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

[Mark CMG]

[snip]

Just to be clear, you're claiming that retailers are harmed by Kickstarter, saying you know there is no hard proof, and further saying that asking for hard evidence of the claim is an unfair argument?

 

[Jester David]

Wait, you think that the pot calling the "cattle" black is a good rebuttal argument?

It's absolutely not the point, since Kickstarter doesn't work by commission.

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.

It's not.

Crowd-funding is all that Kickstarter does. The platform is not designed, nor is it able to engage, in any sort of retail sales. 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.

The Economist disagrees with you:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2014/06/crowdfunding

 

[Jester David]

Just to be clear, you're claiming that retailers are harmed by Kickstarter,

I believe it's logical that Kickstarter can have a negative effect on stores.

Amazon has been demonstrated to have a negative effect on retail stores.
Amazon is a e-commerce site.
Kickstarter is an e-commerce site.
It is therefore reasonable to accept that Kickstarter could have a negative effect on retail stores.

This is not an absolute, but neither is it improbable.

saying you know there is no hard proof,

Until studies are done, there isn't.

and further saying that asking for hard evidence of the claim is an unfair argument?

No, I'm saying demanding hard evidence when unwilling to offering evidence of your own is a poor means of conducting a debate.

 

[Mark CMG]

No, I'm saying demanding hard evidence when unwilling to offering evidence of your own is a poor means of conducting a debate.

It's not a debate of facts. It is you making a claim as factual and offering conjecture then saying someone isn't playing fair when they point out that your claim of it being factual isn't backed by hard evidence, then further saying that if they can't prove the negative you will continue to assert the claim is factual. You've used the term "factually accurate" to bolster your argument. You shouldn't. You also shouldn't say that something is just as easily true without evidence if someone cannot prove it isn't true. That's not how being factually accurate works. That's not how logic works.

 

[Jester David]

It's not a debate of facts. It is you making a claim as factual and offering conjecture then saying someone isn't playing fair when they point out that your claim of it being factual isn't backed by hard evidence, then further saying that if they can't prove the negative you will continue to assert the claim is factual. You've used the term "factually accurate" to bolster your argument. You shouldn't. You also shouldn't say that something is just as easily true without evidence if someone cannot prove it isn't true. That's not how being factually accurate works. That's not how logic works.

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere and is wildly off topic, and is frankly just causing me aggravation and stress. So I'm walking away now. Good day.

 

[Mark CMG]

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere and is wildly off topic, and is frankly just causing me aggravation and stress. So I'm walking away now. Good day.

I concur. We should both take a step back. You have a good evening as well.

 

[Dire Bare]

You're making a value assumption on my post. I love kickstarter and agree with what you say. I just imagine some companies, like Reaper minis, probably didn't need to do Bones 2 let alone Bones 3 and could just trust the audience to buy the minis if they hyped their release. Kickstarter wasn't needed.
But doing so gave people who wants to buy more a better deal, which is awesome. And I like having more minis and faster.
It's just worth admitting that those sales might have come at the expense of some traditional retail sales. It's not unfair, its just life and sometimes life has consequences.
Like Amazon really. The convenience and better price outweighs the costs to other businesses... Sometimes.

But markets and businesses change all the time. That's life. My FLGS just went under and the Canadian exchange rate was as much to blame as anything.

That said, if a company that *can* afford to publish without Kickstarter and is focused on supporting stores decides to eschew Kickstarter for the desire not to competition with buisnesses, that makes sense and I support that decision. Kickstarter is just another alternative, another option.


As for WotC... They have no shipping department to handle mass distribution and don't take money directly. Financials are handled through Hasbro accounting. They'd be a terrible company to handle a kickstarter. Too many people trying to coordinate and partners hire to handle duties. It'd be terrible.

Sorry Jester, wasn't really disagreeing with you, but using your post to take the conversation further. And, got a bit ranty with it.

Although, I do disagree with a few points in this post! Woo-hoo!

Without knowing any behind-the-scenes info with Reaper Miniatures, I can totally see a scenario that despite the success of Bones 1, that further Bones releases would not have been possible without KickStarter (or another crowdfunding platform, like Indiegogo). Bones 1 was wildly successful, and certainly prompted Reaper to expand the line. (this is all hypothetical) But each time they wanted to expand the line, they saw the same costs repeated in creating new sculpts and molds, and as a small company, did not have the capital to risk. So, Bones 2 on KickStarter! And so on. And of course, once KickStarter ameliorated the capital risks of new sculpts and molds, Reaper could then just keep making new minis and put them on retail shelves across the USA! Bones 2, 3 and so on (how many have there been so far?) are not losing retail sales to Kickstarter, but there would be no Bones 2 (and so on) without Kickstarter.

And even if Reaper didn't *need* to use Kickstarter for Bones 2, 3, etc, but simply chose to do so for the marketing purposes . . . who cares? Why not? This formula seems to be working well for them, both to get initial sales jumpstarted (well, kickstarted) and to put product on retail sales to reach a larger audience.

And sure, if a company doesn't want to use crowd-sourced funding (Kickstarter, Indiegogo) for any reason, that's fine. Why wouldn't it be? It certainly isn't a panacea or the end-all of business models, but like you said, one of many options. I do think more gaming companies should give crowd-sourced funding a serious look, but if they don't, I probably won't even notice much less care.

 

[Dire Bare]

Heck, a retailer, if they wanted to, could get in on a Kickstarter and then turn around and sell the products. I'd be surprised if retailers hadn't at least considered it. But, I imagine it's not something that's helping retailers very much and it is a kind of competition, even if it isn't 100% direct competition.

I haven't read the entire thread yet, so I hope I'm not being redundant with anybody else.

Many gaming Kickstarters have retailer tiers built in that provide exactly that opportunity. Retailers can pledge for a number of units, sometimes with all the special perks offered, and then sell them in their store, brick-and-mortar and/or online. I've heard discussion that these retailer tiers are not popular or utilized very much by retailers, because they are hesitant to hold aside funds for the month or so during the Kickstarter campaign, and then have to wait a year or more for the product so they can then sell it.

 

[JohnLynch]

Retailers aren't interested in selling a product once. They want to sell that same product down the road as well. As such they're not designed for buy in bulk because then they have warehouse costs which is not something they have to worry about with traditional methods of obtaining stock. So no, kickstarter is not retail friendly in this regard (not stepping into the discussion between Jester and CMG).

 

[Hussar]

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?

Umm, Mistwell, did you miss who I quoted in the comment you just quoted? How can I misrepresent your point when I quote someone else and am not actually talking to you? The discussion has been, for a while, about how multiple anecdotes results in data. It doesn't.

I'm not sure what you're questioning me about. Several posters have talked about how in their groups, people play multiple editions as examples of how common it is for players to play multiple editions. In their (not necessarily your, but certainly in more than one) examples, only one or two players plays multiple editions, while the rest of the group does not.

Again, what am I saying here that's contentious? I said that rapid iterations of editions is bad for the hobby. Do you disagree with that? I said that most players probably play a single edition at a time. Again, do you disagree with that?