This doesn't pertain to RPGs specifically, but it's still a gaming-related online publication with an experimental distribution model, so I figured I'd give everyone a head's up on it. (And shamelessly plug a current project in the process.)

Meatbot Massacre is a tactical miniature game Greg Stolze and I have been working on for well over a year now. The premise is pretty simple: giant biomechanical monsters beat the living tar out of each other in televised gladitorial combat.

What's relevant to this forum is the distribution model we're using for the game. Greg calls it the "Ransom" model. In short, it's an effort to curb PDF piracy, maintain the free nature of web distribution, sidestep the middle-men of paper publishing and keep costs reasonable for the customer. Here's how it works: We keep the PDF to ourselves until a set amount has been paid by donations. Once the amount has been paid, we release the PDF for free download to anyone who wants it. If the amount is not met, we do not release the PDF and the cash is donated to a local homeless shelter in Greg's town. We're hoping it's a success and leads to the release of other games using a similar model.

Anyhoo, just thought I'd spread the word. :)

Hm. I would, in theory ask whether you're really willing not to have your game released, with all your hard work available to only a few friends.

Of course, you have to say "yes" in a public forum like this, since your ransom depends on your ransomees believing your threat...

But if your amount is never paid, will you release it in 3 years or something?

I'm very curious to see what your results are.

This is usually known as the Street Performer Protocol if folks want to look up other discussion on it. I don't know of any examples of it being successful off-hand, but I'd certainly like to see it happen.

Sounds like a reasonable experiment.

It's kinda like public broadcasting.

"Pay us money so that this will be available to everyone."

I think it's a bad idea. I think you'd be better off selling the game as shareware.

Mainly because I don't want to pay for someday. When I drop money, I expect to get product. I don't want to pay money to maybe get the product someday, and if not my money is just gone. I think a lot of people will have the same reaction.

EDIT: You know, I think saying it's a bad idea was too harsh. Actually, in a way it's a really good idea. Please allow me to rephrase thusly: I think it has a definite risk of failure.

The Jack Vance Integral Edition, or selling tickets on moon voyages, seem similar to me: pay now for something you really really want to happen, and if your contribution helps make it happen you can be part of it. It relies on a great deal of desire to work, though!

The difference between this and the street performer protocol is that we won't be putting the donations into an escrow or giving refunds if the donations don't meet the ransom by deadline. The work involved with all that bookkeeping is just too much of a headache, especially on top of not managing to actually sell the product. So donating it to charity is the next best option. Yes, in a worst case scenario, the people who donated may not get the product, but at least we won't be benefiting from it either.

As for what we do with the game in case we don't get the full ransom... Well, Greg says it best in this RPG.net post:

To preserve the integrity of the system, I have to shelve anything that doesn't get paid for. Otherwise, I'm just screwing myself and other kidnap publishers in the long run. "Yeah, we could pay and get it right away, or we can wait and he'll probably just release the frigging thing even if he doesn't get a dime."

The IDEAL for the ransom model is that I get all the money BEFORE I write word one. It's like the Chubb Group underwriting something on PBS.

gobi wrote: Yes, in a worst case scenario, the people who donated may not get the product, but at least we won't be benefiting from it either.

gobi wrote: In short, it's an effort to curb PDF piracy, maintain the free nature of web distribution, sidestep the middle-men of paper publishing and keep costs reasonable for the customer.

It's my experience that shareware doesn't get paid for, especially in the case of entertainment products. Most people who can get the slices for free won't buy the loaf, to use the old baked-goods proverb. I suspect this is particularly true of niche products like games. If 10% of the people who use PKZip pay for it, that's some serious coin. If only 10% of the people who play Unknown Armies had paid for it, I probably wouldn't have made enough money to buy a sofa.

Is this a risk for the payer? Sure, but it's a scalable risk. If a dollar sounds too rich for your blood, you're presumably not interested in seeing my work. Okay. No blood, no foul. Other people are interested and were, in fact, paying before the site even went live.

Another issue that's crystal clear to me and possibly irrelevant to the end user is this: From my side, the ransom (or underwriting) model is far simpler. If I get paid, I release the work and I'm DONE. If I don't, I shrug and walk away. Speaking as a guy who made money off GODWALKER but did so by printing, packing, stamping and in many cases filling out customs documents for 300 books -- sheesh, it's a lot of work. If you're a fan of my game writing and not my mail-collating skills, don't you want me working in a way that minimizes the time I spend doing book keeping and upkeep?

I don't think this model would work for someone who didn't have a reputation for competent design, but I've spent ten years building my reputation. I think people are willing to risk money on me when they wouldn't on someone with no track record. So go ahead and gamble a buck. The very worst thing that can happen is that you'll help some homeless folks out at what is shaping up to be a very beleagured shelter.

-G.

Okay, shareware a) doesn't work and b) isn't something you want to do. I can accept that for purposes of this conversation.

And yes, I think the reputation thing increases your chances of success dramatically.

Even still, how is the ransom method better than putting Meatbot Massacre on Lulu or RPGNow?

Isn't the "ransom" model simply Shareware in reverse? Instead of the customer getting product for free and paying for it maybe...the producer gets paid for free and delivers product maybe.

If shareware doesn't work in the usual direction, what will make it work in the opposite direction?

I think the difference here is that the author would pledge (and be verified by a third party) to have already produced the game.

Jasper wrote: I guess it depends on how much you're charging, i.e. how many people have to be interested for it to happen.

GregStolze wrote: If you're a fan of my game writing and not my mail-collating skills, don't you want me working in a way that minimizes the time I spend doing book keeping and upkeep?

Once you release, why not go shareware? Why make it free at that point? I mean, if people continue to enjoy it, shouldn't you have the potential to profit proportionally? You probably won't, but why not?

That said, I think that there is a sort of equity in the idea of charging what essentially becomes one great big flat fee to create the work. Especially since the cost of publishing is zero in this case.

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

How much does this get used (if at all) in other areas like music?

I agree with whoever said it above, having a safe third party review the game before it's released should be part and parcel of this process. I'm a huge fan of Greg's work, and trust him, but not everyone is Greg, and not everyone knows his rep like I do. Why not have some confirmation that the thing does exist and is cool before hand?

I think Ken Hite might have a whole new sideline available to him. :-)

Mike

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.)

Noon wrote: 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!

Vaxalon wrote:

Noon wrote: 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.

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