Quote from: I run with scissors;584264In addition there are tax implications and commerce implications if Kickstarter turns into a store. The biggest is sales tax. Kickstarter would have to start collecting sales tax if they allowed for multiple purchases, becasue one could argue they are retail and not incubator.

I think you are right, but just saying "We are not a store" isn't going to cut it.

With rewards translated into products (even unrealized products), they are going to have a hard time explaining how they are not retailers of some kind.

Quote from: Lynn;584281I think you are right, but just saying "We are not a store" isn't going to cut it.

With rewards translated into products (even unrealized products), they are going to have a hard time explaining how they are not retailers of some kind.

Well if you look at what they put on their very own webpage, the impications are such that they view themselves as an investment platform, and not a store.

QuoteWhat's Kickstarter?

Kickstarter is a funding platform for creative projects. Everything from films, games, and music to art, design, and technology. Kickstarter is full of ambitious, innovative, and imaginative projects that are brought to life through the direct support of others.

Since our launch on April 28, 2009, over $350 million has been pledged by more than 2.5 million people, funding nearly 30,000 creative projects. If you like stats, there's lots more here.

I think "funding platform" is what they are trying to get across, and the more people treat them like a store, the more Kickstarter moves away from a funding platform.

Look at recent examples within out hobby of Kickstarter becoming a store, such as Reaper's Bone kickstarter. One could argue their Pledge Manger is a way to circumnavigate this. Plus the whole concept of bonus goals, that allow you to add on more products for extra money. The more campaigns do this, the less the platform becomes one of funding, but selling.

Hell, Adamant seems to think Kickstarter is nothing more than a pre-order hub and not a funding hub.

QuoteHow does Kickstarter work?

Thousands of creative projects are funding on Kickstarter at any given moment. Each project is independently created and crafted by the person behind it. The filmmakers, musicians, artists, and designers you see on Kickstarter have complete control and responsibility over their projects. They spend weeks building their project pages, shooting their videos, and brainstorming what rewards to offer backers. When they're ready, creators launch their project and share it with their community.

Every project creator sets their project's funding goal and deadline. If people like the project, they can pledge money to make it happen. If the project succeeds in reaching its funding goal, all backers' credit cards are charged when time expires. If the project falls short, no one is charged. Funding on Kickstarter is all-or-nothing.

Source: http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/kickstarter%20basics#WhatKick

This is the key passage here, and this is what I think they should make even clearer. Nowhere do you see any mention of ordering, shopping, or online retail. Kickstarter is clear in that they are a funding platform.

The problem is that more and more, people view Kickstarter as a end run from spending money getting their projects into retail. This is not exclusive to gaming, but all projects.

Read the comment thread in the Instacube kickstarter (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1084349160/instacube-a-living-canvas-for-your-instagram-photo/comments) how this campaign is morphing into a shopping event (buy 1, no wait get 2, and now you can get 3). I think it is things like this they are cracking down on. I also think the successes of the miniature campaigns is another red flag for them.

Personally, I think Kickstarter needs to do a better job is getting across the following:

1. This is funding, not selling.
2. You should have a product either ready for production or close to production.
3. Kickstarter is not for retail stores, it is for individuals who want to be on the ground floor of a new product.

IRWS

Quote from: Ladybird;584228How much has to change before you accept it as a new game?

As Estar said, there is not a bright red line.  The closer you get to a game where people kill fantasy monsters for treasure and power, the more I consider whether I think that this ruleset was an outgrowth of D&D rules.

As examples of the type of games that clear that hurdle in my mind, DCC does not make me feel like I'm playing D&D with a twist.  The new Hackmaster also - while retaining almost all the tropes from D&D - does not make me feel like playing D&D, because the engine under the hood is so dissimilar.

Quote from: I run with scissors;584289I think it is things like this they are cracking down on. I also think the successes of the miniature campaigns is another red flag for them.

