Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kuildeous]

I love the Oatmeal, but I doubt I'll fund this Kickstarter:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/elanlee/exploding-kittens

I'm not sure just how much strategy is in this game. In fact, I swear I read sarcasm into the claim that there is strategy. And knowing the Oatmeal, it probably was sarcasm.

Still, it may be an amusing novelty to have for fans of the Oatmeal. At least the KS page is fun to read.

[jaketheyak]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the claim that it's highly strategic is somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
However, the game mechanics are spelled out pretty well, I think, so it's not like they are really trying to pull a fast one.
Looks like one of those fun, quick games you pull out while you are waiting for the rest of the group to arrive.

[Kirian]

Looks like one of those fun, quick games you pull out while you are waiting for the rest of the group to arrive.

Just off the top of my head I can come up with three games that are also quick games for waiting, but have much deeper strategy.

[Kirian]

This is now at nearly $2M.  I'm going to be sick to my stomach.

This is $20 for 56 cards.  $35 for an undetermined number of NSFW cards on top of that.  No stretch goals at all.  No discount for buying multiples.  For comparison:

Pairs:  $16 for 55 cards.  $9 for each additional box of cards.  Dozens of stretch goals.  Funded at a bit over $330K.

Tiny Epic Galaxies:  $18 for 50-ish standard cards and a few oversize cards, plus dice and a bunch of wooden pieces.  $26 for the deluxe, which adds ~10 more cards and 15 more wood pieces.  $15/21 for a second copy.  Dozens of stretch goals.  Currently not quite to $300K.

Eminent Domain Microscosm:  $10 for 34 cards (plus 14 promo cards for related games).  $6 for a second copy.  No stretch goals, done as a "quickstarter"--7-day window.  A bit over $60K.

Meanwhile, this thing is now #33 on the highest-funded KSs.

[Jorbles]

This is now at nearly $2M.  I'm going to be sick to my stomach.

This is $20 for 56 cards.  $35 for an undetermined number of NSFW cards on top of that.  No stretch goals at all.  No discount for buying multiples.  For comparison:

Pairs:  $16 for 55 cards.  $9 for each additional box of cards.  Dozens of stretch goals.  Funded at a bit over $330K.

Tiny Epic Galaxies:  $18 for 50-ish standard cards and a few oversize cards, plus dice and a bunch of wooden pieces.  $26 for the deluxe, which adds ~10 more cards and 15 more wood pieces.  $15/21 for a second copy.  Dozens of stretch goals.  Currently not quite to $300K.

Eminent Domain Microscosm:  $10 for 34 cards (plus 14 promo cards for related games).  $6 for a second copy.  No stretch goals, done as a "quickstarter"--7-day window.  A bit over $60K.

Meanwhile, this thing is now #33 on the highest-funded KSs.

I wouldn't feel too bad. The Oatmeal is really popular. Popular websites have lots of fans who will give them money for things trusting that they'll get more of what they like out of the website and some of that content will appear in the game. I doubt many of the people who are supporting this KS would even like the sort of strategy games we enjoy.

[Jorbles]

Also this game looks like it will fill the spot of the casual party game that people who aren't into strategy games enjoy. It's more like Munchkin, a game people can  play when they're looking for an activity at a social gathering, but no one wants to think about things much. You get to screw each other over, you get to be extremely lucky or unlucky, the game play is fast, there's jokes in it. Mostly it gives people something to talk about. I'm sure it's fine for what it is. Mechanically I think we can all see how the game works from just watching the video and could make our own variants now if we wanted to. Deep game no, but I won't be surprised (or saddened) to see this game on the table when I go hang out with friends.

[Kirian]

I wouldn't feel too bad. The Oatmeal is really popular. Popular websites have lots of fans who will give them money for things trusting that they'll get more of what they like out of the website and some of that content will appear in the game. I doubt many of the people who are supporting this KS would even like the sort of strategy games we enjoy.

