Monolith Reveal Plans to Use Kickstarter as Store Front to Sell Claustrophobia 1643

Sagrilarus wrote: So now everyone not doing the KS thing is looking at one of two sides --

1. minimum pricing via the traditional channel in order to "support local games stores and increase the perceived value of the product"; or

2. direct to consumer sales, "passing the savings on to you."

Option 2 now has big visibility and a marketing platform to carry it. If this gets traction with other publishers you'll see game stores in a world of hurt. They're pissed at Kickstarter already, this just drives the screw that much deeper into the wood.

Option 2 is fine for the Box Collectors who keep buying games without playing them.

Option 1 is important for people who actually play games, because local game stores are often the only public venue for local gaming.

Shellhead wrote:

Sagrilarus wrote: So now everyone not doing the KS thing is looking at one of two sides --

1. minimum pricing via the traditional channel in order to "support local games stores and increase the perceived value of the product"; or

2. direct to consumer sales, "passing the savings on to you."

Option 2 now has big visibility and a marketing platform to carry it. If this gets traction with other publishers you'll see game stores in a world of hurt. They're pissed at Kickstarter already, this just drives the screw that much deeper into the wood.

Option 2 is fine for the Box Collectors who keep buying games without playing them.

Option 1 is important for people who actually play games, because local game stores are often the only public venue for local gaming.

As it stands those are both academic points, because any particular title will only be available through one of the two options.

Sagrilarus wrote:

ubarose wrote: I’m guessing the value of Kickstarter promotion/advertisement makes is worthwhile to use it as a store front.

Kickstarter IS a storefront, always has been, and it's one that gets a lot of traffic.

Christ on a crutch, long ago I lost count of how much virtual internet feces was thrown at me over the years (at a certain bg site that shall not be named) for DARING to say that: Kickstarter IS a store! Holy ballz, you would have thought I was a flat-earther with the amount of opprobrium leveled at me for my transgressions against the TAKE MY MONEY gif. I so hate boardgamers.

But srsly, why has no one started an honest Kickstarter-for-boardgames site where no one lies about "oh this definitely isn't a store!" and no one lies about stretch goals ("another $10k and we include a box!") and no one lies about how they totally have no idea how many minis will be in the final KS package, and no one lies about their "project" being totally about "the backers." Howzabout an honest KS site without the transparent lying? Too much to ask?

Meanwhile, Petersen Games is thinking about doing a KS where the only reward is a discount on their next KS. Because they've overextended themselves on KS's and need money now.

Goddamit, Sandy Peterson masterminded one of the most successful Kickstarters of all time. How in the hell could PG be overextended when they are collecting the money for these games up front? Normal game publishers seem to find a way to make the games first and then sell them. Anybody who contributes to a Kicksucker just so they can get a discount on a later one is gambling at this point.

Sagrilarus wrote:

Shellhead wrote:

Sagrilarus wrote: So now everyone not doing the KS thing is looking at one of two sides --

1. minimum pricing via the traditional channel in order to "support local games stores and increase the perceived value of the product"; or

2. direct to consumer sales, "passing the savings on to you."

Option 2 now has big visibility and a marketing platform to carry it. If this gets traction with other publishers you'll see game stores in a world of hurt. They're pissed at Kickstarter already, this just drives the screw that much deeper into the wood.

Option 2 is fine for the Box Collectors who keep buying games without playing them.

Option 1 is important for people who actually play games, because local game stores are often the only public venue for local gaming.

As it stands those are both academic points, because any particular title will only be available through one of the two options.

Academic from the standpoint of the publisher. The distinction should be extremely important to customers, if they want to play the games they are buying.

Oh my. Arthur Petersen's PR thought/solution/problem sounds horrifying.

IMO, Cthulhu Wars was lighting in a bottle. I got "lucky" to buy a small room worth of content during it's SECOND KS. A reprint with some token new bits. Because I have some mental baggage, I bought into their THIRD KS. Again, a reprint. And again, with some token new bits. It seems to be the law of diminishing returns.

CW is great, but I can't say any other title from Petersen games has really grabbed me.

drewcula wrote: IMO, Cthulhu Wars was lighting in a bottle. I got "lucky" to buy a small room worth of content during it's SECOND KS. A reprint with some token new bits. Because I have some mental baggage, I bought into their THIRD KS. Again, a reprint. And again, with some token new bits. It seems to be the law of diminishing returns.

Yo dawg, I heard you like buying the same game three times via Kickstarter, so I started a Kickstarter to fund my next Kickstarter because I'm outta money from my last Kickstarter.

Shellhead wrote: Goddamit, Sandy Peterson masterminded one of the most successful Kickstarters of all time. How in the hell could PG be overextended when they are collecting the money for these games up front? Normal game publishers seem to find a way to make the games first and then sell them. Anybody who contributes to a Kicksucker just so they can get a discount on a later one is gambling at this point.

Holy shit. They appear to have just invented the boardgame derivatives market. This will end poorly.

What a fucking joke.

"Our KS campaign only collected $500k, so now we have to make and sell the game at a loss..." Did someone not explain the notion of margin there?

KS is supposed to insulate the producers from this sort of shit, by giving you the money up front to produce the product. If you needed one meeeellion dollars to make it viable (suspend disbelief for a moment), that is what you set the target at.

At least they're making giant monster games and not economic simulations.

Interesting, but I can't really say I care all that much. A couple of questions, though:

1) Isn't this essentially what Queen Games has been doing for a couple of years?

2) Does Kickstarter have any say about how a company uses their site?

Realistically, I'm sure that as long as they get their 10% they don't care. But they do have a "market brand" of helping fund the little guys that the industry ignores. This doesn't really seem to fit in with that. On the other hand, when there was blowback against Zach Braff for funding his movie, all the antagonism went to him, not KS.

It'd seem like, at the least, Arthur's proposal would be stretching the limit because the only way to verify whether the project had ever been fulfilled would be when an entirely separate project had fulfilled.

The "goal" for Planet Apocalypse, which I've never heard of (not that that matters, but I backed CW OS2) was $100k, for what it's worth.

Gregarius wrote: Interesting, but I can't really say I care all that much. A couple of questions, though:

1) Isn't this essentially what Queen Games has been doing for a couple of years?

2) Does Kickstarter have any say about how a company uses their site?

Realistically, I'm sure that as long as they get their 10% they don't care. But they do have a "market brand" of helping fund the little guys that the industry ignores. This doesn't really seem to fit in with that. On the other hand, when there was blowback against Zach Braff for funding his movie, all the antagonism went to him, not KS.

You would think KS cares about what the brand is, but I think it comes down to that cold hard 10%.

I'm sure they'll care at some point when the blowback reaches critical pressure, and KS can afford to snub their noses at those wishing to use their service as a preorder.

Colorcrayons wrote:

Gregarius wrote: Interesting, but I can't really say I care all that much. A couple of questions, though:

1) Isn't this essentially what Queen Games has been doing for a couple of years?

2) Does Kickstarter have any say about how a company uses their site?

Realistically, I'm sure that as long as they get their 10% they don't care. But they do have a "market brand" of helping fund the little guys that the industry ignores. This doesn't really seem to fit in with that. On the other hand, when there was blowback against Zach Braff for funding his movie, all the antagonism went to him, not KS.

You would think KS cares about what the brand is, but I think it comes down to that cold hard 10%.

I'm sure they'll care at some point when the blowback reaches critical pressure, and KS can afford to snub their noses at those wishing to use their service as a preorder.

You're assuming the owners didn't have a meeting where someone said "fuck the dreamers." This may be in their business plan now.