D&D 5E I just don't see why they even bothered with the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.

[SkidAce]

Hold on, let me go rate this thread.

 

[Mirtek]

That's not even remotely the same. If WotC was funding a particular book via Kickstarter, it would be engaging in crowd-funding, but there'd be no actual sales going on, though there might be options to receive various rewards for various levels of pledges. That's fundamentally different from what goes on on eBay, even if some people can't tell the difference.

No, it's legally absolutely the same. If WotC would start a kickstarter drive for a full FRCS and I were to pledge 50€ to receive a copy of the FRCS once it's finished, that's legally actually me pre-ordering the FRCS from WotC. There's no other legal transaction that is applicable to what transpired. Yes, I carry the risk that the FRCS I just pre-ordered might never be completed and my money will be lost, but that is fully possible with certain kinds of pre-orders.

I don't give WotC a loan, I don't gain buy share in WotC, I don't make a donation, I don't give them a gift - these are all legally defined types of transaction.

Technically it's a special sort of employment contract in which Wotc is paid to perform a work for me to the best of their ability without being accountable for success (a type of contract often done with software companies actually) and me carrying the risk of failure (unless I can blame WotC with severe neglect of their duties)

Crowd-funding is all that Kickstarter does.

No crowfunding is what the crowd does, KS only offers a platform on which the the would-be entrepreneur can present himself to the crowd. That's different from mediator who truly go and present promising entrepreneur to would-be backers (e.g. actively seek them out with a collection of projects and convice them to buy in, while kickstarter provides a mostly passive servie).

The platform is not designed, nor is it able to engage, in any sort of retail sales.

No, it's designed to give it's user the opportunity to do so with each other.

That's why you can't buy products there, you can only fund the creation of products that don't exist yet, though you might be rewarded for doing so later on.

Which is legally you pre-ordering them. There is no other applicable legal transaction. That's how it's taxed, that are the legal rights and obligations attained by both parties.

If WotC were to use KS to crowdfund a full FRCS it would directly be selling said FRCS to me instead of using it's own fund or loans to produce it and then sell it through B&N; Amazon, FLGS, etc. thus directly depriving them of this business, putting a serious wedge in their partnership.

Kickstarters are for people who do not want to have to go through a middle man in order to get their product funded.

Taking the middle man out of business

I could write my own novel, throw it up on Kickstarter, raise the funds, and use those funds to get it printed and possibly write more novels. It doesn't take away from bookstores if my novel is done through Kickstarter.

If you had already sold your last 10 novels through bookstores, you chosing to go kickstarter for your novel 11+ would be you deciding to end your business with bookstores.

Don't expect themt to be happy, which you may not care about at all and be happy about your increased share of profits or may rue one day depening on which services of bookstores you'll still need.

 

[Jester David]

Pot calling the kettle black is not a valid rebuttal.

Failure to cite sources.

Further failure to cite sources. At this point you do not have a counterargument, much less a valid one.

Could you please provide citations to your sources that Kickstarter has not hurt retail stores in any way? That Kickstarter has not negatively impacted games stores at all? That Kickstarter has never cost a game store a single sale?

 

[Mistwell]

I mean, good grief, people are talking about how usual it is for players to play more than one edition, that it's very common, and in their own examples, only one out of five or six players is actually doing so.

This is Statistics 101.

Hussar, I didn't say it was "very common" or make any comment one way or the other concerning commonality or representativeness of my experience. Second time I've corrected you on this. One might begin to think you're intentionally misrepresenting other people's positions after a while. Could you please stop doing that?

 

[Mark CMG]

Could you please provide citations to your sources that Kickstarter has not hurt retail stores in any way? That Kickstarter has not negatively impacted games stores at all? That Kickstarter has never cost a game store a single sale?

I agree though, FIRST, maybe Alzrius could also provide citations to sources that he has never kicked a elephant in any way? That Alzrius has not negatively impacted the Brazilian economy at all? That Alzrius has never caused a a college or professional sports team to lose a single game? C'mon, Alzrius! Prove some negatives, already!

 

[Jester David]

I agree though, FIRST, maybe Alzrius could also provide citations to sources that he has never kicked a elephant in any way? That Alzrius has not negatively impacted the Brazilian economy at all? That Alzrius has never caused a a college or professional sports team to lose a single game? C'mon, Alzrius! Prove some negatives, already!

It's bad form to dismiss and reject an argument solely by asking for a citation when you haven't given any yourself.
Either both sides need to start citing sources, or you accept that citations are not available for the discussion and apply logical and rhetorical methods of determining validity.

 

[Mark CMG]

It's bad form to dismiss and reject an argument solely by asking for a citation when you haven't given any yourself.
Either both sides need to start citing sources, or you accept that citations are not available for the discussion and apply logical and rhetorical methods of determining validity.