I know, I used to be a fan of the Oatmeal, until this.  I posted the comparisons less for how much was backed total, than for comparison of total value.  Pairs is no more difficult than this thing--enough so that I actually didn't back Pairs, it didn't look interesting enough and isn't really my type of game.  But it's a much better value, and created by a highly-respected and highly-awarded game designer, yet still sold fewer copies (~35k to already ~50k, and climbing).

This is the same problem as Candy Crush outselling any given Sid Meier game, and Twilight (or, more vomit-inducing, Fifty Shades of Crap) outselling a Pat Rothfuss novel.

----

Perhaps the worst for me is the obscene price.  Seriously.  I can get a custom deck of 54 HQ linen cards in a customized plastic case for $25 bucks after shipping.  One.  If I'm going to do 500 of them--their base of full funded--the price per drops to $5 each (with shipping).  Add $3 to ship to customers.

Pairs sold those for ~$12 (or less) unless you only wanted one.  Here, the price is $20.  It's ridiculous.

[jaketheyak]

I don't really understand the vitriol this is generating. It's not like the existence of this precludes the existence of other games.

You think it's a rip-off? Don't buy it.
You think it's a bad game? Don't play it.

People want different things out of games. Munchkin is the perfect example. That is such a bad game that it barely meets the definition, yet it is obscenely popular. Maybe that makes you angry, but I just shrug and move on. Would I play Munchkin? Maybe if you paid me to. Does the existence of Munchkin stop me from playing better games? Nope.

[Kuildeous]

I'm curious what he's going to do with the overflow. I was greatly amused by his antics of raising money to donate to charity while giving a giant middle finger to the attorney representing the website that was suing him. Hopefully he'll do the same thing with this.

Though I suppose technically he's made off like a bandit and could certainly just give out the game to his backers and sit comfortably on the profits. Hopefully he'll do something interesting with the money.

But yeah, no stretch goals; just pure fan-driven revenue.

I wonder how many of those backers will flake out, though. How many of them are in it just to show support without committing to it.

[jaketheyak]

I'm curious what he's going to do with the overflow.

I don't think you understand how capitalism works.
Or Kickstarter for that matter.
The Oatmeal is not a charity, regardless of what charitable activities it may have been involved in previously.
Kickstarter is not for raising money for charity.
Overflow? It's called profit.

[Kirian]

I don't really understand the vitriol this is generating. It's not like the existence of this precludes the existence of other games.

This is the same problem as Candy Crush outselling any given Sid Meier game, and Twilight (or, more vomit-inducing, Fifty Shades of Crap) outselling a Pat Rothfuss novel.

[jaketheyak]

Right, so because Candy Crush is more popular than Civilization you didn't get a chance to play that game or its endless sequels.

Every work lives or dies on its own merits. Dominion was successful because it's a great game, not because it was lucky not to be eclipsed by Mousetrap.

You're comparing apples to oranges. If Fifty Shades  of Grey didn't exist, would Pat Rothfuss have sold 100 million extra novels? No. Different audience. That's just not how the world works.

And, frankly, complaining that people like things that you don't like just makes you sound like an elitist snob. Yeah, man, we get it, you like alt-J better than Taylor Swift. Good for you.

[Drab Emordnilap]

It makes me a little bit sad to see people break down game costs versus component costs only, as if the number and quality of the bits is all that goes into making a game. Designers need to eat, too. ._.

(And artists, and developers, and playtesters, and editors, and writers. There's a lot of upfront costs besides just the cost of the components.)

[Voltaire]

"Stretch goals" usually means "pointless things that have nothing to do with the gameplay we didn't plan for and will delay the entire thing forever" or "gameplay thing we didn't playtest", so...

...just ranting about stretch goals, really.

[Jorbles]

It makes me a little bit sad to see people break down game costs versus component costs only, as if the number and quality of the bits is all that goes into making a game. Designers need to eat, too. ._.

(And artists, and developers, and playtesters, and editors, and writers. There's a lot of upfront costs besides just the cost of the components.)

