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

[JohnLynch]

In this case, "proving a negative" means conclusively demonstrating that Kickstarter specifically has not had any harmful impact on retail sales outlets.

Any study that attempted to prove that kickstarter has had a negative effect on retail stores very well could prove that kickstarter hasn't had a positive effect on retail stores. So therefore if a study could be produced to prove one condition, then a study could easily be proven to demonstrate the other position.

Given that this would include conclusively demonstrating that none of the money used for any Kickstarter pledges - regardless of what project is being funded, RPG-related or not (e.g. indirect competition) - would have gone to any purchases in a FLGS, that's pretty well impossible to prove.

If you want to take it to this extreme level, then yes, it is impossible to prove. But if you want to take it to such an extreme level, let's take it the other way. "If I can prove that I have backed a kickstarter and that I would have otherwise bought an RPG product with that money from a retail store, I have proven that kickstarter has negatively impacted a retail store." I'm sure someone here can say they have spent money on kickstarter that they had otherwise set aside for a retail store. Therefore the proof that kickstarter has had an impact on retail stores is one that's easily proven.

This is of course taking it to an extreme level. If one were to take this to a more reasonable level, then a study should be able to demonstrate what, if any, impact kickstarter has had on retail stores, regardless of if those findings were kickstarter has harmed, helped or had no appreciable effect on retail stores.

 

[Alzrius]

Any study that attempted to prove that kickstarter has had a negative effect on retail stores very well could prove that kickstarter hasn't had a positive effect on retail stores. So therefore if a study could be produced to prove one condition, then a study could easily be proven to demonstrate the other position.

If you want to take it to this extreme level, then yes, it is impossible to prove. But if you want to take it to such an extreme level, let's take it the other way. "If I can prove that I have backed a kickstarter and that I would have otherwise bought an RPG product with that money from a retail store, I have proven that kickstarter has negatively impacted a retail store." I'm sure someone here can say they have spent money on kickstarter that they had otherwise set aside for a retail store. Therefore the proof that kickstarter has had an impact on retail stores is one that's easily proven.

This is of course taking it to an extreme level. If one were to take this to a more reasonable level, then a study should be able to demonstrate what, if any, impact kickstarter has had on retail stores, regardless of if those findings were kickstarter has harmed, helped or had no appreciable effect on retail stores.

Okay, I think I see where the misunderstanding is coming from here. We're using "negative" to mean two different things.

In your post above, you're talking about Kickstarter potentially having a "negative effect" in terms of harming sales. That's still a measurable impact, even if it's negative in terms of being "bad," or "harmful."

Saying you can't prove a negative doesn't mean that we're saying that you can't prove "harm," however. Rather, "negative" is being used to denote an absence of an effect, be it good or bad. "Proving a negative" means proving something with regards to an effect that has not happened.

You could very well produce a study that says that Kickstarter has been beneficial to retailers, or that it's caused them economic hardship. But in neither case is that proving a negative. Proving a negative, in this case, would be "can you prove that Kickstarter has not had an effect on retailers?" That can't be proven, but that's not what you're talking about above.

I misstated this before; I should have said "has not had any impact" instead of "any harmful impact" in my previous post. Given that we were talking about possible negative impact from Kickstarter on retailers, that was my mistake.

 

[JohnLynch]

Rather, "negative" is being used to denote an absence of an effect, be it good or bad. "Proving a negative" means proving something with regards to an effect that has not happened.

So the stance you've chosen to take is one you cannot prove while simultaneously demanding the person you're "discussing"* this with prove their position? An "interesting"** position to take and not one that's really conducive to an ongoing conversation. Given your stance is unprovable and you're unwilling to discuss this issue without demanding people prove their stance, I will simply leave you to it. Enjoy your "discussion" with whoever is willing to engage in this one sided conversation.

* I don't see how a discussion can really occur when one side's only contribution is "you're wrong" and "prove it".
** I use interesting in the sense that it seems completely counterproductive to actually having a conversation with people and is a pointless stance to take when engaging others users of a discussion board to ostensibly have a discussion with. Even if someone does take your challenge and does prove it, then there is still no room for a discussion outside of you calling into question the validity of their source.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

You did not quote anyone for that point at all, you just said, "people are talking about..." However you specified the exact conversation we had previously (down to the number of players). I looked, and I was the only one you replied to previously with that same composition that you mentioned that I could find (though I could have missed someone).

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.

Who has said it is common? I looked...I didn't see anyone describe it that way. Maybe I missed it. Can you cite to someone describing it as common?

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?

Your claim that people are describing it as common, as opposed to just giving you examples from their experience. It seems like a strawman.

 

[Alzrius]

So the stance you've chosen to take is one you cannot prove while simultaneously demanding the person you're "discussing"* this with prove their position?

