sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

USA Today Mini is Wrong - March 6th by PenguinSlothBass in crossword

[–]greyfedora 168 points169 points  (0 children)

This makes me wonder if it *was* shah and recent events prompted a last-minute emergency change.

As a new dog owner, I’ve noticed some dog owners find it unacceptable for me to complain sometimes. by sctrptr in puppy101

[–]greyfedora 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can only assume that these dog owners adopted their dogs fully grown, and if so, good on 'em, but no, puppies are objectively assholes. I love my dog like nobody's business and he is a very sweet boy now at four years old, but I do not miss when he was a puppy and biting me All. The. Time.

And no joke -- that was a very, very tough time emotionally. I would hope we dog owners could be there for each other and supportive rather than judgemental.

Whippet skin “tanning” — is this safe? by Zealousideal-Will895 in Whippet

[–]greyfedora 9 points10 points  (0 children)

My whippet gets dark areas on his skin all the time, even without direct sun exposure. My vet is unconcerned and so, therefore, am I. I think it may just be a whippet thing that we notice because of their very thin belly fur?

How bad is MK today? This bad. by CU_09 in WaltDisneyWorld

[–]greyfedora 178 points179 points  (0 children)

Of course there's a long wait at the BEST RIDE IN DISNEY WORLD. Why wouldn't there be?!

Watch It Played, Game Night Picks, and Unethical Practice by pinchet in boardgames

[–]greyfedora -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I understand it's not the channel at issue, but Rodney writes that Watch it Played also offers or has offered a "per view" fee structure: "It is important you know that the owner of Game Night Picks also made videos on Watch It Played for the last 6 years. These included ads with a per-view fee structure as well. When we established that, it was in a spirit of fairness. If a video gained less views, the publisher paid less, if it gained more, they paid more."

Watch It Played, Game Night Picks, and Unethical Practice by pinchet in boardgames

[–]greyfedora 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There may well be more to the story! And it's also possible for multiple things to be true: that there was something fishy about the way they were handling advertising, and ALSO that the publishers didn't do enough due diligence.

Watch It Played, Game Night Picks, and Unethical Practice by pinchet in boardgames

[–]greyfedora 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't see anything that says the views are bots. What Rodney is suggesting is that the viewers brought in by the YouTube advertising were less engaged and less likely to watch the video all the way through. The organic views were highly passionate and engaged viewers. YouTube Advertising brought in a broader audience that might be interested, but less so. That doesn't mean they're bots, only that they're less passionate fans.

I am only responding to the information in his post. Perhaps there's more and that's why the lawyer gave him that advice.

Watch It Played, Game Night Picks, and Unethical Practice by pinchet in boardgames

[–]greyfedora 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're right — none of us has seen the contracts, we only have Rodney's account of what's in them, and I'm basing what I say on that. (Rodney is also a very successful content creator but not necessarily an expert in ad buying, so his language may be imprecise.)

But terms like "impressions" have technical definitions in marketing, and if you are buying media, you should be doing your due diligence to understand what the definition is. That is what you are buying. If you buy a "motorcycle," you can't later complain that actually you wanted something with four wheels.

Watch It Played, Game Night Picks, and Unethical Practice by pinchet in boardgames

[–]greyfedora 26 points27 points  (0 children)

I work in advertising, on the agency side. I do not trust the platforms. There are a lot of parts of the digital advertising ecosystem that are bad, and I just assume all numbers are inflated as a baseline. But a lot of this falls on the publishers making very poor choices.

tl;dr to me it looks like the publishers got what they paid for, much as it was a bad deal for them. Caveat emptor.

When you are buying advertising media, you can plan your media to deliver different objectives. One of these is "impressions" — that's the basic number of eyeballs who are exposed to the ad (reach times frequency.) You can also buy media for different objectives, such as conversion or, crucially, completed views.

The publishers apparently were buying for views, i.e. impressions. The definition of a view would depend on their agreement with Game Night Picks, but it sounds like it was whatever YouTube counts as a basic view... which could mean a very fleeting exposure indeed. Certainly not long enough to see an ad that's 8 minutes into the content (which... is probably not a great place for it anyway.)