Yeah, it made me think about playing cards. Did you know you can get a deck of 52 playing cards and 2 bonus Joker cards that let you play thousands of different games at a dollar store for $1? WHY DO PEOPLE BUY ANY GAME BUT PLAYING CARDS?

[jaketheyak]

"Stretch goals" usually means "pointless things that have nothing to do with the gameplay we didn't plan for and will delay the entire thing forever" or "gameplay thing we didn't playtest", so...

...just ranting about stretch goals, really.

Complaining about the lack of stretch goals in this project is ridiculous anyway.
The project went way past its initial target within 24 hours.
When they posted the project they couldn't have known for sure that it even warranted stretch goals.

Now that it has blown past the target they have already added a stretch goal (NSFW deck has gone from 20 to 40 cards) and have promised more to come.
Whether stretch goals are a good idea or not is another question, of course, but demanding them up front is pretty silly.
They don't owe it to anyone to give more than the original advertised product.

If anything, a Kickstarter that goes live with a bunch of stretch goals at the onset should give backers pause.
They don't know if they will have enough funds to complete the basic product and they are already planning a bunch of add-ons?

[jaketheyak]

Oh, and if you really want to see some Kickstarters that will make you angry, check out /r/shittykickstarters

(Well, make you laugh at least).

[Kirian]

It makes me a little bit sad to see people break down game costs versus component costs only, as if the number and quality of the bits is all that goes into making a game. Designers need to eat, too. ._.

(And artists, and developers, and playtesters, and editors, and writers. There's a lot of upfront costs besides just the cost of the components.)

Oh, obviously!  I'm not going to suggest that designers/artists/etc. shouldn't eat!  But I think there's a much greater disparity between component cost and  final cost here than with others KSs and board games.  I think Pairs is the best example of that--yet Pairs's lower cost still includes a dozen different artists.

"Stretch goals" usually means "pointless things that have nothing to do with the gameplay we didn't plan for and will delay the entire thing forever" or "gameplay thing we didn't playtest"...

A lot of stretch goals are not just extra gameplay or non-gameplay stuff, but better-quality components and the like.

Complaining about the lack of stretch goals in this project is ridiculous anyway.
The project went way past its initial target within 24 hours.
When they posted the project they couldn't have known for sure that it even warranted stretch goals.

Most KSs these days launch with stretch goals.  This one, he already knew he had a loyal following ready to fund; they certainly knew those goals were warranted.

Every work lives or dies on its own merits. Dominion was successful because it's a great game, not because it was lucky not to be eclipsed by Mousetrap...  You're comparing apples to oranges. If Fifty Shades  of Grey didn't exist, would Pat Rothfuss have sold 100 million extra novels? No. Different audience. That's just not how the world works.

This from someone who upthread was saying Kuildeous didn't understand capitalism.  People only have X amount of disposable income.  It's sad to see poorly-written fiction become a bestseller, because it means some other author didn't get published.

And, frankly, complaining that people like things that you don't like just makes you sound like an elitist snob.

Horror of horrors, to be called an elitist snob!  Yeah, I'm elitist about a few things, I won't try to claim otherwise.  There are only X hours in my day to consume entertainment or art.  Twilight and Fifty Shades are horribly written books; it was literally* painful to read even a few pages of either (see also:  books by Dan Brown, James Patterson, etc.).  And I won't play Monopoly, because it's not a good game--even with the correct rules.  Yet these things get published and purchased by the millions where higher-quality works don't, because there's a limited market.

Yeah, man, we get it, you like alt-J

Never heard of them/him/her.

----
*literally as in "literally painful in the way that hearing the scratching of fingernails on a chalkboard is."

[jaketheyak]

Twilight and Fifty Shades are horribly written books; it was literally* painful to read even a few pages of either (see also:  books by Dan Brown, James Patterson, etc.).  And I won't play Monopoly, because it's not a good game--even with the correct rules.  Yet these things get published and purchased by the millions where higher-quality works don't, because there's a limited market.

