“Getting attention on a board game release announcement isn’t free anymore. It’s not news. At best it’s a bullet point on a long list of new release announcements for the week. The traditional method we’ve long employed of selling to distributors who sell to retailers who sell to players, sadly seems to be falling apart for us, and I suspect for most publishers.” –Colby Dauch, Plaid Hat Games

Over the last 2 weeks I’ve thought over and over about an article that Plaid Hat Games’ Colby Dauch wrote for Board Game Wire. Plaid Hat launched a Kickstarter in June for a new game (The Monolith). They pulled the campaign after a few days and have since relaunched. As of this writing, the project has raised $113,687 from 1257 backers.

In the article, Colby offers a transparent, humble, and vulnerable perspective about his crowdfunding philosophy, how it didn’t result in a successful first launch of The Monolith, and the adjustments he’s made for the current campaign. Today I’ll share my thoughts Colby’s initial goals and how they’ve evolved.

Original Goals (in Colby’s words)

• We will severely limit the use of exclusives. We don’t want people feeling like they HAVE to buy the product now or they will be missing out.
• We aren’t seeking to punish the people who have long supported their local board game shop by purchasing our products through them.
• Most of all we don’t want to manipulate our customers by preying on their fear of missing out.
• We will reduce the long wait between the time you back a game and the time you get that game by being fully ready to go to production at the time of the Kickstarter.

JAMEY: I love these goals, so it pains me that they didn’t align with a successful first campaign for The Monolith. However, there are a few important nuances in these goals, as I think they are all worth pursuing.

First, promos provided for free to backers and then later to everyone else at a set price are, in my opinion, just as effective in the short term and far more effective in the long term compared to exclusives.

Second, I believe it is reasonable for a publisher to offer a discount to direct-order customers, especially early adopters who are also paying shipping fees. [This paragraph was updated to represent my opinion.]

Third, I firmly believe that a publisher can best serve backers by offering a fully designed and developed game at the time of launch. This removes a significant amount of scheduling uncertainty, and design and development are well within a publisher’s control, even on a limited budget. However, the funds attained from a crowdfunding campaign may be necessary for a publisher to invest in art, miniatures, and other expensive sunk costs–Colby talks about how he may have prematurely invested in molds for The Monolith.

Future Takeaways (in Colby’s words)

• When possible, create a version of the game that focuses on lower price and a version that focuses on maximum bling.
• Be more willing to compete with the price point that we and everyone else knows online retailers are going to put on our games.
• Give the campaign a chance to communicate what the demand is. We will still be production ready, but I won’t be putting the cart directly in front of the horse again.
• Better leverage the community-based systems that already exist to support crowdfunding.

JAMEY: Fortunately, Colby is remaining true to his customer-first goals even while evolving as a crowdfunder…with one exception that has left me a bit torn.

Crowdfunding projects do seem to attract most backers to all-in deluxe pledge levels, so it makes sense that The Monolith’s $89 reward is the most popular (976 backers). However, that was an early bird price; for most of the campaign, that same exact reward has been available for $99. So while the early bird level was successful at attracting backers for the first day or so, far fewer backers have pledged to the project since then.

I personally think that a far more effective tool for attracting backers on day one (other than offering a great game at a great price) is to offer a significant unlock for free to ALL backers if you reach a certain threshold within the first 48 hours. If for some reason that threshold isn’t reached, you can add it as a big stretch goal later in the campaign. All backers are early adopters who are bringing the game to life.

I appreciate Plaid Hat for sharing their detailed thoughts with Board Game Wire, and I’m curious what you think about these goals vs how backers have responded to both versions of the project. What would you like other creators to learn from these insights?

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. 

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.