Meatbot Massacre and the Ransom Model

[Nathan]

To add to the discussion...

Greg & Gobi,

GMT Games put together a similar model not too long ago. They "premiere" a product, give preview info/art/etc. Describe the game... throw up a webpage. Essentially, "market" it without spending much cash. Then, their customers/fans will begin plunking down money for it -- they pay a heavily discounted price ($20 product, they might pay $10). Once total donations equal $5000, the game gets printed, those who donated to get the project going get signed, free copies, and the game is still sold at full retail to everyone else.

The Street Performer model you suggest is pretty cool, but I would suggest doing something like GMT Games. At the very least, you get paid even if the game doesn't make it to print. But those who donate still get something cool too... And you could even offer "rough" playtest files or nuggets to those who are donating, so they get some inside looks into the game...

Of course, you might just want to go ahead and print the whole thing yourself then.

However, it is all worth a shot, even if you modify your process a bit to strike some unique balance between shareware and pay-to-play.

Thanks,
Nathan

[Valamir]

Actually the GMT model (P500) which has been adopted with some variation by other companies like Columbia doesn't collect any money until the product goes to print.  They take preorders, which amount to indications of interest.  When their pre-orders get to a level where they can pay for their targeted print run, they'll charge the credit cards, collect the cash, and start production.

It's a pretty slick system IMO.  It gives gamers several dozen titles to anxiously await and look forward to while allowing GMT to cover their costs up front.  It does rely on the company having a big enouch presence and reputation to attract a large enough following willing to fill the pipeline with preorders (I've got about a dozen preorders with them now that will probably be charged over the next year or two).

I've said before that I think this would be easily portable to an RPG splatbook like model, allowing -say- White Wolf customers to essentially vote with their preorders which WoD product they want to see the most.

[Callan S.]

Yesh! I pay you and something might happen, or my money goes to a charity of your choice. And if it does happen, I'm paying so everyone who didn't pay can have a piece of it? Yuck!

How about 'Custom Ransom'? Remember the incredddddddibly long list of fan names after the lord of the rings movies? Those guys who paid in their bucks to be listed?

So all the guys who send you money can be listed amongst the credits. But to be frank, your obviously not big name like LOTR, so you need to offer more. What would be interesting is if people sending in money get to name a pre made monster listed in the PDF released...or name a monster move (or both). Your doing the stats, but they get to pay for the name and have everyone see their funky name (their credited with its invention in ze credits). And similar.

I'm guessing you might have a creative clash with this idea...but hey.

Also a staggered release is a good idea...you paid, you get an e-mail and a download link. It gets public release two months latter. Sure some pirates will get it before those two months...but the people who paid feel they got a bit more value.

[Daniel Solis]

Thanks for the input, everyone! Obviously this model isn't going to work for everyone, but we're giving it a shot in its current form before we go tweaking it. So far, it's worked like a charm. Since going live, we've collected $124.24, which is better than even my optimistic scenarios. This is probably just an initial spike in donations, and it will probably plateau sometime soon, but the whole deal is going really, really well.

Incidentally, the main page of the site has been updated to include what you'll actually be getting when the game is released. I've also added a News section to keep track of new developments.

[GregStolze]

Thanks for you tips, input and kind words, everyone.  

The independent reviewer idea has some merit.  If the donations seem to be cooling down, I may give that a go.  If I do another game this way, I'll try to build that concept in from the start.  

The pre-order idea is a slick one... if you want to print hard copies.  But I don't.  Hard copies cost money out of pocket and are a pain to pack, label and ship.  If I didn't have kids, that would be easier, but I have to cram two children into snowsuits every time I want to go to the post office, and then keep them entertained while waiting in line.

Furthermore, hard copies only really make sense for longer products.  This a pretty short, sweet, simple thing.  Hold on for a second while I turn on my Crusty Old Codger Mode to say "Back in the day, I'd have sent this to SHADIS."  I suppose I could send it to Pyramid, but the experiment sounded fun.  Why not?

