Sunday, March 25, 2012
Pitching advice
Some good-sounding advice from Corey Young here, guest writing at Hyperbole Games. I've never tried to pitch a game to a publisher at a convention, but this seems like a sound set of guidelines for doing so, and if Corey can be believed, it may actually work.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Kickstarter dangers
Great post over at BGG by a Nathan McNair, an aspiring Kickstarter self-publisher at Pandasaurus Games, who points out that even with Kickstarter, the economics of publishing don't work until you're at a huge number of units. He says he's $2000 in the hole from his publishing effort before even starting Kickstarter. I'm probably around $1,200.
A big chunk of that is the filing fee plus two years of LLC fees ($450); not sure I'd recommend that for everybody starting out, but I think it was the right move for me to protect my other assets.
Another big chunk is web hosting (probably around $200); I saved by pre-paying for this site for several years, but I had to put up the cash at the start.
The rest is mostly printing up demo/test copies of my games; I've spent probably $300-$400 on that for many different items plus shipping. Beyond that, some incidentals like toner and paper; I've also bought a bunch of glass stones, dice, and pawns and such for testing copies.
As income, I have very little. I have a relatively low number of low-margin sales from TheGameCrafter.com for my games published there, and I have one larger multi-unit sale of Diggity to a friend who bought a number of copies as holiday gifts. I probably netted $40 on that.
So, even if I did a Kickstarter campaign, unless I hit it out of the park, I'd never get back those sunk expenses. Kickstarter does two things well:
The second is a big deal; you go from getting about 25% of the sales price through distribution to 90% of the sales price (after Kickstarter fees). However, as I've commented on before, unless you're making more than 3000 copies, the math doesn't work anyway - your cost of production is going to be $5-10 even for a small game without moving parts; add shipping and art into that, and you're easily up to $15-20 per game just to get them made. You're not going to run a Kickstarter campaign selling a simple game for more than $20 or $25 - you're just not competitive with commercial games then - and Kickstarter buyers usually expect shipping to be included in their price. That's another $5 per game at least.
So, roughly speaking, you don't make money on Kickstarter until you hit a really high sales figure. Even saying it's 2000 copies, at $25 a pop that means you've got to interest 2000 people and raise $50,000, in a game they've never seen. A very tall order.
A big chunk of that is the filing fee plus two years of LLC fees ($450); not sure I'd recommend that for everybody starting out, but I think it was the right move for me to protect my other assets.
Another big chunk is web hosting (probably around $200); I saved by pre-paying for this site for several years, but I had to put up the cash at the start.
The rest is mostly printing up demo/test copies of my games; I've spent probably $300-$400 on that for many different items plus shipping. Beyond that, some incidentals like toner and paper; I've also bought a bunch of glass stones, dice, and pawns and such for testing copies.
As income, I have very little. I have a relatively low number of low-margin sales from TheGameCrafter.com for my games published there, and I have one larger multi-unit sale of Diggity to a friend who bought a number of copies as holiday gifts. I probably netted $40 on that.
So, even if I did a Kickstarter campaign, unless I hit it out of the park, I'd never get back those sunk expenses. Kickstarter does two things well:
- allows you to raise capital if you don't have enough to self-fund a print run
- allows you to eliminate the middle-man costs of distributors and stores
The second is a big deal; you go from getting about 25% of the sales price through distribution to 90% of the sales price (after Kickstarter fees). However, as I've commented on before, unless you're making more than 3000 copies, the math doesn't work anyway - your cost of production is going to be $5-10 even for a small game without moving parts; add shipping and art into that, and you're easily up to $15-20 per game just to get them made. You're not going to run a Kickstarter campaign selling a simple game for more than $20 or $25 - you're just not competitive with commercial games then - and Kickstarter buyers usually expect shipping to be included in their price. That's another $5 per game at least.