You are continuing to ignore the larger point.
The people who buy these terrible things are not people that would otherwise buy the things that you think are good.
The existence of Monopoly isn't what keeps an awesome but obscure indie boardgame from being a smash hit.
If Monopoly didn't exist, those people would not instead be buying Terra Mystica, they would be buying Game of Life.

Exploding Kittens is not selling to fans of Dominion or Tiny Epic Galaxies, it's selling to fans of The Oatmeal.
People aren't buying it because they want a strategic card game, they are buying it because they think it looks funny.

I get that this game isn't your cup of tea, it's probably not mine either, but if the fact that other people don't share your taste makes you angry... well, life's gonna be hard.

[Awaclus]

it's probably not mine either

It's certainly not Mine. Mine only costs $5.

[Ratsia]

The people who buy these terrible things are not people that would otherwise buy the things that you think are good.
The existence of Monopoly isn't what keeps an awesome but obscure indie boardgame from being a smash hit.
If Monopoly didn't exist, those people would not instead be buying Terra Mystica, they would be buying Game of Life.

While all of these are certainly true, bad but popular products do have an indirect effect for the rest of the field. This happens especially in the long term.

Stores have limited space and budget for games, publishers have limited capacity, and there are only so many venture capitalists to fund publishers. How the different parties cope with these limitations is heavily influenced by which kind of products become hits and which do not, even when talking about parties that in principle operate for different target audiences.  Evaluating the overall effect of all these aspects is completely beyond feasible, but some potential impacts influencing isolated cases are very clear. Imagine a designer offering a game for a publisher who, after seeing this, now thinks that their best hope of making big money is to combine "fun" game with a theme specific to some fan community? In the best case the game still gets published by someone else but later (which already was a negative effect), in the worst case the designer gives up completely or ends up modifying their game to better fit the market. Someone suffers here, and in an extreme case we might indeed lose a game that could have become important for some target audience.

[SwitchedFromStarcraft]

It makes me a little bit sad to see people break down game costs versus component costs only, as if the number and quality of the bits is all that goes into making a game. Designers need to eat, too. ._.

(And artists, and developers, and playtesters, and editors, and writers. There's a lot of upfront costs besides just the cost of the components.)

It makes me more than a little bit sad to see that something named "Exploding Kittens" appealed to enough people that now somebody is going to receive two million dollars.

[Kuildeous]

It makes me a little bit sad to see people break down game costs versus component costs only, as if the number and quality of the bits is all that goes into making a game. Designers need to eat, too. ._.

(And artists, and developers, and playtesters, and editors, and writers. There's a lot of upfront costs besides just the cost of the components.)

It makes me more than a little bit sad to see that something named "Exploding Kittens" appealed to enough people that now somebody is going to receive two million dollars.

Hey, I will always look at a game called Exploding Kittens. I just wish the gameplay was a bit more interesting.

And I'd actually consider buying it for the novelty aspect except that my game-storage space is at a premium, and I can't waste it on novelty games.

[silverspawn]

[...]Twilight and Fifty Shades are horribly written books[...]

but... but... Twilight isn't poorly written. it is a bad story with horrible cliches, flat characters, a simplified world view, atrocious moral implications and a few major plot holes, but the one thing it has going for it is the writing. Did you really read it with an open mind and thought it was poorly written? I find that hard to believe.

Aside from that, I don't have the context to say anything about this game, but I agree with you conceptually. If a work of art is poorly constructed, no matter if it's music, literature, or games, we should call it out for what it is,  although I'd argue that the blame always goes to the people who are embracing it, and never to the artist. If people are donating despite the lack of stretch goals, then it's their fault.

[Teproc]

but... but... Twilight isn't poorly written. it is a bad story with horrible cliches, flat characters, a simplified world view

I don't have a dog in this fight as I have no opinion on Twilight, but those characteristics you describe all sound like poor writing. I presume you mean that the style of the writing itself isn't bad, but that's not all writing is. Character, story, world building are also part of "writing".