Re: What Can We Improve for KS6?
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 3:51 pm
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see how this works out.Talistran wrote: ↑Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:43 pmIt has been brought up before, and is worth examining. However, it is harder for DF to plan on because they don't know how many of which parts will be bought. While the idea is that they'll sell enough units to bring the overall price of the unit down, thus we get a stretch goal, generally (in manufacturing), they have to meet a minimum number of "pours" in order to get that price break. By offering SG's by $$ instead of being attached to specific units (by pack/encounters like KS3/KS4/KS5 or basic packs like KS1/KS2), there is a little more risk in offering them.
So, that means that EVERY encounter/add-on pack will need their price increased by some percentage (let's say 10% just to have this discussion). And now DF can use that to pay for the SG's. Now, instead of pushing people towards certain projects (meaning the more of them we sell, the less they cost per unit), they are having to guess how many of each unit will sell. And don't get me wrong, they can guess and get close enough to make it work. Because they'll guess high on some and low on others and they will off-set each other overall (most likely).
With a setup like KSV, they already have to guess how popular a given stretch goal will be, and as we saw in previous comments, some pieces (and entire encounters) proved less popular than anticipated, like the Burrows. They have to guess/hope/assume that enough demand will exist for pretty much everything, especially in the bigger/later/more expensive Encounters. Early ones that almost everyone who doesn't go A La Carte will get them are easy to estimate; as long as the campaign gets big enough, they're set.
Setting the stretch goals/bonuses by a flat value means that they end up taking those pieces and basically applying 1+ per backer (assuming a breakdown like was originally suggested). So instead of "ooops, we only need like 500 of X piece, that was a lot of time and effort for something that didn't attract as much attention as we expected", they know for a fact they'll need a substantial number of ALL of the stretch goal items.
Enhancing an encounter only matters to those getting the encounter, and remains an unknown quantity of effectiveness/value/use of time and effort until the Pledge Manager lands and the waveform collapses, as it were.
Attaching SG's to specific encounters leaves out whatever percentage of the backers aren't getting those encounters, as was noted.
Some might note that having a disparity between the KS versions (plus SG's) versus the DF Web Store versions (minus SG's) could be a problem both for tracking and sales, but I don't see why they could be rolled into the latter version as appropriate, if they had specific pieces in mind for specific Encounters. The KS's are generally a bit of a discount against buying afterwards, at least whenever I've priced things out. If that change added a piece or two that is 'supposed' to be there, and the price increased accordingly, I can't see why it'd be a problem.
All told, I think the point made about feeling like some elements were 'stripped out', sort of like elements of a game being cut and repackaged as 'DLC', can be frustrating. If there are pieces that are explicitly designed to be within a set, I think they should just be in the set from the start. Let the Stretch Goal list act as a way to provide little boosts for all of the backers. "But what about backers who would get like 10 sets of SG's?" some might also point out. That could be trickier, but would depend upon the particular SG pieces. Honestly, I really liked the way they did it in KS1 and 2, where we ended up getting 'a taste' of a wide variety of sets, many of which were available in greater numbers as add ons. So if I wanted piles of cracked crevasses, I could buy them, but even just getting 2 sets from KS2, I got a few bits to augment builds in some really fun ways.
For those who are still reading this missive, I am of course not trying to second guess, berate, or otherwise tell Dwarven Forge their business. As noted previously, this is a thread about feedback, so having caught up on a few pages since I last came through here, I thought I'd build upon some of the thoughts I've seen presented, and the (snipped) exchange above got some ideas rolling. They've already said that they intend to adjust how the Encounters and pieces will be bundled, and I do have faith that'll be fun to see and explore, but I also appreciate that there is an interest in critique and feedback. Nothing is perfect, and the more ideas we share, the more likely we can find better ways to do things, together, as a community of fans and the company that produces awesome stuff.