Ever since I started using Kickstarter as a tabletop games backer 16 years ago, I’ve supported the inclusion of both a standard edition and a deluxe (or all-in) edition. But I’m starting to wonder if that reward strategy is still relevant in 2026.

Here’s how I described these two reward type in a 2013 article:

An anchor price establishes a base price for your product so your backers have something to compare the price of the other reward levels. It offers quantitative context, and it’s low enough that it gets people in the door.

The premium option is the opposite of the anchor price. It is a separate reward that is tantalizingly close to the anchor price, but SO much better. It should give people a truly compelling reason to upgrade, or simply an outlet to spend more on the project if they want to reach stretch goals.

This system only works if the publisher garners enough interest from backers in both versions of the game, as manufacturing minimum order quantities (MOQs) typically start at 1,000 or 1,500 units.

In recent years, I’ve noticed that the ratio of standard to deluxe/all-in has shifted considerably. I’m not a typical backer, as I almost always choose the standard version of a game, so it’s apparent on nearly every project I back that far more backers are choosing the premium option.

Here are a few examples of projects I’m currently backing or following:

• Garden Club (40 backers at the $39 standard level, 418 backers at the all-in level)
• The Great Sea & Towers of Sifnos (107 and 180 backers at the $47 standard levels, 812 backers at the $124 deluxe combo level)
• Oakspire (134 backers at the $39 standard level, 1033 backers at the $93 deluxe level)

I very much do not want crowdfunding to only attract those with deep pockets, so I’m not advocating that creators ignore price accessibility altogether. I also understand that backers have changed over the years: There are much bigger pricing gaps between current reward levels than there were 10 years ago.

Though I’m also looking out for publishers: As I mentioned above, if a publisher plans to make two completely different versions of the same game but they only have 100 backers for the standard version, they need to invest in at least another unsold 900 units of that version to reach the MOQ. That’s a big risk.

There are a few possible alternatives:

1. Just offer 1 reward level for the best version of the game. Paws does this with a single reward level, a $59 deluxe version of the game. This works because (a) the price isn’t too high (i.e., I don’t think this would work for a $100+ core reward) and (b) Gamefound lets creators show the full price compared to the listed price.
2. Just offer a standard version of the game. The Glasgow Train Robbery did this with a very appealing price of $34. Perhaps this doesn’t tap into the reason why many backers crowdfund games, but a game can look and play great without having super expensive components. Also, this demonstrates that a publisher’s margins are generally better when selling directly to consumers.
3. Keep both the standard and premium reward levels, but just compose the premium option of a series of add-ons and promos with their own SKUs (each also with their own MOQ). This also makes it easier to sell various inventory levels later on your webstore and at conventions. Garden Club does this.

What do you think about these strategies as we look at backer behavior and publisher viability in 2026? What options do you like to see when you consider a tabletop crowdfunding project?

***

Also read:

• Reward Levels: The Premium Option
• The Deluxe Dilemma
• Can a Publisher Serve Backers with Different Budgets?

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.