Crowdfunding provides a great reminder that I shouldn’t take anything for granted.
Every month–and sometimes every week–I see a project that I assumed would do well based on the designer, publisher, or IP…yet the project is vastly underperforming. Here are some articles on those topics:
The scary thing is, I can’t always pinpoint exactly what went wrong. Sometimes it’s obvious; maybe they priced the product too high or the presentation was subpar. Maybe the intellectual property didn’t have the crossover appeal that the creator predicted. But sometimes it’s just that enough people aren’t as excited by the product as the creator hoped.
So today I wanted to share three big-picture concepts that I try to keep in mind for any launch, as I know firsthand that nothing is foolproof. I don’t take anything for granted.
- Serve your audience: I was recently talking to a fellow designer/publisher who has created a vast variety of games, and they’ve noticed that no matter how critically acclaimed a game is, their audience seems to respond exponentially better to a specific subgenre. So rather than continue to aim for variety, this creator is going to serve their audience by focusing on that subgenre in the future. You can’t always choose your customers, but you can choose the products you decide to make for them.
- Hedge your bets: For Stonemaier Games, we now gather a lot of data from distributors before we start producing any new product. We’re essentially making to order–we’re not just printing 25,000 units of a game and hoping it’ll sell. But webstore sales are still a big unknown, and while we try to estimate demand, we also try not to dig ourselves into a deep hole in case people don’t respond to the product the way we hoped. We also try to wait a bit before starting a reprint if the first run does sell well, as a hot game now may not have legs. For crowdfunders, hedging your bets means to manage your pre-campaign budget in a responsible manner so you’re ready to finish the art and graphic design if the project is a hit or scale back if necessary.
- Have a backup plan: Wingspan is our most popular product, and I have high hopes for Wingspan Asia, the rulebook for which I’ll reveal on Wednesday. But if for some reason tomorrow everyone decides they’re no longer interested in Wingspan, we have many other products that sell well–our mission to bring joy to tabletops worldwide isn’t dependent on one game, one partner (distributor, localization partner, etc), or one person. My heart goes out to publishers whose existence became dependent on a single game, and when that game’s campaign failed, the publisher itself closed its doors as well.
I take nothing for granted in this business, and these reminders drive me every day to listen to our customers and try to create the best possible tabletop experiences for them…while still knowing that there will be times when people just aren’t as excited by the product as I’d hoped.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this topic! As you can tell, I’ve avoided naming specific creators or publishers, as I’m empathetic to those who are hurting. I’d encourage you to do the same, and feel free to speak from your experience as well in the comments below.
***
Also read: The 3 Funding Scenarios You Must Plan For
If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.
18 Comments on “No Designer, Publisher, or IP Is Foolproof”
Leave a Comment
If you ask a question about a specific card or ability, please type the exact text in your comment to help facilitate a speedy and precise answer.
Your comment may take a few minutes to publish. Antagonistic, rude, or degrading comments will be removed. Thank you.
do you have four or five examples of people that have successfully crowd funded and produced wonderful board games that did not have IP and the creators were not already famous in the game world?
Of course–there are thousands of examples. A few that I’ve backed are Charcuterie, Kelp, Mons and Mages, Kavango, Diatoms, Kraken Skulls, Tall Tales, Nekojima, Ecosfera, An Age Contrived, and Trailblazer. Those are just from the last year or so. My first project in 2012 was is an example.
Hi Jamey,
This might be a bit off-topic, as you are talking as a publisher with a catalogue of successful products. Sorry if that’s the case.
I am an aspiring publisher currently running a campaign on Kickstarter that, unfortunately, is not doing well.
I’m not entirely sure what went wrong and would love to have honest feedback about it so that I can learn and improve in the future.
The game might not be everyone’s cup of tea, but definitely falls into the category of ‘finished product’.
For reference, the game is complete, 10 copies were made, has been tested by over 100 people in more than 250 sessions, the rules are available, and there are overview and preview videos of it.
Without the intention of promoting the game or the campaign, can I post the link to it so that you can take a look and give your opinion?