So, roughly speaking, you don't make money on Kickstarter until you hit a really high sales figure. Even saying it's 2000 copies, at $25 a pop that means you've got to interest 2000 people and raise $50,000, in a game they've never seen. A very tall order.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
New Projects On PlanktonGames.com
I have added two of my recent projects to the Plankton Games website - see:
Warped:
http://planktongames.com/warped.php
Horde:
http://planktongames.com/horde.php
Neither of these is published yet, but I wanted to get some info up on the site.
http://planktongames.com/warped.php
Horde:
http://planktongames.com/horde.php
Neither of these is published yet, but I wanted to get some info up on the site.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
New Diggity Art
Friday, March 2, 2012
Unpub.net
Cartrunk.net is a game design website run by John Moller. I heard of it through coverage of a convention of sorts they run for unpublished game designers called Unpub, which just had its second iteration in January (unfortunately, I only heard of it in February, or I might have tried to go). The two main Unpub events have been in Dover, Delaware, but they're starting to spawn Mini-Unpubs at various locations around the country; there's a schedule of events (and a slick way to add them to your Google Calendar) on the site.
John has just announced a new site for unpublished games called Unpub.Net, which is a place to list unpublished games. It seems to be sort of a hybrid between a designer community site and a consolidator for unpublished designs, where you can list your games, and then publishers could come browse designs and see if any are to their liking.
It's a neat idea; I'm not sure that publishers (who I understand get hundreds of submissions and pitches directly already) will go here to search through the site, but it could still a good way to get some exposure, and the community aspect could be really useful - a way to get commentary, reviews, and playtesters, and to hear about the in-person Unpub events, which I think would be a great way to test out a design.
John has just announced a new site for unpublished games called Unpub.Net, which is a place to list unpublished games. It seems to be sort of a hybrid between a designer community site and a consolidator for unpublished designs, where you can list your games, and then publishers could come browse designs and see if any are to their liking.
It's a neat idea; I'm not sure that publishers (who I understand get hundreds of submissions and pitches directly already) will go here to search through the site, but it could still a good way to get some exposure, and the community aspect could be really useful - a way to get commentary, reviews, and playtesters, and to hear about the in-person Unpub events, which I think would be a great way to test out a design.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Even more Kickstarter analysis
A good, thoughtful article on Kickstarter funding (actually, the second half of a longer good thoughtful article - read Part I too) from Chris Norwood over at GamerChris.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Rules writing tips
Some good advice here from a reviewer - somebody who likely reads a good many more rules documents than your typical game designer.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Game Design Notebook - Horde - Step 2: Revision and Prototype
In my last post, I mentioned my newest game project, tentatively called Horde. The original submission was for a contest entry at BGDF and was constrained by the contest restrictions and the 200-word limit on entries. Once the contest was over, free from those restrictions, I liked the idea enough to create a prototype and try it out. The original idea had used small figures of different colors; I shifted that to cards, and created a deck of cards with six "suits" - typical fantasy stuff: fire, water, sun, moon, forest, royal - and five monster types - troll, ooze, golem, dragon, skeleton. I doubled each of these, for sixty total cards, which would be more than enough for people to pick a couple of them on each of 11 turns (5 monsters + 6 suits = 11) and have enough.
But, as I was making these up and doing some rudimentary art, I thought of some ways to make the game more interesting, by having special additional monsters that allowed for special plays or special scoring. That added a bunch more cards, and because those cards are generally more powerful than the regular ones, I needed new rules to balance out these cards. The mechanism I tried initially was this: whenever somebody chooses a special card, everybody else gets another one. More on that in my next post in this series.
I wanted to make the prototype at least look nice, so I collected some art for it, shown at right. The art that I used came from four sources:
Art for cards |
But, as I was making these up and doing some rudimentary art, I thought of some ways to make the game more interesting, by having special additional monsters that allowed for special plays or special scoring. That added a bunch more cards, and because those cards are generally more powerful than the regular ones, I needed new rules to balance out these cards. The mechanism I tried initially was this: whenever somebody chooses a special card, everybody else gets another one. More on that in my next post in this series.
I wanted to make the prototype at least look nice, so I collected some art for it, shown at right. The art that I used came from four sources:
- stuff I made myself - generally crude or bad, although some of them were OK
- stuff I already had access to - I commissioned some art for a previous game, Zombie Ball, so I had art for skeletons and vampires already in place.