The Reaper Kickstarter is a good example of a project right on the line. The molds, a development cost, are expensive so it is a good fit for kickstarter. But what do you give backers as a reward? Well you give them the what the mold produces, the miniatures! When coupled with the fact that the molds are designed to create miniatures that work together in a product line and sets of related miniatures.  The whole thing becomes little different than what you would do if you bought miniatures from the Reaper webstore.

So it is a bit of a catch-22, you need investment to make the molds so you can make the miniatures yet the only logical reward makes the whole experience like buying from a store.

While it would be nice to avoid it, I think the only reasonable thing in the long run is just give government the sales tax so they don't wind up making some half ass regulations that screws around with what people want to try to do with crowdfunding. In the long run, if it involves giving your backers some tangible good then be prepared to pay a sales tax.

Quote from: I run with scissors;584249For me, cut and paster means that instead of using the SRD for new games, that follow a different style and tone (eg. Stars Without Numbers). When I look at games such as LL and S&W, I often wonder why do you have to repeat the SRD? Simply release a supplement that allows you to emulate the style, or flavor, of D&D/AD&D you want?

Honestly, what is so groundbreaking the LotFP, but it allows Raggi to turn the SRD to 11?

IRWS

I don't have a problem with the original 3 clones because I see them as facilitators of new material.  If I contribute to expanding more of the 1E body into OSRIC, it isn't to get people to play OSRIC - it's so that the safe harbor can be enlarged and bring in more monsters, spells, etc., from the original game that people can use in making new material.

Quote from: I run with scissors;5842891. This is funding, not selling.
2. You should have a product either ready for production or close to production.
3. Kickstarter is not for retail stores, it is for individuals who want to be on the ground floor of a new product.

IRWS

Isn't requiring things to be close to production moving closer to selling? Also would cause problems for all the computer game Kickstarters.

I think that ultimately any Kickstarter which is to produce something that will later be sold in stores is naturally going to offer copies of the thing you're funding as a reward. And therefore in the eyes of many backers, Kickstarter is (to them) essentially a store. I don't think they'll ever be able to change that perception.

The only functional difference to me as a consumer between backing a Kickstarter and paying for a pre-order is I probably have a slightly better chance of getting my money back on a pre-order if they don't deliver.

Quote from: Grymbok;584295Isn't requiring things to be close to production moving closer to selling?

Basically. A huge chunk of the kickstarters' point is to raise money to have the means of production. So it's kind of a pipedream and a business killer for kickstarter to require products that'd be close to produced. Besides, how do you judge what's close to production, aside from a case by case basis? Nah. I think it all comes back to the risk management thing on the user's part, at the end of the day.

Also, regarding ACKS as a supplement versus a full game, I think it's one thing to criticize the principle of it, and indeed, the domain management alone could have been a supplement to Labyrinth Lord, in theory, but all things considered, there is more to ACKS than just the domain management. There are lots of little tweaks, like the reworking of the resolution mechanic with target numbers, that are also worth checking out, and the whole is written in such a fashion as to be extremely clear and ergonomic. It's to put it simply one of the best written games I've seen these last few years. It is REALLY well done. So having a whole package in a comprehensive, integrated format, instead of a supplement, I can see the logic behind it now, having read the thing.

I too wished people who think about publishing their own versions of the game or house rules would think about that fundamental question before getting to work: is it really worth adding yet-another-game on the OS marketplace, or would it better serve the community by being a supplement a la Majestic Wilderlands instead? I'd like to point to this particular title here, because IMO estar did it right in that category, and I wish more people out there would take that approach.

But at the same time, games like ACKS, or DCC RPG, or AS&SH, really profit from being their own self-contained games and universes. Whether we're talking about reasons having to do with economics running throughout the game, the setting's integrity and the emulation that comes out of its blend with the rules, or some reworking of some fundamental aspect of the simulation, there are some worthy arguments to put on the table to justify building another, different game. I just wish more people actually consciously thought of that before hand, instead of defaulting to publishing their own games.

