|
I assume he means small companies
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
Yeah, I mean I imagine Deadzone does pretty well but it seems most smaller companies tap out their market during the kickstarter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Oh hey Cheapass Games is kickstarting a new edition of Lord of the Fries. Just want to add that they've been doing a succession of kickstarters over the past couple years, and they've been great with updates and launching each kickstarter only once the previous one was fulfilled. They aren't doing anything flashy or spectacular but it really feels like they've figured out how turn it into a solid business model.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
Macdeo Lurjtux posted:I know we might not have access to sales numbers but has there been any mini or board game kickstarter that has actually been successful post campaign? Stonemeier Games have been doing quite well, as have Mantic. Zombicide sells all over. Eminent Domain started out on KS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 09:22
|
|
|
Macdeo Lurjtux posted:I know we might not have access to sales numbers but has there been any mini or board game kickstarter that has actually been successful post campaign? Dreadball has sold through several additional post-ks print runs, well above and beyond their pre-launch predictions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
Macdeo Lurjtux posted:I know we might not have access to sales numbers but has there been any mini or board game kickstarter that has actually been successful post campaign? Flash Point?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tonyshine/final-attack-cooperative-real-time-super-robot-boa/posts/1162289quote:This whole venture has been a learning experience. I'm off to redo things through. I have a plan. Please don't say, "Get more reviews," "Make a new video," "Make several finished copies of the game," "Take out ads," or any other obvious thing that I already said I'm doing. I'll be back to try again in a few months, hopefully. I would be lying if I said I didn't find it annoying that I don't have enough money to ask for money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Alas. Looking forward to the reboot though! Good luck sir. Hidden upside: I won't be waiting on three different board game KS haha.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
I think this was the right decision, BL. Better to blow through the goal rather than limp through it, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I think this was the right decision, BL. Better to blow through the goal rather than limp through it, to be honest. Honestly, the concept that Indie Boards & Cards can make upwards of $100,000-200,000, sell their games at Target, get promotion from Wil Wheaton, and still have the audacity to come back and crowdfund new releases is as infuriating as it is confusing. The #1 reason I'd want to blow my goal out of the water is because I could make more than 1 game with that money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Honestly, the concept that Indie Boards & Cards can make upwards of $100,000-200,000, sell their games at Target, get promotion from Wil Wheaton, and still have the audacity to come back and crowdfund new releases is as infuriating as it is confusing. The #1 reason I'd want to blow my goal out of the water is because I could make more than 1 game with that money. And then they can't even print their loving cards the same color.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Better luck next time BL! I hope the next one does better for you, our playgroup was looking forward to Final Attack.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:I would be lying if I said I didn't find it annoying that I don't have enough money to ask for money. Eh, this is how investment has worked since investment capital has been a thing. Look on the bright side: at least you don't have to drop a couple thou for invitation to brunch with a trust fundee who wants to see how pretty you can beg. I do think that, more than hard cash upfront, you're gonna get the most mileage out of the upcoming lead time and man-hours. (Yeah, that's a resource with a dollar value, but at least it's one you can theoretically generate in the coming months.) Finishing the art at a loss is gonna hurt, but if you can even do a full-art of the current PNP, then dorks like me will have an easier time showing the game off at stores and local cons. I can get many, many more butts in seats with colorful pictures of robots than I can with mostly-white cards covered in text. "The first bite is with the eye" and all that. (Also, if and when you do a proto for Rahdo, don't print the stupid $300 chip sheets. Artscow/Printerstudio the cards and board, and send a label sheet for the chips and keys. Rahdo is more than willing to substitute his own components.) Godspeed BL. I'll keep doing what I can on the ground. gutterdaughter fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Mar 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Ask for money and you'll get advice, ask for advice and you'll get money. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