- online clip-art - I didn't want to use clip-art that was licensed or of unclear origin, so I went with royalty-free open-use stuff. There's a pretty extensive clip art library at clker.com which purports to be all royalty free. There's another one at openclipart.org which is even more clearly royalty free. Clker includes nearly everything at openclipart.org, so you can get more options at clker.
- art from expired-copyright books - for this, I used Google Books and searched for books from prior to 1923 - anything in those is in the public domain.
Once I had art, it was easy to go ahead and order a prototype from TheGameCrafter.com - and because I was curious, I even went ahead and got one of their medium boxes, which is cool - I'll discuss that later too.
I did the ooze using PowerPoint and some GIMP effects |
The final prototype |
A knight from a fairy tale book, once colorized, became my Elvenking |
Clip art borrowed from clker.com |
Game Design Notebook - Horde - Step 1: Contest entry
So, I entered a game in the newly-shrunken monthly BGDF design showdown in January. I got second in the voting. I'll put up a few posts about it here, the first being my entry there.
The restrictions for the contest were (1) that players had to make permanent rules as they go (inspired by New Year's Resolutions) and (2) that things have to come in pairs. These aren't that important, but they did lead me to a game design I like a lot. The new word limit for entries was 200 words. In case you were wondering, it's very difficult to make a robust game whose rules fit in 200 words; none of the other entries described a full game. Here's my entry:
Horde
2-6 players
Object:
Build the highest-scoring horde of monsters
Components:
10 Rule cards – 5 colors, 5 monsters (red, yellow, blue, black, white; ogre, dragon, knight, goblin, ooze)
50 monster tokens - pairs of monsters (2 each of five colors and five types)
Scoring board – 10 score spaces (0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10)
Setup:
Shuffle the rule cards and place them and all other components between players (rules face down).
Play:
Each turn, a player first draws a rule card and places it on the board on any open scoring space. This establishes (resolves?) the scoring for the monster or color shown. Next, the player chooses one, two, or three monsters from the common pool. None of the monsters can match (same color or same monster). The other players then each take the same number of monsters from the pool. These monsters also may not match each other. Players unable to take the full number legally must take fewer.
Scoring:
Game ends after ten turns (all rules played). For each rule card, the player with the most of that color or monster type gets the point value shown for that rule on the board.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Chicken Caesar
Image from the Game Salute site. SBBQR? |
So, they've got a great name and theme, but what about the details? They've used the Springboard service from Game Salute, a service about which I'm curious. There is precious little detail amidst the pretty pictures and hype on the Game Salute site, but what it appears to be is a program where independent game designers can get assistance with publication, including playtesting, advice on game design, publication, and launching a Kickstarter campaign, in addition to a "Seal of Quality" thing. Of course, these seals are only as useful as their reputation; I'm familiar with some of the games they list on their site, and the ones I know are good games with strong production values.
I'm going to investigate further; if the Game Salute service is relatively inexpensive, it could be great; if they want a huge chunk of the game's budget, then it would be hard to see how it can work with the already tenuous profit margins on games unless they also can give a big marketing boost.
The only data I've got on that is indirect - the minimum level to buy a game of Chicken Caesar is $40, which seems to include postage. That's pretty expensive for a game you can't look at a real copy of before buying, but it's consistent with what I know of printing costs for small print runs (at their $20,000 funding goal, $40 means 500 games).
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Mini-cards!
Mini cards (2.5"x1.75") now available at TheGameCrafter.com - this is a big deal; those could be super-useful for not only cards, but also currency, markers, tokens, abilities, etc. They're far cheaper per card than the regular size at about nine cents a card (if you can get your game into sets of 32). Very cool - this is one I've been waiting for.
UPDATE: The pricing for these cards isn't actually cheaper than the bigger cards, which is weird. I was wrong. I suppose that the cutting and handling are more difficult for these, but they're definitely saving on printing and ink, so I'm not sure what the economics are.