I’m sorry your project isn’t going as you hoped, Juan. Have you asked your current backers why they think the project isn’t going well or what they would like to see if you reboot? Why do you think it hasn’t gone well? How many prelaunch signups did you have? You’re welcome to post a link here, but I’d highly recommend asking more than just me. Also, please read this: https://stonemaiergames.com/kickstarter-lesson-123-how-to-give-and-take-tough-love-feedback/
Hi Jamey,
Thanks you your response.
When it comes to receiving feedback, I’m totally open for it.
There is clearly something I’m not doing right, maybe several things.
I can’t improve unless I realise what that is :)
Feedback from backers:
I asked backers and the answers I’ve got were along the lines of the current financial climate (nothing I can possibly do about that) and the possibility that the project might be too ambitious for a first timer.
While their feedback is much appreciated, backers liked the product and believe in the project. It’d be interesting to hear from people who would have considered backing but didn’t in the end, though it’s a bit difficult to find and reach that crowd.
Feedback from designers:
Also asked on a Facebook group for game designers.
Their feedback was more about the page lacking ‘hooks’, the style being a bit monotonous, improving the order of the sections on the page and the pledge’s price range.
An issue that was also mentioned is that, although the game has several unique mechanics, it game does not visually stand out from others set in the same era (WWII)
Actions taken to improve on the issues mentioned:
I added new images to try to highlight the hooks and did so in a style that is different to other sections, to also try to tackle the monotony.
Also rearranged the sections to try to reflect what matters the most as close to the top of the page as possible.
About the price range, there’s not much I can do. The game is expensive to make (about half the funding goal is just for the moulds for the minis, it has custom dice and high quality components)
It could be cheaper if I made a large manufacturing run, as the CPU will go down but it’s unrealistic for a first time creator / publisher to sell several thousand copies off the bat.
A lower price would mean more backers to reach the funding goal, which could be unattainable (a lower price could bring more people in but I doubt it would bring enough to make up for the financial difference)
The funding goal may sound high, but it’s the bare minimum needed to manufacture the game. This figure is far from recovering the investment made in the game, let alone making a profit. Unfortunately, I can’t afford to manufacture at a loss.
Other aspects and considerations:
The game has been thoroughly tested and the feedback is overwhelmingly positive, so I feel there’s no issue there.
There’s the possibility that marketing was totally wrong (done by me, an area I had no previous experience in)
It’s also possible that there’s no market for the game.
I invested in pre-launch marketing and had 2982 followers (2966 people following the project as of now)
The current conversion rate is 3%, which I find disappointingly low.
Last, the link to the project is https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/chiswick-games/iron-thunder/
It would be amazing if you could take a look and let me know your thoughts, but I understand you might not have the time.
Thank you!
Thanks for sharing all this. Your pre-campaign following was good, and I agree that a 3% conversion rate is low.
This type of game is outside my wheelhouse, so I can’t comment on the hooks. The art style and font choice may not appeal to me (I much prefer the look of Undaunted), for example, but it might be exactly what wargamers want. I don’t know. I think your best feedback will be reaching out to your target audience (wargamers) and asking them why the project isn’t appealing to them and what would make it more appealing.
I do agree with this (from your comment): “An issue that was also mentioned is that, although the game has several unique mechanics, it game does not visually stand out from others set in the same era (WWII).”
You indicated that the minis are a major production hurdle. However, in my opinion, the 3D renders remind me more of cheap plastic kid’s action figures than fancy premium miniatures. Part of it might be the choice of green as the color instead of a typical gaming mini gray. Even with a color change, the soldier minis and flags just look way too much like they’re from Toy Story–is there an alternative that can convey “modern tabletop game”? Or perhaps use meeples instead to significantly reduce the price?
Have you thought about submitting your game to GMT? It seems right up their alley.
Tanks for your answer! (see what I did there?)
Tank images/renders:
Maybe the graphic style for the renders was not a great choice.
The minis are quite small but have a decent amount of detail.
On some tanks you can even see the rivets!
I tried to represent them as if they were drawings on most of the images. Maybe I should have used pictures or a more ‘photographic’ type of render to show them in their full glory rather than adopting an ‘old print’ style.
Production costs:
Most tanks can rotate the turret independently from the hull.
This translates into casting hulls and turrets separately, taking up more space in the mould than what a single mini of the same size would.
This is far from obvious, and some people might be baffled about the costs without knowing the explanation.
