I'm pretty curious about that too; I have a feeling the Uprising stretch goals they have planned will get reached, but if for some reason they don't, I'm not sure what their plan is. Make the scenario book shorter? Add "Uprising mini expansions" later on to fill in the gaps? Maybe give them all to us anyways for being handsome good sports? Only time will tell.
Stretch goals get the backers involved and put a bit more "word of mouth" pressure on them. If there were no stretch goals, I'd back the project, do other stuff for 30 days until it was over, and wait patiently for the game to arrive. When there are stretch goals involved, I'm active in the comments section and am representing Sentinels flair on BGG and doing my best to support it indirectly. It can seem like scummy business; getting the fans to do your advertising for you, but I kind of like it. It feels like it brings the community together a little more as everyone is hyped up on speculation and doing their best to indirectly/directly support a project they feel is worth it.
Yeah I've definitely taken note of that. Especially concerning the recent environment interaction update for the 140K stretch. I saw that and said "awesome." Others saw that and said "Wait, so its just more rules? Lame." I like the idea of getting more scenarios and more elements from the multiverse woven into the gameplay; other people just want more characters/maps. And I understand that; getting more characters is awesome! But, we need more depth too; a game is never great when it spreads itself extremely thin with tons of characters but doesn't have the core mechanics to support it.
I think from GtG point of view, the more important effect is that they know what size print run to order. The larger the print run, the lower their per-unit costs, and the more things they can include for the same margin. There are other economies that come with scale, too, like shipping.
In the case of Sentinel Tactics, my understanding is that miniatures have a large fixed cost to create the molds, and then lower per-unit costs; so the more people that buy the product, the cheaper it is for them in the end.
I see your point - I'm a touch jaundiced by hearing a guy talking to Tom Vasel about "how people who don't do KickStarter are missing out". It sounded like he valued get caugh up in the initial excitement more than the games themselves, whilst I view it from the other extreme, that the experience of buying it is irrelevant to owning the game (and the game's qualities). I quite like the fans acting as advocates and I can see how it helps, it's more the attitude to the stretch goals seems off and divorced from reality! There was a washing machine scandal years ago in the UK where a promotion wiped out a manufacturer (Hoover Free Flights Promotion), and sometimes you get the feeling the fans think they're entitled to a lot more than what represents value to the company. $40 for the base game + $10 shipping seems about right for a retail release, but because other kickstarters have been ludicrous, people are complaining about bad value… admittedly, there is a delay between purchasing and receiving the product from Kickstarter, but is it worth that much? How many people pay for holidays months in advance?
That's what I mean - Argent The Consortium from Level 99 upgraded components as Stretch goals as the higher numbers of pre-orders made them more viable. I'd love to see a stretch goal here of XXXX EU orders allowing GtG to ship from within the EU - that, standees and a game play video would probably convince me to pledge (I'm not keen on getting hit with the import charges by the post office…), but it's the customer attitude that is a bit rank in my opinion. Heck, some of these people deserve to have new pledge levels as stretch goals so even though stuff is getting unlocked, they actually have to pay more to get access to them…
Hmm, I never heard anything regarding that guy saying that to Tom Vasel; what was the context of that quote?
And trust me, I have plenty of apprehension when it comes to Kickstarter. I made a comment earlier in this thread voicing my disappointment with how people treat Kickstarter campaigns these days. I believe I ended up saying something close to "People who go onto Kickstarter trying to get free stuff don't understand the point of Kickstarter." Some folks on this thread disagreed with me, and I see their points as well, but I still stand by my initial feelings.
I understand backing a project imposes a risk and that there needs to be an incentive system in place to reward those who take that risk. I'm all fine and dandy with that. It's the (as you say it) entitlement that I have a problem with. The fact that people who already spent their money to back a project sit around and wait to get more stuff and then complain when they're cut off like an upset drunk. And as great as stretch goals are (who doesn't like watching the amount of content they get for backing go up as the campaign goes on?) I believe they are to blame for this attitude. Stretch goals have created little monsters in all of us, and because some campaigns have had the balls to offer stretch rewards at ridiculous levels, people now expect it from every single campaign.
But I still firmly believe that Kickstarter was founded on the basis of supporting the people and businesses that put their projects out there, because you believe in them and because it is a mutually beneficial way to both get your game/product, ensure the company is successful from it (therefore ensuring they continue to make more in the future!), AND get a little bit of extra stuff as a small "thank you."
People looking to score a deal or to save money should wait until the game is out on Amazon or even just buy it used if they really want to spend wisely; Kickstarter is not the place to make a bargain.
I don't know; overall, I love and hate Kickstarter. I love what it stands for and the basis on which it was found it, but I hate what it has become and how it has transformed into a tool for consumers to seek more and more with little regard to how it affects the company they "claim" they're supporting.