UPDATE: The pricing for these cards isn't actually cheaper than the bigger cards, which is weird. I was wrong. I suppose that the cutting and handling are more difficult for these, but they're definitely saving on printing and ink, so I'm not sure what the economics are.
Monday, February 6, 2012
BGG Ratings
BGG Ratings counts as of 2007, by BGG member Joe Grundy |
Kickstarter and publishing
The folks at the Opinionated Gamer visit several past themes on the value of Kickstarter to designers, publishers, and players. It was interesting to me that most of these folks, who are designers, enthusiasts, and players themselves, were lukewarm on the idea of Kickstarter, and several said the equivalent of 'I'd never fund something there, of course.' It makes me wonder who does.
One of the authors who did buy, Ted Alspach, said he'd been unimpressed with most of the games he'd gotten and specifically called out a couple of them, Carnival and Creatures, as disappointing. I explored on BoardgameGeek.com. Creatures looked kind of like a card-only version of one of my designs, Galapagos, but with fewer body parts, and it only got a 5.8 on BGG's scale, which is a pretty low score for BGG. Carnival, at a slightly-higher 6.3, looked interesting, but some reviewers (like Ted) said the gameplay was rough and sometimes boring.
Most of these guys agreed with the gist of what I and others have said here before, which is that Kickstarter is:
What are some takeaways? Here are mine, from a various parts of the post:
One of the authors who did buy, Ted Alspach, said he'd been unimpressed with most of the games he'd gotten and specifically called out a couple of them, Carnival and Creatures, as disappointing. I explored on BoardgameGeek.com. Creatures looked kind of like a card-only version of one of my designs, Galapagos, but with fewer body parts, and it only got a 5.8 on BGG's scale, which is a pretty low score for BGG. Carnival, at a slightly-higher 6.3, looked interesting, but some reviewers (like Ted) said the gameplay was rough and sometimes boring.
Most of these guys agreed with the gist of what I and others have said here before, which is that Kickstarter is:
- all good for publishers - their risk and investment is reduced
- mostly all good for designers - there are more possible routes to publication, risk is reduced, and self-publishing is far easier, but there may be a temptation to rush to publish an inadequately-tested project. N.B. I see this in myself, totally, in spades.
- a mixed bag for customers/players - they get access to more variety of games, and may see designs that wouldn't get made any other way, but they have to invest before seeing the game and seeing it reviewed, so their money is at risk
What are some takeaways? Here are mine, from a various parts of the post:
- Graphic design sells Kickstarter projects
- Post your rules with your Kickstarter project so that people can see how the game plays
- There's significant fear on the part of Kickstarter funders that the game projects won't get made and their money will be lost, although that is rare to unheard-of so far. Sounds like this might be worth addressing in the video or promotional materials for a Kickstarter project.
- These guys (admittedly a small sample of game enthusiasts) often buy based on a designer's reputation or past products, and are suspicious of unknown or unpublished designers. This kind of attitude (while probably helpful to them) is a barrier I'll have to overcome, although it's the same old Catch-22 that exists in all kinds of endeavors - we only publish published authors, or we only hire people with experience.
- Kickstarter has reduced the number of design submissions to traditional publishers
- As I suspected, self-publishers with basements full of unsold games are a real (and sad) thing, and there's apparently a lonely Hall of Failure somewhere at Essen populated by them.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Reviewers willing to take on independent games
The Gamer's Table, a boardgame review site, has started what is to become a series on independent games. For their first episode, they took a look at Xavier Lardy's Haunted. From the review, I found it a little tricky to figure out how the game worked, but they seemed to like it after some initial confusion about the rules.
More importantly to me, though, this might be a way to get some exposure for independent games - they seem to have pretty good production values on the videos, and the hosts seem to have played the game and taken the time to think about it. I've seen more detail in other video reviews (e.g. Tom Vasel's videos through the Dice Tower), but these might be a good way to get some exposure for a new release, even if it's a self-published or print-on-demand one like mine at TheGameCrafter.com
The first episode of The Gamer's Table seems to have about 7,400 views at the time I'm writing this; some from the more recent season have more like 400-500, so it's not a huge audience, but presumably it's a dedicated one seeking out this kind of content. Tom Vasel's seem to have more like 2,000-3,000, but these are games that probably start with a wider audience already by being published. Might be worth submitting my stuff.
