They have about a third of the backers of Stonehearth and yet well over twice the money! HOW do you get to 750k with 3500 people?! This has to be a record for like… the biggest proportion of money to backers.
Could you imagine if we had similar backing? We’d be pushing 2 million!
Um… Robotech is a tabletop game with physical rewards (i.e. figurines). Tabletop game Kickstarters tend to attract a more dedicated following ( imo ). Robotech is not even the most successful tabletop/boardgame that I’ve seen (see: zombicide) on Kickstarter but it’s doing quite well.
Not really, table top games tend to last over a period of years. I have about £3,000 worth of Warhammer miniatures still lying around which lasted me some 10 years of playing games; that’s what, £25 a month? We’ve got chaps who work in proverbial burger hell who can still afford 5 quid a week to put into a hobby.
I think I’ve put about $2,100 into 4 miniatures Kickstarters. You don’t have to be rich to drop a few thousand on entertainment, especially if you are going out twice a week for playing these games.
It’s a different world for table top games, because you get a physical item, rather than just some numbers on someone’s server~
I mean, sort of. I still think it’s a little crazy. They’re averaging about 220 dollars per backer. I think that would be like us averaging 60 per backer (Which would double the amount of money in our game).
The point is it’s still a bit disproportional IMO. What I’m really trying to say it that it would be nice if we had people willing to spend double the money necessary for Stonehearth too.
But as others point out, that you’re getting out of the Robotech KS is physical goods, not just a computer game and a t-shirt (no offense to Radiant). The 260$ pledge level in Robotech appears to get 138(!) miniatures plus the game, dice, templates and some art prints. That’s a massive amount of raw and real STUFF that Stonehearth simply can’t match, being a virtual good. Just the way miniature games vs. computer games work.
You think Robotech is crazy, check out Reaper Bones. Reaper raised nearly 3.5 million with not even twice the backers Stonehearth currently has.
Look at Hex. That’s an online TCG and with not 4’000 people they raised $380’000 in 3 days (my own 120 included!). That’s about half as much per backer as the OP’s example, but still a lot more than Stonehearth has.
Here too is a different community, the TCG gamers. TCG gamers are used to spending huge amounts on starter packs, booster packs or entire displays (I sure did with M:TG). Computer gamers, however, are becoming used to spending between 10 and 50 to get a game - and 50 is a LOT for a computergame nowadays.
When I started playing, 50 were the cheapest! feeling old. Hehe… I just had a memory of myself installing a game to my PC consisting of 8 3.5’’ diskettes. “almost 10 megabytes! how could games ever have become THAT big??!!??!?!”
Note: the grinning smilie could use some love… it looks like it’s been laboring on the toiled for the past hour
But back to topic: I believe that our average backing is rather good for a computergame, isn’t it?
I still think everyone is missing the point. Comparitively speaking, when you take averages into account and percentages of people buying which tier, etc. it is still comparitively more.
But that’s besides the point, physical or not, if people are willing to spend on average 220 dollars for a game why can’t they spend just a little more on this game? Again, I’m not asking that the average backer for Stonehearth spend 200 dollars, but it’s too much to pay $40-$60 on Stonehearth, which would both be about proportionally equal, in terms of what you minimally need to spend to get a decent deal.
I think our backing is decent but could be better… and let me put it to you another way, people seem to be willing to spend twice of what’s necessary simply for the love of a game. What if people were willing to spend even $10 more on average for the love of Stonehearth? we’d be an extra hundred thousand dollars above where we are now. hell, even $5 extra dollars. Shit, just ONE extra dollar could make or break some of the stretch goals. Meanwhile here’s this other game where people are perfectly content to pay an extra ONE HUNDRED dollars. Physical product or not, it’s still a GAME. And paying 200% of what’s necessary for Stonehearth doesn’t potentially break the bank. One game is calculated in dozens of dollars. The other is calculated in hundreds. proportionally, Stonehearth isn’t performing as well… and I wish it was.
I just feel like people are sitting here thinking I’m saying, “MAN! Why can’t we spend 200 dollars on stonehearth?!” I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about what if people were willing to proportionally spend the same on stonehearth as this other game, which would be 40-60 dollars, which is a fair amount for a this game, but then, IMO, 200 dollars is a fair amount for a game as well (regardless of type or quality), especially when you get everything you need for only 130.