I backed a guy (not a business) who had the nifty idea getting dice made with six important mathematical symbols on them. He wanted a few for laffs but because of the production costs he could only conceive of getting them in his hand by convincing a thousand maths heads that they wanted some too. I think it is a fair example of what Kickstarter intended to promote.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;584279Whoa! Minecraft? Also, I'd very much like to hear more about your afterschool program, maybe in a new thread?

Yeah, although that image is using a texture pack to look particularly cool - vanilla is more like this. Building Dwimmermount on a Minecraft server was a stretch goal for the Kickstarter. I'll start a thread on the afterschool program soon; you can read some of it here although we've been pretty loose in using that tag, and we're constantly revising our approach to the class as we get more experience.

Quote from: estar;584292The Reaper Kickstarter is a good example of a project right on the line. The molds, a development cost, are expensive so it is a good fit for kickstarter. But what do you give backers as a reward? Well you give them the what the mold produces, the miniatures! When coupled with the fact that the molds are designed to create miniatures that work together in a product line and sets of related miniatures.  The whole thing becomes little different than what you would do if you bought miniatures from the Reaper webstore.

I agree with this part, and no way am I implying that Reaper did anything wrong. I just think, from Kickstarter's perspective, things like the Pledge Manager, seem to go against the intent of the site. That intent is to bring indivduals to projects that they can support.

Quote from: estar;584292So it is a bit of a catch-22, you need investment to make the molds so you can make the miniatures yet the only logical reward makes the whole experience like buying from a store.

While it would be nice to avoid it, I think the only reasonable thing in the long run is just give government the sales tax so they don't wind up making some half ass regulations that screws around with what people want to try to do with crowdfunding. In the long run, if it involves giving your backers some tangible good then be prepared to pay a sales tax.

I think sales tax is one thing they are trying to avoid, I also also think they are trying to avoid the risk of becoming a retail commerce. By putting the risk on the individual backers, and campaign starters, Kickstarter is not on the hook for anything that goes wrong.

Quote from: Grymbok;584295Isn't requiring things to be close to production moving closer to selling? Also would cause problems for all the computer game Kickstarters.

I think that ultimately any Kickstarter which is to produce something that will later be sold in stores is naturally going to offer copies of the thing you're funding as a reward. And therefore in the eyes of many backers, Kickstarter is (to them) essentially a store. I don't think they'll ever be able to change that perception.

The only functional difference to me as a consumer between backing a Kickstarter and paying for a pre-order is I probably have a slightly better chance of getting my money back on a pre-order if they don't deliver.

For me looking for initial funding via Kickstarter allows you to go into production, and allow you to take the product from beyond it's initial release. The Instacube is a good example. They have raised close to $600,000. How much of that money will allow them to produce more unit above the backer levels, and make an attempt to move it mass market.

Reaper is another example. That initial funding, is allowing to ramp up Bones production, and make a much deeper push of the line.

I guess for me, if you are going to do a Kickstarter, you should do it to get the funding to get you pass the last mile (e.g.. production). I think the risk some run is when they go to Kickstarter with an idea, and no proof of concept to show for it.

Quote from: Benoist;584305Basically. A huge chunk of the kickstarters' point is to raise money to have the means of production. So it's kind of a pipedream and a business killer for kickstarter to require products that'd be close to produced. Besides, how do you judge what's close to production, aside from a case by case basis? Nah. I think it all comes back to the risk management thing on the user's part, at the end of the day.

See, I think all of this is proof positive that Kickstarter has done a lousy job of educating and branding what they are.

IRWS

Quote from: Benoist;584258Interesting!

Quote from: estar;584278That is a very good thing for Kickstarter to add the Risks and Challenges section to what you need to setup a project.

In relation to RPGs, I don't think it will have much impact.  Using Dwimmermount as an example, I don't think that section would have made James come forward and say that he wasn't as done, because he had previously said he was.

Quote from: I run with scissors;584289Hell, Adamant seems to think Kickstarter is nothing more than a pre-order hub and not a funding hub.

