kickstarter.
You can change your mind quickly when you're in a retail outlet as well, so long as you haven't made the purchase. Now, you can cancel your Kickstarter pledge before the funding period closes, but as mentioned that's because you haven't actually bought the book yet, so saying that this is an easier "purchase" is twisting the use of the term.
It's a difference in time limit. Changing my mind in a retail store is a matter of minutes. I can sleep on a Kickstarter purchase. I can cancel weeks after if I have a change in finances.
No, it's irritating. There are a lot of people who don't like Kickstarter because they don't like waiting to see if their "pre-order" is ever going to be fulfilled, because it might not fund. Moreover, the fact that crowd-funding has had some high-profile failures to deliver has also undercut confidence in the process, which makes it even more of a case of anxiety when you decide to pledge your money.
Again, this is not an all-or-nothing situation. Nothing in life is either-or. Kickstarters absolutely have their disadvantages and game stores (either digital or meat space) can have their advantages and benefits. The argument isn't "Kickstarter is better all the time" or "Kickstarter is replacing game stores" but if Kickstarter competes with game stores and reduces sales. Any sales.
There's nothing that makes this unique to Kickstarter in any regard. Anticipation can be felt for anything that you want but do not have yet. Saying that this is at all an advantage that Kickstarter has that physical retailers don't is flat-out untrue.
I don't recall saying it wasn't true with retail stores. If waiting for a reorder or a pre-order at a game store then, yes, it's true. But if just buying something off the shelf it's not.
That's the difference. It's true for all Kickstarters versus only some retail purchases.
Again, this is a bug rather than a feature, and it works both ways. When you get your credit card statement and you see that you're being charged for something, you'll often be momentarily unsure of what it was before you remember that it's for the purchase that you made so long ago, making your credit card bill seem higher than you otherwise expected it to be. Particularly since you're now paying for something that you haven't gotten yet, and may not get for a while.
It's certainly a feature/bug. For people who like it, it incentivizes Kickstarter. For people who dislike it, it incentivizes retail stores.
Again, it's not an issue of everyone favouring Kickstarter, just some people.
The counterpoint here is that Kickstarter is not an e-store, even though people treat it as one.
That's not a counterpoint as I explicitly say that Kickstarter isn't an e-store.
Does it "indirectly" compete with brick-and-mortar retailers? Sure, in the same sense that anything that's competing for your discretionary spending is competing with them. But it's not a direct competition, which is the presumption of the allegation that Kickstarter has more impact on brick-and-mortar stores than, say, Hot Topic does is based around. It's ultimately not a comparable experience, even if it may seem like one at a casual glance.
Again, I wrote my piece assuming indirect competition. Which is still competition.
Gaming products are small. A good 3rd Party product is lucky to sell 10,000 copies. So when 2,300 backers get Tome of Beasts via Kickstarter, that might a quarter of their total sales. That's a lot of reduced sales.
On the contrary, the fact that Kickstarter has made options that are specific to retailers shows that they're not only not in direct competition with them, but they never were. While wholesalers sell to retailers, it's highly atypical for retailers to sell to each other, particularly in bulk. Kickstarter's having done so doesn't make them a wholesaler, of course, but that they're able to act in that capacity further undercuts the idea that they're directly competing with retailers to have customers pick up the same products; if your local game store has backed a particular product, then there's even less impetus for you to get it from Kickstarter directly.
As you are quick to point out, Kickstarter is not a store. And neither is it a wholesaler or distributer. So it is very different situation. Just because they're selling to retailers doesn't mean there's no competition.
Kickstarter selling to retailers isn't fundamentally different than Paizo selling to game stores while also operating their own e-store. But it would be ridiculous to suggest Paizo's store doesn't compete with physical stores.
It's worth noting again that the reason why WotC doesn't use Kickstarter is entirely based around supposition. To my knowledge, they haven't made a statement in this regard, so we're just taking guesses as to why they don't make use of the service.
I prefer the term "educated guess". Or even "deductive reasoning". It's supposition, but not wrong.
The above reasons are certainly plausible ones, but so are counter-issues like crowd-sourcing production costs, or that raising awareness is still helpful for them, even if they don't need it as much as smaller publishers. Unless they tell us why they don't make use of crowd-funding, we don't know for sure.
Production costs are a non-issue. It may cost WotC $250,000 to print books but MTG generates tens of millions of dollars in profit each month. They could print a D&D book every other week for a year and just let them sit in a warehouse and they'd still make money that year.
Kickstarter and Amazon do take a percentage, but this is likely much less than what the store and general distributor charge. So even if they they paid a fulfilment company to handle dealing with the customers and shipping and sold books at 30% off they'd still likely make more money via Kickstarter. And they still need to deal with stretch goals, higher reward tiers, and the like. It's a lot of extra work for limited gains.
WotC doesn't need Kickstarter to raise awareness. They just need to release a new book and send out review copies.
While it's true that WotC doesn't sell directly to customers (they certainly "deal" directly with them, in terms of communication, advertising, giving previews, etc.). But we've seen them give updates to things just fine, sometimes officially and sometimes unofficially (e.g. the Twitter accounts of employees). We've also seen them change their mind on issues previously (e.g. licensed PDF sales of out-of-print products), so it's a mistake to presume that there are iron-clad reasons that make their current stance a no-brainer.
It actually seems to be Hasbro policy. WotC used to operate a game store that closed after the sale to Hasbro, and you can't buy products directly from Hasbro's website.
It seems to be a larger corporate directive to not deal with customers and work through stores.
Kickstarter does not work against the policy of supporting stores, and for that matter we don't know that WotC thinks that. There's certainly nothing stopping them, insofar as I know, where they held a retailer-only Kickstarter, where the rewards were only available to verified retail outlets, though that'd certainly be an unusual practice.
By default it doesn't support or enable stores in that Kickstarter doesn't encourage people to go to stores, let alone Wizards Play Network stores. Kickstarter works against stores or, at best, is neutral to stores. Therefore it works against a policy of actively supporting stores.
Frankly, that would be a terrible idea. No offence intended. I'm not sure it'd even be possible to vette Kickstarter backers checking they are a retail outlet. But even if there was… terrible idea.
The catch is that retailers already "back" projects when they buy stock, which sits on their shelf until it is sold. They lose money until things sell.
Backing a Kickstarter is effectively keeping a percentage of their funds off the shelf and in limbo. It's not being used to buy product that makes more money. In the time it takes a Kickstarter to finish, produce its product, and ship the retailer could have used that same money to bring in an extra copy of a good-selling product multiple times, each time generating money.
Especially when game stores could buy and stock the product just as easily when it was ready to ship.
There's no incentive to back.
Ultimately, WotC's reasons aren't really worth debating, since there certainly is a clear answer, but they're not going to tell us.
If we stop debating things that lack a clear answer this site would be a lot more quiet...