UPDATE: They're actually up to five episodes on independent games. I watched the fifth episode just now, and the explanation of the game was more detailed and easier to follow. Neat stuff.
More importantly to me, though, this might be a way to get some exposure for independent games - they seem to have pretty good production values on the videos, and the hosts seem to have played the game and taken the time to think about it. I've seen more detail in other video reviews (e.g. Tom Vasel's videos through the Dice Tower), but these might be a good way to get some exposure for a new release, even if it's a self-published or print-on-demand one like mine at TheGameCrafter.com
The first episode of The Gamer's Table seems to have about 7,400 views at the time I'm writing this; some from the more recent season have more like 400-500, so it's not a huge audience, but presumably it's a dedicated one seeking out this kind of content. Tom Vasel's seem to have more like 2,000-3,000, but these are games that probably start with a wider audience already by being published. Might be worth submitting my stuff.
UPDATE: They're actually up to five episodes on independent games. I watched the fifth episode just now, and the explanation of the game was more detailed and easier to follow. Neat stuff.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Guiding design principles
This is a good article, with lots of advice I should take to heart but don't always.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Risky math
Risk battles, thoroughly quantified. Takeaway: Even for evenly matched armies, the attacker gets more likely to win the more each side has.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Big cards from TGC
New jumbo card template (from TGC site) |
Neat-o Dixit art (from a review by Tiffany Smith on BGG) |
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Game in progress - Wordy
Wordy in mid-game - bonus points for anyone who can tell me the last word... |
I'm still working on it, but give it a try if you want. I haven't done much interface work - e.g., no instructions! But it works. We've played a bunch of games of it already. To play, type any words you can make out of the letters provided, and try to get them all in the time limit.
I built it using a little PHP and a lot of JavaScript with a bunch of help from the CraftyJS game library, which I'd recommend to anybody. The dictionary I used was a subset of Kevin Atkinson's SCOWL project which was super-useful - I didn't want to use the whole Scrabble dictionary with all the really obscure words, but I wanted it to be mostly complete, and SCOWL let me decide what level of obscurity I was comfortable with. I'm still editing my list as I discover words it doesn't have (or words that it does have that it shouldn't!).
Anyway, give it a try, and let me know what you think! The game is here:
http://planktongames.com/wordy
Helpful post on the bidding and manufacturing process
There's a post from Mike Lee at Panda Game Manufacturing over at the Tasty Minstrel Games blog which goes through the steps of getting a game manufactured in China (or elsewhere overseas, I suppose). A very helpful post covering the whole process, a process I've only taken a couple steps into.
One of the quotes I got for manufacturing Diggity was from Panda, and they were competitive; their products are high quality, at least the couple of them I've seen (e.g. Pandemic, Train of Thought). I'd definitely recommend them.
One of the quotes I got for manufacturing Diggity was from Panda, and they were competitive; their products are high quality, at least the couple of them I've seen (e.g. Pandemic, Train of Thought). I'd definitely recommend them.
Friday, December 9, 2011
TheGameCrafter offers hexes and square cards
TGC Hex card template |
This is a really cool new feature - I love it when they add new printed options. This one is especially good because it allows for map-building games (although the tiles are the standard thick glossy cardstock, so not too thick). I don't think either of these will fit too well in the new tuckbox or printed small box options TGC offers, but they'd go in the big all-purpose 10"x10" boxes they use.
Here are links to the particular description pages with templates for designers:
Hexes here
Squares here
Friday, December 2, 2011
How not to handle Kickstarter
Chris Norwood over at GamerChris has a detailed takedown of a project he recently supported via Kickstarter. The details are in his post, but it sounds like the company in question made two bad decisions - first, they sold copies of the game to random convention attendees before sending them to their Kickstarter supporters, and second, they included materials that were supposedly "exclusive" to Kickstarter supporters in every game of their initial 5,000 game print run.