But those people are necessary. Kickstarter isn't so much about believing in people as it is about allowing people with talent and ideas to curcumvent the normal obstacles that crushed such ambition in the past. The Person starting the Kickstarter takes far less risk than they would getting a loan and hoping they can sell their game, and bypasses the incredible amount of hoops you have to jump to get your game published by a company that can get it to the audience you want.
Whether they love your idea, love the idea of getting free stuff or just have a weakness for throwing money at anything they read on the internet isn't important, the final result is what matters, that creative people are getting their ideas to people who can fund them, reaching all sorts of audiences easily.
The "what will you give me?" crowd are like fair weather fans of a sports team. The "real" fans may find them distasteful, but their money is still green. The more people jump on board for the wrong reasons the more the people who got on board for the right reasons benefit. I think >G walks the balance beautifully, throwing out value, but not the exclusives that make it suck to be a month late to the table.
As a person who jumped on board during the Shattered Timelines Kickstarter I wish my Printer Studio Young Legacy and Beardy Ra Promos were replaced by the real deal, but that's the only thing I haven't assembled that someone who was onboard from the beginning would have.
And I don't disagree with any of that Not by a longshot. I guess you'll have to trust me when I say I'm usually the one to defend the "general audience" especially in the face of gamers (and other groups) wishing they'd just disappear. I often point out that if that sheer amount of people spending money on your hobby failed to exist, your hobby likely would too. When Envisioner was around he loved to voice his distaste for companies catering to the "bottom rung" and I was certainly on the opposite end of the argument (but that's neither here nor there). I truly know that the mass consumer makes the world go 'round and that in the end, money talks, not honesty or good intentions; I was an Economics major, afterall
But, those feelings inside me still exist. I understand that people buying movie tickets to the new Spider Man movie just to watch stuff blow up are the only thing ensuring that my favorite comics still get made. But that certainly doesn't mean I won't be annoyed whenever they go fumble their way onto the internet and misrepresent the fanbase by spouting out whatever incoherent BS they can muster.
Same with Kickstarter. I'm so so so glad that so many people are pledging to Tactics. But when a certain group of those people spout hateful comments or complain about the lack of free stuff they're getting and that they "should have just waited to get it on Amazon," I'm most definitely going to shake my head in disgust. Like I said before "I both love it and hate it." I love Kickstarter for the opportunities it creates daily for projects/people that would have never in a million years seen their dream realized. I love that the general audience IS backing such an amazing thing. No matter what their intentions are, I'm glad their money is showing up on the pledge counter (and I'm sure >G loves it too). But by no means does that mean I won't get an urge to punch people through my monitor when they act like a bunch of brats over the internet. I can't help these feelings of passion!
Here's a quick insight for all you awesome people into how we planned the Uprising stretch goals for this campaign:
There were a number of characters that we really wanted to release, ideally together, and ideally around the same time (or shortly after) The Flame of Freedom. We had basically three options:
1) Release each character as a separate mini-expansion, then release PDFs of scenarios online.
2) Bundle all of the characters together into an expansion, including the scenarios.
3) Some combination of 1 & 2 (i.e., put some characters and their scenarios into an expansion; sell the rest as mini-expansions)
Our preference is #2 because, if we are able to produce enough volume of an expansion, the per-unit cost is lower than producing a bunch of separate mini-expansions, so we can sell them for a lower total cost, and put them in a cool box to boot! However, if our capital is limited, #1 is a better option, because we can space out the printing of the mini-expansions rather than outlaying the money for printing them all simultaneously.
Kickstarter is super handy for us because we can figure out which option makes better business sense; the better the Kickstarter does, the more we can afford to spend up front on the expansion. As more characters (or environment effects) are added to the expansion, the included scenario book grows along with them. Any characters that aren't unlocked as part of the Kickstarter will be saved for future mini-expansions or the like (if the game is popular enough to justify them), along with their associated scenarios, if any.
It's an interesting listen, though I find myself getting a little 'allergic' to the guest!
Paul - Thanks for that. Is there a plan for stretch goals if all planned characters are unlocked? Also, will the Uprising minis be grouped and sold separately (Uprising mini-pack?), or when Uprising hits retail, will it automatically include minis?
Has anyone figured out what the picture behind the stretch goals is? I think it looks a bit like AZ but it’s not clear and it doesn’t look like tactics AZ.
I posted a link to it in the comments. But yeah, an update would definitely be more readily accessible by those folks coming into the Kickstarter later.
Not by a longshot. I guess you'll have to trust me when I say I'm usually the one to defend the "general audience" especially in the face of gamers (and other groups) wishing they'd just disappear. I often point out that if that sheer amount of people spending money on your hobby failed to exist, your hobby likely would too. When Envisioner was around he loved to voice his distaste for companies catering to the "bottom rung" and I was certainly on the opposite end of the argument (but that's neither here nor there). I truly know that the mass consumer makes the world go 'round and that in the end, money talks, not honesty or good intentions; I was an Economics major, afterall 
This is going to be a long day.