BL, I don't want to kick you while you are down, but just wanted to comment on:quote:The game will also improve. More time means more content. I can increase the number of audio tracks, I can develop new Robeasts, and I can even possibly backport some planned expansion content. Your patience will be rewarded. Also, the Kickstarter and my progress on the game have both suffered due to my having to juggle both of them full-time, so tackling each one at a time would drastically improve the quality of both. Perhaps you actually were working on the Kickstarter "full-time", but you would never in a million years know that by looking at the Kickstarter itself. If and when you launch again you really need to treat it seriously, and instead of posting on the forums about how you have all these things in motion to actually post it on Kickstarter to the people who are backing, and to the people who are considering backing. Although an "active" campaign doesn't necessarily mean the end product will go well, a well run campaign is at least a major attractive to potential backers. Best of luck, and looking forward to attempt 2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Any thoughts on the cryptozoic ghostbusters game? To buy or to avoid?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
rear end Catchcum posted:Cryptozoic. avoid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Counterpoint: HEX owns and Epic Duels of the Spellwizards is fantastic, also they rescued the doom that came to atlantic city from KS hell, on their own dime, cryptozowns
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Counterpoint taken. As a consumer, though, you'll save a ton of money and get your game earlier if you just wait till it hits retail.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
I like the stupid cryptozoic deck building games because it is random but I still have strategy when building each time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Fallorn posted:I like the stupid cryptozoic deck building games because it is random but I still have strategy when building each time. Also their rules are pretty clear and they have strong visual design on their game bits/cards in my experience. at least compared to Dominion and that Marvel deck building game (not high bars, granted)
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Honestly, the concept that Indie Boards & Cards can make upwards of $100,000-200,000, sell their games at Target, get promotion from Wil Wheaton, and still have the audacity to come back and crowdfund new releases is as infuriating as it is confusing. The #1 reason I'd want to blow my goal out of the water is because I could make more than 1 game with that money. I'm on your side and as a rule will not find those sort of games.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
quote:I like the stupid cryptozoic deck building games because it is random but I still have strategy when building each time. DC Deckbuilder 1.0 is actually a reasonably interesting game that a few players here got good use out of (to be fair, largely they liked it because of the theme and how they could play 3 rounds, including setup, in a lunch hour). Perhaps that's faint praise, but viewed historically that's pretty good for a licensed game. The expansions (and Street Fighter) are all kind of a mess (according to the people who played a lot of base DC, I didn't play much of any of them). None of us liked Penny Arcade; it had a poorly done double resource system, lots of game ruining cards (eg. Bat-Milk, which in practice felt like "Laboratory + Half a Chapel" for 3, and which I think the designer later wanted to take back), and generally too many very easy decisions. Epic Spellz is not something I'd want to play often, but it basically works fine and has some stuff that is properly categorized under "fun" (goofy illustrations and funny names and what not). Cryptozoic doesn't normally make actual turds, and I don't go out of my way to avoid them. They just tend to err on the side of unambitious and light.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
I enjoyed Hot Rod Creeps was actually a pretty fun game and I have been getting a lot of play time out of it. This went against all my expectations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
rear end Catchcum posted:Any thoughts on the cryptozoic ghostbusters game? To buy or to avoid? If you think you might pick it up at some point I'd back it now. They've repeatedly said that none of the stretch goals will will be available after the kickstarter (Whether or not you believe them is another thing.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