The game got funded, and a 5,000 print run is terrific, especially if it sells out, but I'm betting their next Kickstarter project (running now) might not draw too much support from those who, like Chris, feel justifiably betrayed. Part of the fun of supporting something on Kickstarter is being in at the beginning and feeling like you're doing something special; Chris' post is a great warning that the perks, though usually minor, are still really important to those who've done you the great favor of supporting you. He's got some good advice for others who go this route, too. Something to keep in mind if I try a Kickstarter-funded project in the future.
The game got funded, and a 5,000 print run is terrific, especially if it sells out, but I'm betting their next Kickstarter project (running now) might not draw too much support from those who, like Chris, feel justifiably betrayed. Part of the fun of supporting something on Kickstarter is being in at the beginning and feeling like you're doing something special; Chris' post is a great warning that the perks, though usually minor, are still really important to those who've done you the great favor of supporting you. He's got some good advice for others who go this route, too. Something to keep in mind if I try a Kickstarter-funded project in the future.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
More printed boxes at TGC.
TheGameCrafter.com medium box (from TGC site) |
This is maybe more attractive than their full-size box for small games with only cards and bits (no boards). At $4, it would be a significant fraction of the cost of a game, I'd bet, but it could also look pretty sharp if you print all over the box. The closure might not stand up to repeated use, but games don't get opened all that much, and I shouldn't judge it before I see it in person.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
More on SuperiorPOD's new service
In an earlier post today, I mentioned SuperiorPOD's new distribution service, and I said I couldn't find much detail on what extra parts they offer. Well, further research has revealed this page which has a good summary of the other stuff they offer.
The bottom line: more printed products and components and generally cheaper than TheGameCrafter.com's current offerings, especially for game boxes, but still a fairly maddeningly opaque site with hard-to-find templates, details, and pricing. If you're willing to write and ask, it looks like you can eventually work out what you need, but some folks in the forum above indicate a pretty slow set-up process (extending to months). I'd rather have it readily available and clear, like TGC does. As of now, it looks like you can't have both things (good prices, more extensive printed component offerings, and possible game store distribution of SuperiorPOD vs. straightforward, easy-to-use interface, easy storefront site, and numerous plastic parts of TGC).
The bottom line: more printed products and components and generally cheaper than TheGameCrafter.com's current offerings, especially for game boxes, but still a fairly maddeningly opaque site with hard-to-find templates, details, and pricing. If you're willing to write and ask, it looks like you can eventually work out what you need, but some folks in the forum above indicate a pretty slow set-up process (extending to months). I'd rather have it readily available and clear, like TGC does. As of now, it looks like you can't have both things (good prices, more extensive printed component offerings, and possible game store distribution of SuperiorPOD vs. straightforward, easy-to-use interface, easy storefront site, and numerous plastic parts of TGC).
Distribution service
From a new e-mail I got this morning - SuperiorPOD is trying to bridge the gap between print-on-demand, direct sales (which TheGameCrafter and SuperiorPOD itself provide) and getting games into actual retail stores. The service they've set up is here - Adventure Game Source. It looks like what they're doing is creating a wholesale style distribution service, similar to what traditionally published games use, that retail stores can order from. They also claim to have printing capabilities for lots of different parts and packaging.
Key things I don't know yet:
So, I don't really know what to make of this. I got some copies of my games from them a while ago, and the quality was excellent, although the timing and communication left a lot to be desired. The merge and then un-merge with TheGameCrafter has left these two companies as rivals. From my point of view TGC has some advantages - clear, relatively easy-to-use website, consistent service, clear lines of communication, and lots and lots of standard game parts - but cedes ground to SuperiorPOD in other areas, like cost, variety of printed parts and packaging, and now this distribution option.
I see that Andreas Propst has moved Elemental Clash to this service, so he must have found an advantage there. Maybe I'll see what they can do with Diggity.
Key things I don't know yet:
- How does the MSRP for a game get set? Given that they're offering a 45% discount off this price for distributors, and that print-on-demand costs are generally far higher than printing a whole bunch of a game at once, this could be tricky.
