A few months ago, I posted a dissection of a Kickstarter cost post-mortem from Evil Hat Productions. Since then, two other creators posted similarly detailed and transparent breakdowns that I wanted to elevate:
The Shores of Tripoli (Fort Circle)
In this project update, Kevin looks at a breakdown for the various types of customers to whom he’s sold copies of The Shores of Tripoli. Most backers paid $50 plus $10 shipping, and due to that flat shipping amount, the gross profit is vastly different depending on their region:
- US: $20.27
- UK: $18.69
- Spain: $5.36
I appreciate the idea of a flat rate, and I’m guessing that many more of Kevin’s backers are in the US and UK than Spain, but that’s a big dip in profit due to the flat rate.
The update also features some gross profit comparisons for sales to retailers, wholesalers, and through Amazon, as well as a final summary.
Origins: First Builders (Board&Dice)
In this BGG post, Andrei discusses the costs involved in making Origins: First Builders, including a per-unit average of sunk costs and a comparison between games sold to localization partners versus games sold to distributors.
A lot of what Andrei shares leads to the conclusion that Board&Dice decided to offer the game at a $70 MSRP instead of $60 as originally planned. Here’s are the three reasons he mentions:
- “the shipping cost increased from under $1 to more than $3 per copy”
- “raw materials became more expensive, because in a globalized economy nothing get sourced only from local suppliers”
- “the pandemic increased the cost of risk, by a lot. What does that mean? Every time we publish a game (or, in general, an enterprise decides to invest in a new product) we are taking a risk: we invest in development, in people, in processes, etc. But the market and the supply chain come with bigger threats, which means that the outcome of failing is more costly.”
The last point in particular is one I haven’t heard all that often, but I’m glad Andrei said it, as risk is one of those elements that is hard to quantify but is always on my mind as a publisher. Even without a global crisis, there’s so much uncertainty any time we print a new product or reprint an old one, that adding the effects of the pandemic makes every choice even riskier.
***
Thanks to Kevin and Andrei for sharing this level of transparency. I’ve only touched upon two points here, so feel free to mention in the comments the information in these articles that stands out to you.
***
If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content!
6 Comments on “Two Insightful Articles About Tabletop Game Costs and Prices”
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.
I really like the point on risk, and it’s something that doesn’t get considered enough (see: planning fallacy). I had a seasoned Kickstarter creator tell me not to share my costs breakdown with backers (I shared it anyway) because many would be upset that there was about 35% profit left after the campaign.
If we ignore the issue of the perception that creators shouldn’t make any profit (and ignore the issue that even 35% of my campaign was a pretty poor return on my time), we should really think of that margin as risk management. In other words, the campaign was constructed that even if my costs spiraled to 35% for unknown reasons, I would still be able to deliver on my promise of creating the game. If we told backers that the margin for error was 0 then I think most would consider us pretty irresponsible, so reframing profit as risk management is a pretty good one conceptually.
Ben, I completely agree–a healthy buffer is responsible risk management. I think it’s also good for creators to profit from their campaigns if possible, though I would recommend using the word “buffer” instead of “profit” for a good percentage of that.
I think the line that hits the hardest in Andrei’s post is:
“or accept that the first time we fail it will also be the last, as our business would no longer be viable.”
Its certainly understandable for a business to build in some contingency to ensure their ongoing survival.
100% agree with this. There are so many more great games coming out every year that the competition for people’s time and money is fierce. In this environment a business that couldn’t survive one under preforming game seems doomed from the start.
Sustainability aside, having that buffer also makes developing the next game a lot easier. Having that cash lets you access people that need money up front without dipping into personal funds or taking a loan.
Hi,
I understand the risk of supplies with the pandemic but sales of boardgames where really good last year. The Dutch company supposedly had their best year ever in 2020.
Indeed, I think many publishers had a good 2020 (see our stakeholder report). Supply chain issues didn’t hit hard until 2021.