I think out of all of the deckbuilders I tried, the DC Deckbuilding one was the worst one I tried. It's basically Ascension, but worse, and managed to pile even more mistakes on top of the mistakes made by Ascension (for a start, having VPs on every card, making the cards with higher VPs being also mechanically better). I felt I had a modicum of control when I played Ascension and even though it wasn't my favourite game ever, I can see why people like it. In DC Deckbuilder, I felt like I had no choices: there was a point in which there were no cards on the market that I wanted, but I didn't have enough resources to get what I wanted and if I didn't buy anything, I would fall behind the VP curve anyway, so the choice was either to fill my deck with chaff or fall behind the VP curve. At the same time, the person that was able to gain the powerful supervillain cards was constantly going ahead of the curve because he both got loads of VPs and was getting powerful cards at the same time. On the other hand, I like Legendary Encounters, but mostly because it's a full co-op game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I think out of all of the deckbuilders I tried, the DC Deckbuilding one was the worst one I tried. It's basically Ascension, but worse, and managed to pile even more mistakes on top of the mistakes made by Ascension (for a start, having VPs on every card, making the cards with higher VPs being also mechanically better). I felt I had a modicum of control when I played Ascension and even though it wasn't my favourite game ever, I can see why people like it. In DC Deckbuilder, I felt like I had no choices: there was a point in which there were no cards on the market that I wanted, but I didn't have enough resources to get what I wanted and if I didn't buy anything, I would fall behind the VP curve anyway, so the choice was either to fill my deck with chaff or fall behind the VP curve. At the same time, the person that was able to gain the powerful supervillain cards was constantly going ahead of the curve because he both got loads of VPs and was getting powerful cards at the same time. Yeah, I agree with this assessment of DC Deckbuilder wholeheartedly, although I think I probably like Ascension quite a bit more than you. I've played a bunch of deckbuilders. DC Deckbuilder is handily the worst experience I've had in the genre, and it accompanies all that bad design with no real selling points other than the pasted-on license. If you want a superhero deckbuilder, Legendary exists and is a better game on nearly every level (even though it still doesn't do an amazing job of being a superhero game, imho). I think there are others, too, though I can't comment on them. If you want a market row deckbuilder, Ascension is better in pretty much every way also. If you just want a good deckbuilder, well, Dominion, right? But I do think Cryptozoic has shown themselves capable of good work, like with Hex. I'm not backing Ghostbusters because I'm pretty much full up on super-expensive exclusive-ridden miniatures-driven Kickstarter projects already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Everything you need to know about DC Deckbuilding Game is right there in the title of the game. It's an unbalanced, unplaytested cash grab that largely copies whatever the most popular recent game was that the designers could see, and it's not worth playing at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
I've never played it so I can't comment on the gameplay, but how do you come to the conclusion that naming your game the name of its genre unironically is a good and cool thing to do? It'd be like calling Race for the Galaxy "Space Role Game" or Caverna "Dwarf Worker Placement Game."
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:I've never played it so I can't comment on the gameplay, but how do you come to the conclusion that naming your game the name of its genre unironically is a good and cool thing to do? It'd be like calling Race for the Galaxy "Space Role Game" or Caverna "Dwarf Worker Placement Game." https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/148099/worker-placement
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:I've never played it so I can't comment on the gameplay, but how do you come to the conclusion that naming your game the name of its genre unironically is a good and cool thing to do? It'd be like calling Race for the Galaxy "Space Role Game" or Caverna "Dwarf Worker Placement Game." I'm actually completely in favor of it. I just wish DC Deck Building Game had come in a white box with blue accents 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:I'm actually completely in favor of it. I just wish DC Deck Building Game had come in a white box with blue accents Well, I mean, technically... it is! Though I have a feeling THAT'S THE JOKE here... 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:I've never played it so I can't comment on the gameplay, but how do you come to the conclusion that naming your game the name of its genre unironically is a good and cool thing to do? It'd be like calling Race for the Galaxy "Space Role Game" or Caverna "Dwarf Worker Placement Game." Hey, it was new and untested ground for game name schemes... ...in the late seventies/early eighties. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I think out of all of the deckbuilders I tried, the DC Deckbuilding one was the worst one I tried. It's basically Ascension, but worse, and managed to pile even more mistakes on top of the mistakes made by Ascension (for a start, having VPs on every card, making the cards with higher VPs being also mechanically better). I felt I had a modicum of control when I played Ascension and even though it wasn't my favourite game ever, I can see why people like it. In DC Deckbuilder, I felt like I had no choices: there was a point in which there were no cards on the market that I wanted, but I didn't have enough resources to get what I wanted and if I didn't buy anything, I would fall behind the VP curve anyway, so the choice was either to fill my deck with chaff or fall behind the VP curve. At the same time, the person that was able to gain the powerful supervillain cards was constantly going ahead of the curve because he both got loads of VPs and was getting powerful cards at the same time. The co-op version, if you can believe it, is even worse. You don't get to keep the villians, so you spend resources without getting benefits. There are crisis cards which have to be beat in order to progress. Each requires no villians to be in play (so beat them and then watch more come out) and have some condition all players have to do. But the condition is usually like 'Each player must destory an equipment from hand' or 'Each player destroys the top card of their deck and if they all have different costs you succeed'. Things you can't control. We spent around 6 turns on one card because it required everyone have a defense card in hand and I had 1 in my deck. We only succeed because I could buy cards out of the trash, because good luck getting that card to appear in the market. Your stuck buying cards because so many get destroyed but then you're required to be able to consistently produce certain cards to progress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Raging Heroes just sent out an update that their Toughest Girls of The Galaxy 2 Kickstarter will start on 25th March. They're going to be offering 6 different armies (3 fantasy, 3 sci-fi) and the kickstarter is only going to run for 2 weeks  I don't know why people think they can capture the fervour of the first and last weeks of a 4 week project without the lull in the middle by cutting it down to 2 weeks. It doesn't give people enough time to truly get hyped and makes it harder for people to make large pledges as there's less time to wait for paychecks to come in and things like that. Especially with something like this where I have no doubt people will be pledging for more than one army (iirc, one of each model from one of the armies in the first kickstarter would have run you about $400) I really think they're going to end up selling themselves short and pick up fewer pledges than they would have had they comitted to a 4 week project. But then they also said they've just spent $11,000 out of their own pockets to send the 'freebie' minis from the first project to all the backers who are still waiting for their orders (they are still in the process of manufacturing the 'third wave' of minis which includes the vehicles and some of the later stretch goal minis; this is expected to wrap up in the next month and they're projecting that all orders will be shipped by the middle of the year at the latest) so that people don't get lovely about the fact that they've been waiting 2 years for the minis from the first KS while the second KS is starting, so who knows what their business strategy is  That being said I'll probably still pledge way too much for these terrible cheesecake minis and will undoubtedly kick in more when the pledge manager comes along in a year's time 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
I'll probably get the not-cheesecake ones for Sisters of Sigmar but goddamn: this is possibly the worst time to release the armies they're releasing. I can't say for Dark Eldar, but Sisters of Battle barely have a codex, and Warhammer Fantasy is imploding. And if you didn't already have a Dark Elf army, you could get one from any of the
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Yeah same. I don't care much for the dark elves, but I'm hoping the Sisters of Battle-alikes will be nice. Also they seem to be handling the delays in the first one in first class manner. I didn't pay for wave shipping but they decided to send everything they had on-hand recently anyway. I was kind of reserved to having to wait till late in the year to get my stuff but hey, not arguing if they want to ship me stuff earlier.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
I think they've been great with their communication throughout the project and I don't mind that they still haven't finished all the manufacturing / shipping given how much the original TGG project expanded in scope from a small handful of heroine minis to three full armies. I'm looking forward to getting my minis whenever they turn up and hearing that we'll be getting the freebies early is cool but just seems like a strange business decision to burn more than $10k on shipping but then run a 2 week KS because they 'need to to keep Raging Heroes operating' (paraphrased from the most recent update). I'm hoping the sci-fi armies look good because I'm a sucker for that aesthetic and even if they don't make good counts-as for 40k they'll be a fun painting project two years from now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
The email did kind of rollercoaster me, since it started out "we're giving you all* stuff!" and then finished by narrowly defining "you all" to a very specific group that does not include me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:29
|
|