- How hard is it to get listed through the service? They only have an e-mail address to send your stuff too, and that makes it look like they need to look over your game and approve it for their model. I'm not sure how hard it is to be accepted to the program.
So, I don't really know what to make of this. I got some copies of my games from them a while ago, and the quality was excellent, although the timing and communication left a lot to be desired. The merge and then un-merge with TheGameCrafter has left these two companies as rivals. From my point of view TGC has some advantages - clear, relatively easy-to-use website, consistent service, clear lines of communication, and lots and lots of standard game parts - but cedes ground to SuperiorPOD in other areas, like cost, variety of printed parts and packaging, and now this distribution option.
I see that Andreas Propst has moved Elemental Clash to this service, so he must have found an advantage there. Maybe I'll see what they can do with Diggity.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
More navel-gazing about Kickstarter
In response to this post, reader Wordman says the following:
My problem with it, and I don't really have much of one, is that it nearly completely shifts the burden of the process from the designer to the consumer. The model for traditional publishing normally like either of these:
Design a game --> Invest a bunch of money --> Produce and sell game --> Recoup money
Design a game --> Invest a bunch of money --> Produce game, sell hardly any --> Become poor and bitter
Obviously, the second part of that chain is the barrier, and the potential costs are borne by the designer or publisher. With Kickstarter, the designer benefits by not having to risk lots of money, shifting that burden directly to the customer. However, if the game isn't good, the bitterness is still present, but shifted to his/her funders. So, it's win-win for the designer/publisher, but a mixed bag for the funder. But for both parties, there is a dilution of both risk and of bitterness there, which is good - I'm less bummed having dropped $20 on a bad Kickstarter game than I am having blown $10,000 to get a game printed that nobody buys.
I think Grant's major complaint is not that Kickstarter is bad, but that because it's win-win for the designer, there's a much weaker filter for the projects in question. That means the average quality of published games will have to go down (perhaps precipitously so on Kickstarter) while the number of published games will go way up. A little of this is a great thing - Wordman rightly points out that with a bigger pool of games to choose from, more awesome games will be produced rather than sitting in desk drawers and hard drives, and we may see great games that would never have come out. There's a downside here too, especially if the barrier gets too low - it's like the Internet in general. Many more people have a chance to speak, but they don't necessarily have something to say.
So, I like Kickstarter, and I think on balance it's great for independent (a fancy word for unpublished) game designers. There's a downside, too, though, and there's a chance that if a bunch of crappy games all go to the well at the same time or over and over again, it'll dry up. But so far, it's been better and grown faster than I thought possible, so what do I know?
I do worry that, as sometimes happens at TheGameCrafter.com, if most of the projects aren't of very high quality, it will become difficult to find the good ones among the sea of crap. TGC actually created a very small barrier in a recent update - they require at least one copy of a game to be purchased before it can be published to the shop - and I think it has helped raise the bar a little bit.
Grant's critique rings hollow to me. Not because his analysis is wrong, but because... well... consider this...
You live in a world that has games, but Kickstarter doesn't exist. A magic man appears and says "if you open this magic box, the world will transformed into a place that has many, many more games for you to choose from. Many of them might be worse than games you have now. A few of them, though, will probably be awesome." Do you open the box?
I would. I don't see the downside. I guess Grant's concern is that some people somewhere might be duped into buying a bad game. Or, perhaps that I, with my powers to choose for myself, might spend my money un-optimally on a game that wouldn't have had the opportunity to take my money if I hadn't opened the box. Why is that Grant's problem? I'd rather have the choice.A good hypothetical. I didn't mean to indicate that I thought Kickstarter shouldn't exist, or that it was bad for boardgame designers - on the contrary, I think it's terrific that it exists, and it's great that people are having success using it to produce games. One of the biggest barriers to entry to the board game market is the huge up-front investment required for game production, as I've discussed frequently (e.g. here). Kickstarter and similar crowd-funding places smooth out that barrier.