When I look at the tiers and the number of people who have supported Robo-tech, I see a dedicated fanbase who’s willing to put in extra effort to receive the best product possible, not a handful of gamers who want to capitalize on a good deal (though both may be true, I feel the former is a better representation than the latter).
Our average backing is good… but seeing things like this makes me anxious for just a bit more.
Tabletop games are expensive cause it’s physical. Therefore most pledges to get the game range up to $50 or more. Some close to $100, just for the game. So per pledge is much higher than any video game, especially if they do digital download.
@DAWGaMims I think the question is, are there any video game Kickstarters that shows comparative levels of generosity to successful Table Top projects? I suspect the answer is yes (Torment: Tides of Numenera, or Project Eternity may have been one), and if so - then what is the difference between them and Stonehearth?
If I might make assumptions for a moment, I think one factor going against Stonehearth is that it’s still not entirely clear (dev videos excluded since they only reach part of the audience) what the final game may actually resemble in terms of sitting down and playing it. Table top games often have rulebooks or play-throughs available, whereas the more successful Kickstarter video-games tend to be a part of an established franchise or easily assumed genre. I’ve backed above what’s “necessary” for Stonehearth, but it’s definitely not because I know what to expect (i.e., a sure thing).
Also keep in mind that people aren’t paying above the minimum deal purely for love of the game - it’s love of the extra stuff they get (although I’m sure there are some charitable souls who just want to see something succeed). What I have noticed is that a lot of successful Kickstarters have stretch goals that only apply to higher level backers. Not a ridiculous level, but above base-game backing, regardless. It’s certainly convinced me to increase my pledge in the past on video game kickstarters - and even for some tabletop projects that I haven’t backed due to last minute rationalization, I’ve almost pulled the trigger and dropped a couple of hundred just because of the cool extras that were being offered up.
I’m not sure what sort of things could apply to Stonehearth (of course they need to keep the playing field even), but if it could be figured out it kills two birds with one stone
more buzz among the community (as a result of the newly achieved and upcoming stretch goals that everyone is aiming for)
@JPL I pretty much already addressed several counterpoints to things you’ve said, so I won’t readdress them.
The bottom line is that it’s still a crazy amount of money they conjured up and I wish we could manage to increase it a bit too.
One thing I fault the devs for is that I don’t think they’ve adequately explained that the full game is being released in December, followed by patches with plenty of new content over the course of several months to a year. I know that the ENTIRETY of what they want to do won’t be in the December release date, but they’ve basically said that they want to crame as much stuff as possible into the game by Dec. I would even go so far as to argue that it has been implied that, if it’s a stretch goal which as been been reached, the plan is to include it in the Dec. Beta release. All of this is to say that more people may have been willing to pay extra for beta access if they understood they were basically getting the whole game.
@PDanford I know right?! I feel like it entirely depends on the community. One sort of community will be like “THIS GAME IS AWESOME! TAKE ALL MY MONEYZ!” while if you coax another type they’ll be like, “eeeeehhhhhh… yeaaaaa… seeeee… I’d love to give you $5 more so I can get that extremo-blamo pack with extra goodies, early access, and incredible awesome sauce… but… the thing is… I’m in starbucks and I’d rather spend that $5 on a cookie which will last me for 2 minutes than a game/pillow which will last me for dozens if not hundreds of hours of fun… sorry I don’t really think things through…”
And I’m sorry, I DO NOT CARE if the damn game is physical or what not. Who the hell spends $260 on an untested, unreviewed game who’s ruleset looks as if it’s still in the earliest phases of development and is subject to change? Rich gamers who are more concerned to see the best product possible be released rather than obtaining the greatest possible deal, that’s who. I DO think the love of the game has something to do with it and more so than the additions @JPL and I wish we had more people who would commit more money to our game.
Either way, it’s a crazy amount of cash and good luck to Robo-tech… now… have we hit 500k yet?