Um, being dismissive is what you've just done by insisting on evidence to prove a negative. When there is no evidence for an argument, such as "Kickstarter harms retailers," you don't need evidence to prove the argument isn't an argument, such as "Kickstarter doesn't harm retailers."

 

[Jester David]

Um, being dismissive is what you've just done by insisting on evidence to prove a negative. When there is no evidence for an argument, such as "Kickstarter harms retailers," you don't need evidence to prove the argument isn't an argument, such as "Kickstarter doesn't harm retailers."

Replying to an argument with a "citation please" is a non-argument. It's akin to replying with a "nuh-uh" or a Monty Python "no it isn't". Unless you yourself are willing to throw up a counter citation or offer evidence yourself. I'm being dismissive of his dismissive-ness.

One party is arguing Kickstarters don't harm retailers. The other side is arguing they do. Either you argue from a purely logical and argument-based perspective and eschew citations (and thus forfeit the right to call for them) or both parties have to give citations. You don't call for a citation when you're not willing to offer one.

It's not like there's an absence of other voices on the subject:
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1027085/kickstarters-effect-retailers-good-or-bad
Which includes the post:

For a retailer backing a KS can be a double edged sword..

a) The retailer can back a KS thus being an investor in the product - but now that retailer has to sell the product or take a loss after the launch, thus there is a risk involved for the retailer.

b) If the KS campaign tosses out too many incentives only to the individual buyer then that can actually devalue the retailer option considerably thus reducing the possibility of a retailer taking the risk at backing with their own funds - see item (a) above. This is one of those "build one bridge but burn the other" scenarios. Example, gamers will ask "will I get all the goodies included in the KS edition"? If not, then is the retailer edition the watered down or "value" edition?

c) A retailer may decide not to risk the funds thinking that the product may not have enough community support to risk a potential loss. Is it a "flash in the pan" where the KS sales might soak up most of the potential sales and then leave behind only table scraps for the retailers or is the entire production going to be just another dud after launch once everyone finds out if the production is comparable, worse, or better then what was advertised?

A gamer is a one shot buyer, minimal risk investment. A retailer buying a range of copies has a risk investment consideration and has to gauge the risk vs the sales or potential loss for the investment. As those buyer and retailer/distributor bridges are built or burnt over time gaining confidence back from either side may be easier or more difficult based on past experiences with the same publisher. Retailers, or gamers, seldom forget about being burned.

Again, it goes back to the publisher and how well they manage their relations between the buyers and the retailers/distributors. Its one thing to publish a game but its quite another to know how to market it effectively for the most potential pre-sales and after launch sales, regardless of the venue being utilized for gaining funds.

There's also:
http://rpgkickstarters.tumblr.com/retailers
http://www.rpg.net/columns/businessofgamingretail/businessofgamingretail81.phtml
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1307137/lets-talk-about-effects-kickstarter-exclusives-ret

Has Cards Against Humanity been brought up yet? That strikes me as an interesting example for this debate, as a card game that really doesn't even need retail. They got attention through a successful Kickstarter, segued into a e-store, and keep all the money for themselves. It's actually hard for retailers to stock the game, with an approval process (friends with the former owner of a FLGS who couldn't get CAH in stock).

 

[Mark CMG]

Replying to an argument with a "citation please" is a non-argument. It's akin to replying with a "nuh-uh" or a Monty Python "no it isn't". Unless you yourself are willing to throw up a counter citation or offer evidence yourself. I'm being dismissive of his dismissive-ness.

I know you fully understand that this is not true. Asking for citations of a claim is not dismissive, it's asking for detail to a level beyond just saying any old thing. Furthermore, asking for someone to support a claim is not the same thing as telling someone since they can't prove the claim isn't true, it is therefore true. You cannot possibly think this holds water.

One party is arguing Kickstarters don't harm retailers. The other side is arguing they do.

Not even close. One side is claiming that retailers are harmed by Kickstarters and the other side is saying that in the absence of evidence, it is not proved.

 

[Jester David]

I know you fully understand that this is not true. Asking for citations of a claim is not dismissive, it's asking for detail to a level beyond just saying any old thing. Furthermore, asking for someone to support a claim is not the same thing as telling someone since they can't prove the claim isn't true, it is therefore true. You cannot possibly think this holds water.

Asking for a citation to clarify while offering a counterpoint is one thing. Just saying "citation please" and nothing else is another matter entirely.

It's the difference between honestly asking for more information or a source for a reference, and dismissing an entire argument because you know hard information cannot be found. One continues the discussion and the debate and the other ends it. One assumes the person you're talking with is attempting to be factually accurate, while the other one is calling them a liar and daring them to prove otherwise.

Not even close. One side is claiming that retailers are harmed by Kickstarters and the other side is saying that in the absence of evidence, it is not proved.

This does not match the counterarguments provided, which are arguing the opposite (that Kickstarters are either neutral or beneficial to game stores) not that there is no evidence.