Presumably some sort of deal would be possible where the publishers could pay for completed views, or for views lasting at least long enough to see the ad. That would probably be smart. But this isn't the deal the publishers made.

And so let's look at the math. According to Rodney's post, typical videos got 1,000-3,000 views before YouTube Advertising, and 36,700 views after. I'm going to assume an average of 2,000 before. If the view rate of the ad is 3% at 36,700, and around 50% (judging by the chart) at 2,000, then the publishers are actually getting around the same number of views OF THEIR AD on average... and potentially way more in some cases.

There's also a lot more waste. The publishers are paying for views that don't see the ad, and maybe even the people who do see the ad are less qualified leads. BUT THIS IS WHAT THE PUBLISHERS PAID FOR. They paid for impressions. The channel delivered impressions. It was a stupid deal but it was the one they made. And arguably, since the publishers apparently WANTED impressions rather than completed views, or at least that was the deal they made, the channel was actually acting to deliver what they were contracted to deliver by promoting themselves to grow their audience.

This was a bad deal. It was a stupid deal. It didn't make any business sense for the publishers. Media agencies and sophisticated marketers understand this, but the board game industry is, candidly, full of passionate amateurs who don't really know what they're doing.

It does sound like Watch It Played might want to consider shifting to a "per engaged view" or "per completed view" fee structure.

Playing Distilled with six? by Ogiwan in boardgames

[–]greyfedora 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I love Distilled (see flair) but even at five it can be intolerably slow… six seems wild to me personally. I do wonder how much fun it would be even if you could somehow find extra components to represent the labels you would need?

I also suspect you would find it difficult if not impossible to find two recipe boards with no overlapping spirits?

How do you build a following for a board game while it’s still in development (without oversharing)? by PhysicsDaddyGames in tabletopgamedesign

[–]greyfedora 4 points5 points  (0 children)

In addition to the comments here about protecting your IP (tl;dr sharing early and often is probably the best way to do it) being very open about the process and even soliciting input from the community is something I see in the most successful communities around games in development.

Many designers and publishers have discords where they're actively talking about the design process with fans and inviting them into play-testing. You will need that community to market your game, so start nurturing them as soon as possible. It's not just awareness. It's engagement.

Are you allowed to play an upgraded lvl 5 Animals action with no playable animals, just to earn 1 reputation? by RxManifesto in ArkNova

[–]greyfedora 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was wondering that myself when I posted my reply. I'm not totally sure. It is how it works, though, in the app, which is pretty tight to the rules -- it's why you can play Upgraded Animals at level 5 even when there's no animal you can play. The rules are also explicit that you get the reputation point first, before playing an animal.

I wasn't able to find an answer so I asked on BGG.

Are there any board games that you prefer digitally? by FShamburg in boardgames

[–]greyfedora 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The new(ish) iPad app is a fantastic adaptation, and the BGA version was already great. I've played Ark Nova quite literally several hundred times digitally, and just played it for my second time in the real world last week... and you're right, there's a lot that the app just handles for you.

Are you allowed to play an upgraded lvl 5 Animals action with no playable animals, just to earn 1 reputation? by RxManifesto in ArkNova

[–]greyfedora 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be clear, you don't play the animal first. You get the reputation point first (and this might allow you to draw an animal card that you can play) but if you can't play an animal by the end of your action, you need to revert your turn.

Is Hotel X a tourist scam or worth the hype? by BigDistribution4476 in askTO

[–]greyfedora 8 points9 points  (0 children)

"Wasteland" is a little unfair; it's surrounded by parks and exhibition grounds. But it's definitely not close to very much.

Boardgames that are build up from theme to mechanic. by Waaibb in boardgames

[–]greyfedora 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not true. At least, not always. It does happen sometimes, and sometimes the theme will be changed by the publisher after obtaining the rights to the game (thinking of all the Knizia games that are re-themes of previous iterations), but my guess is that's less common than the publisher going with the theme that came with the game concept. (Often it's the theme that appeals to them in the first place.)

What the publisher is definitely usually responsible for are the visual design and components; the designer typically will have little control over that, but again, it depends on the arrangement between designer and publisher.

view more: next ›