Explanation about the design philosophy:
This is a preamble of sorts for the ‘market’ section…
The game was designed to provide the depth of a wargame with easy to learn rules. Marketing was based on the concept of ‘wargame meets boardgame’.
In most cases, when dealing with wargames that have miniatures, the business model involves players buying separate minis to assemble their armies, having the players create their own scenery and measuring distances with tape. I designed the game so that all the components are contained within the box and with a board that has a grid (to avoid measuring distances and arguments about what’s in range and in line-of-sight)
Another selling point is the short time required to play a match, in contrast with most wargames, which usually take several hours (sometimes even multiple sessions)
On top of that, the tanks consume shells when firing and fuel when moving. This is done in an innovative way, adding a resource management layer that is rare for wargames.
Emphasis is also on dynamism, with very fast combat resolution.
Market:
1- Wargamers who want to try a game with new mechanics
2- Wargamers who don’t have the time, budget, physical space or struggle to find opponents (usually each player needs their own army assembled and painted)
3- Boardgamers who want a game with a deeper tactical aspect than most traditional boardgames
4- People who want to get into wargames but are intimidated by the demands of the entry barrier
It’s possible that this market is just not big enough, but I’m not entirely sure how to determine it.
A huge challenge and a possible explanation for the lack of traction:
Several wargamers who played the game mentioned that, at a glance, they thought ‘meh, a box with more of the same’.
However, after playing, they usually say they were surprised by the uniqueness, simplicity, depth and the impact of the resource management layer on the overall experience.
Trying to be as objective as possible, I think the game is good but marketing poses a challenge I wasn’t able to solve.
I was probably unable to guide people past the ‘meh, a box of more of the same’ and show them that there’s way more than meets the eye.
Assuming that’s one of the main issues… Is this somehow surmountable with a different marketing approach or is the game forever doomed for arriving too late to the scene?
Thanks for sharing! I can tell you’ve put a lot of thought into this project, and I really am sorry it isn’t going as you’d hoped. If your research talking to wargamers who haven’t backed the project results in the conclusion you mention here–that they think the game is “more of the same” at a quick glance even though there’s more there–than perhaps a complete rework of the project page and a different marketing approach could work for a reboot. But I think you need a fresh set of eyes to do that–I’d recommend picking 1 or 2 of your most passionate backers who are great at communicating (and ideally graphic design) and commission them to create a new project page and marketing plan from scratch.
Hi Jamey,
On preparing for costs of a crowdfunded game. How much does different languages drive up the cost? Any other hidden costs that if crowd funding is successful you see first time publishers not anticipating (besides shipping)?
Here’s the post about the first question: https://stonemaiergames.com/kickstarter-lesson-198-translation-localization-and-language-independence/
As for hidden costs, here are some posts about that (and budgeting/buffering in general):
https://stonemaiergames.com/kickstarter-lesson-7-the-funding-goal/
https://stonemaiergames.com/the-art-of-the-buffer-ks-lesson-159/
https://stonemaiergames.com/exactly-how-much-does-a-kickstarter-campaign-cost/
What is considered a good result from a campaign? Is it a monitary figure, or number of backers?
I think it varies greatly from one campaign to the next depending on their goals. In general, I think it’s a combination of money and number of backers
[…] Supply hyperlink […]
I think the issue, is there too many Crowdfunding campaign. And most of them are not good at all and need a lot of work to be done on the game
Some of them have great Idea but suffer lack of testing, the rulesbooks are very badly written and many many more issues
If developper could work more on the game, test the game more and stuff similar like that. I think it`s will be great for everyone
looking forward to Wingspan – Asia
There are a lot of crowdfunding campaigns (and new games in general), though the campaigns I’m thinking of for this article are not lacking from quality, testing, or rulebooks. You can put a lot of work into a game and still have it underperform.
The current Terraforming Mars campaign has some people upset because of a unique card size. Stronghold Games has given reasons for the unique card size, but some people are still upset.
Thanks for sharing, Kirk–I wasn’t aware of that.
This is very topical without needing to get into the messy nitty-gritty of what I am assuming inspired you posting today’s article…
I definitely have a lot to learn from you from a content creation perspective (my take was much more on the nose).
Great post, great advice, great perspective, and great way to frame it into a constructive context, rather than piling on at a time when I am sure the creators who had to cancel their campaign are hurting.