...

1. This is funding, not selling. (it is (pre)selling - EOTB)
2. You should have a product either ready for production or close to production. (This is what makes it (pre)selling - EOTB)
3. Kickstarter is not for retail stores, it is for individuals who want to be on the ground floor of a new product.

IRWS

I still don't get why some people think that putting an RPG product on KS means that there is a difference between that and putting up a pre-order on your own website.  What is the difference?  What part of the process in creating the product and delivering it changes?  

This is not a new widget with a thousand variables in R&D, manufacturing and packaging that could fuck it up.  This is rolling some dice and writing.  You watch, there is essentially going to be a cut-and-paste "Risk and Challenges" section:

1) The artists could flake
2) The printer could deliver sub-par books
3) My computer and backup could simultaneously crash and I loose all the data
4) I could have health problems

And I'm sure I'm forgetting about a few more.  But it's going to be, by and large, a template that every RPG product follows, because bringing an RPG product to market is not an unknown process.

Another reason why for the RPG biz, Kickstarter is really a pre-order, is that if KS' fees were 40% instead of 10% (i.e., more than lulu) no one would use it because KS is completely unnecessary except as a convenience and low-cost alternative to the distribution channels that already exist.

Quote from: EOTB;584294I don't have a problem with the original 3 clones because I see them as facilitators of new material.  If I contribute to expanding more of the 1E body into OSRIC, it isn't to get people to play OSRIC - it's so that the safe harbor can be enlarged and bring in more monsters, spells, etc., from the original game that people can use in making new material.

I do not per say, but I just see them as reinventing the wheel. For me, I think I want games that have something new to say, if you will, then just restating what has come before.

IRWS

Quote from: Benoist;584309Also, regarding ACKS as a supplement versus a full game, I think it's one thing to criticize the principle of it, and indeed, the domain management alone could have been a supplement to Labyrinth Lord, in theory, but all things considered, there is more to ACKS than just the domain management. There are lots of little tweaks, like the reworking of the resolution mechanic with target numbers, that are also worth checking out, and the whole is written in such a fashion as to be extremely clear and ergonomic. It's to put it simply one of the best written games I've these last few years. It is REALLY well done. So having a whole package in a comprehensive, integrated format, instead of a supplement, I can see the logic behind it now, having read the thing.

I too wished people who think about publishing their own versions of the game or house rules would think about that fundamental question before getting to work: is it really worth adding yet-another-game on the OS marketplace, or would it better serve the community by being a supplement a la Majestic Wilderlands instead? I'd like to point to this particular title here, because IMO estar did it right in that category, and I wished more people out there would take that approach.

But at the same time, games like ACKS, or DCC RPG, or AS&SH, really profit from being their own self-contained games and universes. Whether we're talking about reasons having to do with economics running throughout the game, the setting's integrity and the emulation that comes out of its blend with the rules, or some reworking of some fundamental aspect of the simulation, there are some worthy arguments to put on the table to justify building another, different game. I just wish more people actually consciously thought of that before hand, instead of defaulting to publishing their own games.

I agree, and as usual you said it much better than I did Benny. Also, as an aside, any D&D fan who has not checked out Majestic Wilderlands really needs to... it is, IMO, one of the best setting/supps for D&D and clones ever produced, and has so much material that can be used whether one chooses to run the Wilderlands or not that I can't imagine anyone not being to find something of value in it.

Quote from: EOTB;584325I still don't get why some people think that putting an RPG product on KS means that there is a difference between that and putting up a pre-order on your own website.  What is the difference?  What part of the process in creating the product and delivering it changes?  

It is not, per say, but from Kickstarter's presepctive, they are not a selling tool, but a funding tool. It is a means to get funding from interested parties, and in return they get on the ground floor of a product.

The funder assumes the risk by giving their money to someone, and in return they hopefully get something in return. For a pre-order, the risk is on the supplier. They have to fund the creation, and then hopefully, they get enough preorder to sell more.

IRWS