Ah, I see this is the misunderstanding. I’m also a wargamer, and have backed wargaming kickstarters and have been involved in lots of discussions about which ones succeeded and which ones failed and why. Based on these discussions, I can say with confidence that high-level backers nearly NEVER do it ‘for love of the game’, they do it since the deal at that higher pledge level is better. Wargamers, as a general trait, want to feel they got their money’s worth, and it’s far easier to rationalize the decision to spend more money as the cost per mini comes down, as they nearly always do at the higher pledge levels. If Pledge Level A gets you 50 minis at 100$, while Pledge Level B gets you 100 minis at 175$ dollars, people WILL splurge on the 175$ dollar pledge level since it’s seen as a better investment. Wargames also tend to be ‘infinitely expandable’ in the sense that you can keep on buying and using minis for the game, so those extra 50 minis in the above example will be useful, not just ‘spares’. So Robotech and similar wargaming kickstarters get those big pledges since they offer pure economical incentives to pledge higher.
Looking at Robotech in particular, we can see that at the 80$ level (the bare minimum to get the game, another important difference between Robotech and Stonehearth in terms of funds raised) there’s 104 backers, but the 140$ level there’s 2051 backers, and at the 260$ level there’s 673 backers. The 140$ dollar level is where the ‘deal’ starts to kick in as most of the stretch goals appear to have added minis to that level, and it only gets better from there in terms of cost/mini ratio. So we can see that most of the pledges are going towards the higher level deals, rather than out of any self-sacrificing love the game.
Yet we still come back to the whole aspect of “but we aren’t talking about increasing our payments to 100+ dollars, we’re only talking about increasing them by 10, 20, or 30.”
ALTHOUGH, more importantly, I think you touched on perhaps this kickstarter’s failure. Maybe if the devs would have added in a special weapon or armor set or something of that nature they could have coaxed more support. Of course, it would be nothing to break the game, but it certainly would have been more useful than those damn pets (which I think you’ll remember I don’t like ).
@DAWGaMims You are comparing prices, pledges, and arguing proportions whilst ignoring the context of the games, Just because people are laying down larger amounts of money for Robo-tech does not mean that this translates across all kickstarters.
You’re disreagarding one of the most important factors in this situation - Robotech is physical, the results of your payment are going to manifest in an instantly more tangible way.
Furthermore Robo-tech is a tabletop game, I think it’s relatively safe to say that the majority of those who played, loved, and experienced this type of game now occupy an older age-group, one that we can assume has access to a more disposable income. You said it yourself:
That’s probably a couple of the factors, older age group, access to more money.
Furthermore the benefit of having such a physical kickstarter is that your tiers are going to offer, in peoples opinions, substantially more rewarding and beneficial items.
This shouldn’t be seen in anyway an insult, or taking issue with how Radiant have managed their tiers, but ultimately with the SH tiers from $15 you are receiving the game - everything else is nice, but essentially unnecessary - Why lay down $100 for a t-shirt, when I can lay down $50 for everything I want, and similarly why pledge $50 if I’m only interested in the game and nothing else.
As Will said
I would say that SH is going to attract a wider audience, but Robo-tech is going to attract one that is going to want very specific benefits, something the kickstarter tiers can provide.
I actually applaud Radiant for not submitting to the pledge X amount and receive a beneficial special in-game item Y.
I could go on and on, but this already long enough.
Right, but what’s the reason to pledge higher? Robotech offers clear economic incentive to do, Stonehearth, at least above the 50$ level does not. To a certain extent, that’s part of the nature of the two mediums. So this is not a knock on Radiant; I think they’ve structured things fairly and reasonably.
And gah, all this looking at the Robotech Kickstarter has got me thinking about pledging there too…
@everyone lol. I took a nice, long, soothing shower and I realized that I’ve been more arguing for argument’s sake. The reality is I’m just TOTALLY JEALOUS OF ROBOTECH! :@ Thus I want to bitch and moan and groan like a hippopotamus with an itchy back. I’m sure it DOES have a lot to do with the physical additions, and perhaps points to a fault in the SH (Are we officially beginning to abbreviate it this way? lol) tier models in that, outside of the beta, there isn’t much reason to put more than $15 into the game.
So to stimulate further discussion: what changes could Radiant make to the tiers to stimulate further support, or do you think the tiers are fine the way they are?