One thing that may help for the hesitant is: Forget 'fair'.  Fair does not really enter into the equation with this model, except maybe in passing.  It's not fair that some people put in $30 and have to wait, while others get it for free when they're not that interested.  The difference, I suppose, is that ALL publishing, like many things in this life, are not fair.  They pretend to be, but skilled-yet-lazy artists get paid more than artists who work far harder, hit their deadlines, but just don't look as good.  Or, alternately, two writers turn in the same word count and get paid the same, but one's uninspired churn and the other is scintillating.  Or how about this one?  A designer makes a game that hits five hundred gamers' hot buttons really hard, but can't get the economies of scale that allow a big and mediocre publisher to put out a TERRIBLE book that no one really loves but that many purchase.  

No one sets out to produce bad work (I hope) but somehow bad work gets out and some people buy it and are disappointed.  This is unfortunate but it's endemic to the system.

Rather than aim for some artificial fairness, I'm trying to produce a system that makes the most people happy.  If you contribute and like it, it worked for it.  If you don't contribute and like it anyhow, you really jackpotted.  If you contribute and you're disappointed, either because it doesn't get released or because you think it doesn't merit what you gave... well, that's unfortunate.  BUT -- the consolation, even in that worst of cases, is that you named your own price for disappointment.  It's got to be better to be disappointed by your five dollar donation than to be disappointed after dropping thirty bucks for a hardback, right?

-G.

Who's gratified that his longtime effort to be pleasant and respectful online has borne fruit.

[Valamir]

Hey, I'm all for blazing new trails and ideas that are outside of the box...which the Ransom model certainly is.

PLEASE do post a big write up here on the results and what worked/didn't work/you'd do differently/etc.

Ralph

[GaryTP]

I see you have the Ransom model going. Fun concept. I was going to suggest that it is revealed as money is paid. Could be a future experiment.

5 cents per word. That way people have a reason to check back all the time to see what has been revealed. On any given day, if what is up on the screen is interesting, I might just PayPal you a couple of dollars to get the rest of the paragraph.

Example.

The lasers struck
(four words left of sentence)
(32 words left of paragraph)

Enter number of words you wish to pay for, etc.

Just thinking out loud.
Please tell us how it goes.

[Daniel Solis]

Just so you guys know, for I'm trying my best to keep track of web activity on the site as well. Does anyone know of some software or other tool to digest the raw log files from a hosting service so I can work up some more accurate web activity statistics?

Specifically, I'm trying to keep track of where people are linking to the site, so we can see where we get the most publicity. (Message boards, word-of-mouth emails, reviews, etc.)

[Vaxalon]

Yesh! I pay you and something might happen, or my money goes to a charity of your choice. And if it does happen, I'm paying so everyone who didn't pay can have a piece of it? Yuck!

It might also be called the "public broadcasting" model.

It works in other venues.  I can see it working here too.

[Callan S.]

Yesh! I pay you and something might happen, or my money goes to a charity of your choice. And if it does happen, I'm paying so everyone who didn't pay can have a piece of it? Yuck!

It might also be called the "public broadcasting" model.

It works in other venues.  I can see it working here too.

Wouldn't that be more like shareware? Something like public broadcasting already has the product out in the open...I watch it, think that I would like to see more of it or simply show my appreciation for what was put out, and pay.

This is a different model as the term ransom indicates. You don't get anything until the ransom is paid. It isn't public broadcasting.

[contracycle]

Interestingly, I'd be really interested in what Gareth (Contracycle) has to say about this model.

Oh OK.  I think it is plausible in the case of subscription to private flights to the moon and whatnot because in those cases, as was mentioned above, the punters actually want it to happen just becuase they think it is a good idea.  I agree with the criticism that paying for a product you only have a probability of a receiving is not likely to fly.

That said though the Mercanilists did a hell of a lot with voluntary subscription models.  These are rather similar because the subscriber does not really have aguarantee that the project will come to fruition, but differs because the subsriber usually aspires to being a part owner.

So, a subscription model that is rather similar to the ransom model might be viable if the subscribers stood to benefit later, if the project succeeds, in proportion to the up-front risk they carry by their initial investment.  Or maybe, something like a pyramid selling scheme in which the initial investors benefit in proportion to the other investors they bring in themselves.  Or, all investors prior to the Go decision get double their money back after profits reach a certain threshold.*

As you can see the basic concern I have here is that purchasers is being asked to make a risky investment up front, exactly like buying into a publicly traded company.  Similar reward strategies would probably have to be employed.

* I mean in proportion something like: production cost set at X, threshold is 10X, thus author pays out 2X in rewards and trousers 8X.