My problem with it, and I don't really have much of one, is that it nearly completely shifts the burden of the process from the designer to the consumer. The model for traditional publishing normally like either of these:
Design a game --> Invest a bunch of money --> Produce and sell game --> Recoup money
Design a game --> Invest a bunch of money --> Produce game, sell hardly any --> Become poor and bitter
Obviously, the second part of that chain is the barrier, and the potential costs are borne by the designer or publisher. With Kickstarter, the designer benefits by not having to risk lots of money, shifting that burden directly to the customer. However, if the game isn't good, the bitterness is still present, but shifted to his/her funders. So, it's win-win for the designer/publisher, but a mixed bag for the funder. But for both parties, there is a dilution of both risk and of bitterness there, which is good - I'm less bummed having dropped $20 on a bad Kickstarter game than I am having blown $10,000 to get a game printed that nobody buys.
I think Grant's major complaint is not that Kickstarter is bad, but that because it's win-win for the designer, there's a much weaker filter for the projects in question. That means the average quality of published games will have to go down (perhaps precipitously so on Kickstarter) while the number of published games will go way up. A little of this is a great thing - Wordman rightly points out that with a bigger pool of games to choose from, more awesome games will be produced rather than sitting in desk drawers and hard drives, and we may see great games that would never have come out. There's a downside here too, especially if the barrier gets too low - it's like the Internet in general. Many more people have a chance to speak, but they don't necessarily have something to say.
So, I like Kickstarter, and I think on balance it's great for independent (a fancy word for unpublished) game designers. There's a downside, too, though, and there's a chance that if a bunch of crappy games all go to the well at the same time or over and over again, it'll dry up. But so far, it's been better and grown faster than I thought possible, so what do I know?
I do worry that, as sometimes happens at TheGameCrafter.com, if most of the projects aren't of very high quality, it will become difficult to find the good ones among the sea of crap. TGC actually created a very small barrier in a recent update - they require at least one copy of a game to be purchased before it can be published to the shop - and I think it has helped raise the bar a little bit.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Kickstarter for games - a critique
Really interesting critique/rant by Grant Rodiek about using Kickstarter for game projects over here at Exiled Here. I've been aware of Grant's game, Farmageddon, on TheGameCrafter.com for a while, and it sounds like he's done some parallel things (and had parallel thoughts) as he's moved through the independent design/publishing realm. His ideas on Kickstarter mirror mine - a great opportunity, but one that's becoming very crowded and inconsistently good.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Oceans Elevens
I'm guest-hosting the monthly Game Design Showdown over at Board Game Designers Forum. I required an ocean theme ('cause I'm a marine geologist) and a voting mechanic ('cause it's November). Eight good entries already, and there might be more before the day is through. I miss not entering, but it's fun seeing what people come up with. I was a little worried that I wouldn't attract any entries, but that's not been the case.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Warped pictures
I took some pictures of one of my current projects, Warped, which I entered in TheGameCrafter's vehicle design contest and which I've now sent off to Hippodice's design contest. I'll see what Hippodice says - I should know within a month or so if it makes it to the playtest round.
It looks cool, although I don't think I'd ever actually play it on a table with holes in it - too many pieces to fall through. Pretty neat how much stuff you can get for under $20 - that's a lot of parts.
It looks cool, although I don't think I'd ever actually play it on a table with holes in it - too many pieces to fall through. Pretty neat how much stuff you can get for under $20 - that's a lot of parts.
TGC offering actual gameboards
Example new TGC board. Image from their post (linked above) |
They're originally 18"x18" and fold twice to 9"x9", which means they'll fit in TheGameCrafter's new standard black boxes. Pretty cool. I'm going to see if I can stretch/pad the Yoggity artwork to fit and then get one printed up. Hopefully it will also work for my product-in-development, Zombie Ball.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Social media presences of questionable value
I set up a Google+ page for Plankton Games. Not sure what that's worth. My Facebook Plankton Games page has never been visited by anybody but me, as far as I can tell. But maybe Google+ will be different - it's tied to the search engine better, presumably. We'll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)