That's what happens when someone says "Thing X has created effect Y," someone else replies "can you prove that?" and are in turn met with a response of "well, can you prove that thing X hasn't created effect Y?!"

The two positions are not equal, in terms of being proven (or disproven). If someone is making a claim that something is so, then they're under the burden of proof to demonstrate that. Those calling for this burden of proof to be met are not similarly under a burden of proof to prove that the thing is not, since, as mentioned before, you can't prove a negative.

The fact that you seem to think that this is some sort of inherently unfair position is rather baffling.

An "interesting"** position to take and not one that's really conducive to an ongoing conversation. Given your stance is unprovable and you're unwilling to discuss this issue without demanding people prove their stance, I will simply leave you to it. Enjoy your "discussion" with whoever is willing to engage in this one sided conversation.

Oh, it's been very "interesting" to have this "discussion" with someone so "intelligent."

* I don't see how a discussion can really occur when one side's only contribution is "you're wrong" and "prove it".

This operates off the premise that the two sides are somehow under an equal burden. They're not.

** I use interesting in the sense that it seems completely counterproductive to actually having a conversation with people and is a pointless stance to take when engaging others users of a discussion board to ostensibly have a discussion with. Even if someone does take your challenge and does prove it, then there is still no room for a discussion outside of you calling into question the validity of their source.

Welcome to the world of having to actually back up your claims when someone else disagrees with them, which is also a form of discussion.

 

[JohnLynch]

Welcome to the world of having to actually back up your claims when someone else disagrees with them, which is also a form of discussion.

Thanks. I'm quite familiar with the world I'm in. I'll now go back to perusing threads where the discussion hasn't devolved into someone saying "nuh-uh" and "prove it" while themselves adopting a stance that cannot be proven.

Although you can prove the people in this thread wrong. Simply link to a study that shows their assertion that retail stores have been negatively impacted by kickstarter is incorrect. You've chosen to limit your involvement into this thread by not doing so while simultaneously claiming that he is wrong. I see you clarified your stance to be "I am not saying people are wrong. I am simply saying they have not proven their position" which contributes very little to the conversation and certainly doesn't need as many posts as you've chosen to devote to it.

 

[Jester David]

Kickstarter itself disagrees with the Economist: https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-not-a-store. Given that it's their own platform, I'd say they know better.

Yes, that blog is the reason for the Economist article.

 

[Jester David]

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.

Four Kickstarters. Three Bones and one sci-fi.
I'm not complaining about the Kickstarters. I got a crazy amount of minis for dirt cheap. Some of the big ones at half price.
And it likely gave Reaper the funds for the molds all at once rather than over six months.

 

[garnuk]

If that was your question, it should have been ignored (sorry). There are some small companies that have only made products available through Kickstarter, but large companies use a variety of ways to get products to market, and WotC is the biggest (in our industry). And even those small companies who have not reached beyond Kickstarter yet hope to become successful enough so that they CAN sell through a variety of retail channels and not be "Kickstarter-exclusive".

As a previous poster noted, WotC's business structure probably makes it unlikely they will ever use Kickstarter. There's nothing really stopping them if they wanted to, but they are too large, too corporate, and too bureaucratic to make Kickstarter an easy choice. And if they did decide to use the platform, they would be fools to only make products available through the site, and no one (in this thread or otherwise) has advocated that they do that. It'd be pretty stupid.

IMO, under the current situation, WotC WILL NOT produce a big, beautiful, 400 page behemoth of a campaign setting book for the Forgotten Realms (or for any of their settings). It doesn't fit their current business model and resources, and not enough gamers out there would buy it to make it worthwhile . . . THROUGH NORMAL RETAIL CHANNELS. However, WotC could use Kickstarter to fund such a beast, and it only gets made if enough gamers pony up the dough FIRST, proving that there is a market. Once the Kickstarter closed, WotC could make retail copies available, or simply keep it Kickstarter exclusive for the small population who would actually want and be willing to purchase such a book.

I think it's a great idea! Probably a good thing I'm not one of the decision-makers at WotC!

You can go back and look at my original question, it addressed all that.

It's clear now that no argument was actually being proposed related to reality, it was just arguing for arguments sake. Like a random little debate club rather than a discussion.

 

[garnuk]

That's what happens when someone says "Thing X has created effect Y," someone else replies "can you prove that?" and are in turn met with a response of "well, can you prove that thing X hasn't created effect Y?!"

You made a claim that kickstarter projects end up being sold in stores. I asked you to tell me how many projects end up in stores. You replied with asking me for some other random stats. Trying to not be frustrated by your childness I looked it up and provided two estimates.
You still never bothered to answer the question about your original claim, and I have full faith that you never will.