The Forge Archives

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:

QuoteTo 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.

EDIT: I must correct my first post. Looking at the date of Greg's post, it seems that we've been working on this little project for over two years. Phew. Didn't seem like that long. :)

Quote from: gobiYes, 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.

[list=1][*]That seems like scant consolation to the donator.

[*]I guess it depends on how much you're charging, i.e. how many people have to be interested for it to happen.[/list:o]

Obviously you wouldn't be doing it if you weren't fairly confident about reaching your minimum amount, but if this is true, why not just go shareware, as Ethan says?  

Quote from: gobiIn 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.

To be blunt, I don't see how the random model achieves any of the above better than shareware (and it seems to undercut the "free" idea, if the product never gets released.)  Or are you just doing it as an experiment?

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.

Quote from: JasperI guess it depends on how much you're charging, i.e. how many people have to be interested for it to happen.

That's something that will need to be discovered.

Quote from: GregStolzeIf 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?

Personally -- as someone who bought Godwalker straight off the bat (and who threw down $5 of the $11 already donated to Meatbot) -- I was astonished at how bad Greg's handwriting was. So I'm 100% behind minimising the amount of book-keeping he has to do!

[I'd just like to point out that that is not the dig at Greg it appears to be, but actually a dig at my own bizarre-if-harmless prejudice about what published (& talented) author should be! I remember looking at his presumably rushed hand (which is far better then mine, I hasten to add) and thinking 'But he's an author!' I think I was expecting calligraphy!]

But to return to the point, as someone who has already put a small amount of dough on the line, I wouldn't do it for almost anyone else.

And I'm not saying I'm a fanatical Greg fan. (Sorry Greg!)

I like Greg's work, and that name recognition is part of it (most of it, in fact), but frankly if I didn't know he was a fledgling self-publisher (due to his Godlike endeavour) I don't think I would have bothered. In fact, even though I'm one of the people who were paying before the site even went live I'm not sure if it was the desire to get hold of the product that drove me to do it. I want Greg, and then others like him, to succeed desperately.

I am interested in Meatbot (I wouldn't do it just for the remuneration proposition), but I'm not checking the site daily to see how close I am to getting that which I now have a stake in.

If anyone remembers Stephen King's attempt with 'The Plant' I tried that too, buying two chapters & paying for them both (I think I paid for the second, I don't recall). But I don't read King normally, but I was keen to see the idea work, and interested to read some King for a pittance too, I guess.

And, most importantly willing to put money down.

[For those of you that don't know the Plant was released in chapters, 'free to air' if you will, anyone could download it without impediment, but were then asked to go to a payment page & donate a minimum for the chapter via a payment page. If 50% of downloaded copies were paid for, the next went up in due course. The experiment didn't get past chapter three, if I recall correctly.]

I think I got involved with Meatbot because (in order of importance):

I like Greg's work generally & te preview looked interesting (but I would never buy it normally)
Having shared a few forum debates with him, and some very limited contact whilst ordering Godlike I like Greg & want to support his endevours*
I like the idea of the Ransom model & am willing to put my money where my mouth is.

*I'd like to point out that this is not a stalker-like attitude toward someone I've never met, but rather the basic human characteristic of forming relationships. As an example, I like Greg & John Tynes work equally (as much as it is possible to make such a judgement), but I have never had any direct contact (nomatter how minor) with John, but (and boy do I feel strange discussing this where I know he'll read it), I have to admit I 'like' Greg the person more than John, simply becasue John is more of an unknown to me personally. Yet the logical side of me admits I don't actually know Greg at all.

It should be noted that I am by any definition I am a software and eBook pirate (excluding the definition that involves eye-patches & parrots). Yet I also buy lots of thinks I have the technical skils to steal. I'm no angel, I'd just really like an answer to the whole intellectual property in a digital age question, for both creators & consumers.

But the interesting thing to me is when I look at what I do happily pay for, and as with my example above, it's often due to a perceved personal relationship with the creator.

By way of another example, I'm not a music person, but I pirate many MP3s as I hear them & they take my fancy, even if often I don't listen to them for long. They generally go on the PC at work as a constantly revolving replacement for the radio. I also buy CDs that I could easily get for free. Why?

Sometimes it's simply a value proposition, that the physical artifact offers something that the raw music in data form does not.  But that's not a major issue.

Sometimes (rarely) I buy what I cannot steal. But frankly, I'm good at this internet malarky & there ain't much of this ilk that I could get if I really wanted to.

The primary reason I pay for stuff I could steal is due to some perceved relationship with the creator & a desire to deal honestly with them in a way I can't be bothered to with strangers. The critera for that perceved realtionship is actually very slim. I short, polite personal email responding to a query or confirming a shipment is probalby enough. Enough to not be a faceless corporation perhaps.

The first band who my girlfriend & I went to see live after we got togeather can rely on my honesty for life, for instance. 'Gratitude' I guess. Plus the fact that (even though now they are a big success) at the time they were nobodies (another reason I guess for my 'connection' with them) & I had several long email conversations with their manager about improving their website.

I'm trying not to sound like some odorious exampe of internet scum, but franky I see no point discussing DRM-free electronic distribution methods while pretending I don't own & know how to use Kazaa Lite (like may others in such I discussion I guess). Looking at my own actions is the best data I have.

I think my point is that people aren't honest with strangers in the way they are with friends. I reacall reading that the three most basic instincts hard-wired into the human brain are sexual jealously, a predeliction for salty & sweet foods, and the 'them & us' principal.

I think we'll happily rip off 'one of them' but not 'one of us'. And I think small independent creators are possibly in the best position to release unprotected material and get renumberated as unlike larger entities they have the oppotunity to engage with thier customers personally.

Wow, that was way longer than I intended![/i]

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