Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

"Exploding Kittens" Blows Up Kickstarter Records

Posted by timothy on from the someone's-gotta-be-in-the-lead dept.

The Register reports that the crowdfunded Exploding Kittens card game from Oatmeal (and Tesla museum fund-raiser) Matthew Inman, along with X-box veterans Elan Lee and Shane Small, has become the highest-grossing game project yet on Kickstarter. After an intensive fundraising campaign, the trio collected $8.78m from 219,382 backers to launch the game. This breaks the record for the largest ever Kickstarter game project, previously held by hackable Android gaming console Ouya. According to the blurb on Exploding Kittens' (now closed) Kickstarter page, players "take turns drawing cards until someone draws an exploding kitten and loses the game."

105 comments

  1. Russian patent !! by invictusvoyd · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is called Russian Roulette . ( i.e. exploding kitten brains ) It was a favourite pastime in USSR and had to be kick - started in a bar.

    1. Re:Russian patent !! by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Funny

      It is called Russian Roulette . ( i.e. exploding kitten brains ) It was a favourite pastime in USSR and had to be kick - started in a bar.

      But it kinda lost its appeal when people moved from using revolvers to playing it with a semi-automatic pistol with a single bullet in the magazine.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Russian patent !! by invictusvoyd · · Score: 0

      They stopped playing it when the next guy started pulling out a kalashnikov on full auto

    3. Re:Russian patent !! by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is why we can't have nice things!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Russian patent !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is called Russian Roulette . . . It was a favourite pastime in USSR and had to be kick - started in a bar.

      Fiction.

    5. Re:Russian patent !! by halivar · · Score: 1

      Lighten up, Francis.

    6. Re:Russian patent !! by rpstrong · · Score: 2

      In Soviet Russia, revolver shoot you!

      Oh, wait a sec . . .

  2. Incredible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's truly incredible what people will spend money on. This is neither the worst nor best example, but it definitely amazes me.

    1. Re:Incredible by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      It's truly incredible what people will spend money on. This is neither the worst nor best example, but it definitely amazes me.

      Did you see the huge amount of work that was put into this game?

      That's the incredible part, not the fact that people are spending money on it, or the fact that it has become an internet meme.

    2. Re:Incredible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is a joke, right? This entire thing probably took less than a week to go from idea to prototype. The fact that it was successful as it was speaks volumes about how unworthy we are as a species.

    3. Re:Incredible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you see the huge amount of work that was put into this game?

      A lot of work goes into anti science as well.

      Doesn't make any of it "incredible."

    4. Re:Incredible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's truly incredible what people will spend money on. This is neither the worst nor best example, but it definitely amazes me.

      Well 'some' people go to Fifty Shades of Grey... then I think people have more fun playing this game... ;)

    5. Re:Incredible by psmears · · Score: 1

      Doesn't make any of it "incredible."

      I dunno, I find most anti-science hard to believe! ;-)

      --
      Need to type accents and special characters in Windows? Use FrKeys
    6. Re:Incredible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are amazed that people will buy a card game from a guy who makes a living inventing memes? Honestly it doesn't strike me as a particularly outstanding investment. You could buy one of these for every party you ever host and still spend less on cards than you would on beer.

    7. Re:Incredible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did you see the huge amount of work that was put into this game?

      I did not, but unless you are Matthew Inman, Elan Lee, or Shane Small, neither did you. Note, you said game, and not Kickstarter campaign, meaning you are only talking about the game mechanics and not the circus that the Kickstarter campaign became. You saw what the creators wanted you to see, not everything that lead up to those decisions.

      BTW, I backed it for a total of 4 decks (2 normal, 2 NSFW). I don't know if it took 10 weeks or 10 minutes to plan out all the cards, and frankly, I don't care. It looks like it is going to be a fun game, and I look forward to playing it with my friends.

    8. Re:Incredible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, the fact that it was successful shows that *who* launches a Kickstarter project will always and forever be more important than what the project actually is.

    9. Re:Incredible by sectokia · · Score: 1

      It just goes to show the 1st one your have an audience they will buy almost anything.

    10. Re:Incredible by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      :-) Speak for yourself. I didn't buy in..

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    11. Re:Incredible by Zalgon+26+McGee · · Score: 1

      You'd think that with that much money coming in, they'd have been able to afford an artist...

      --

      ---

      Book(n): Utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman

    12. Re:Incredible by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      Why? People love the dudes art, he has a reputation for being reliable with this sort of thing, and people feel they are going to get good value for money.

      Personally I'm more a poker kind of guy. Traditional cards. But hey, if someone else has a deck I'm sure it'd be fun to have a go. Especially with the kids.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    13. Re:Incredible by Rhaban · · Score: 1

      Actually, the fact that it was successful shows that *who* launches a Kickstarter project will always and forever be more important than what the project actually is.

      That Elan Lee guy must have a hell of a cult following.

    14. Re:Incredible by crossmr · · Score: 2

      No one cares about Elan Lee. Oatmeal sent people there from the site. His artwork is all over it. No one has even seen Elan Lee's name, they're only focused on the Oatmeal. The exact same idea from someone else without oatmeal's involvement would have probably not even gotten funded.

    15. Re:Incredible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you see the huge amount of work that was put into this game?

      BTW, I backed it for a total of 4 decks (2 normal, 2 NSFW). I don't know if it took 10 weeks or 10 minutes to plan out all the cards, and frankly, I don't care. It looks like it is going to be a fun game, and I look forward to playing it with my friends.

      I guess I'm happy for you but the game look anything but fun. the only thing this game has over CAH is that at least with this game there is an end point. You won't get stuck playing the same dick jokes for 2 hours with this.

    16. Re:Incredible by thecatt · · Score: 1

      Whoosh!

  3. I ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't want to live on this planet anymore

    1. Re:I ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      don't want to live on this planet anymore

      See, there ARE things we can all still agree on!

    2. Re:I ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wel, you have alternatives...

  4. What's not to like by cosmin_c · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I backed this up for the simple reason that I like card games and I love The Oatmeal's illustrations. I also like cats. It is that simple.

    And I also think that creativity is at a premium nowadays, and each manifestation of it should be embraced and supported as much as possible.

    1. Re:What's not to like by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This right here... It was amazingly popular because it was a good idea from some very creative and popular guys. I wonder if the big game companies will learn that innovation can pay? Hey... Stop laughing...

    2. Re:What's not to like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think innovation is the right word here. It's all about the new breed of internet celebrity. This wouldn't have had nearly the same response if Matthew Inman's name wasn't attached.

    3. Re: What's not to like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree. I like Matt's work. But I don't find it particularly surprising that he raised a ton of money. He already has an audience that already wants to buy his products.

      I actually dislike when known and established creators use Kickstarter. Why do they need it? It's not like Inman couldn't have gotten a loan if he'd wanted one. Instead everyone says how amazing it is he funded so much. How is it amazing? If Beyonce went on Kickstarter would it be any surprise if she raised $10 million? If course not. In the Internet community it's no surprise that Inman could throw a successful Kickstarter no matter what the game content was.

    4. Re:What's not to like by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be awesome if big game companies switched all the big game hunters to play their game instead of killing fellow mortals.

    5. Re:What's not to like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This wouldn't have had nearly the same response if Matthew Inman's name wasn't attached.

      While you are probably correct that the response would not be nearly as large without Matthew Inman's involvement, it would also have been an entirely different game, because Mathew Inman was "attached" in more than just name, he also contributed creatively to the game.

    6. Re:What's not to like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also like cats.

      Interesting. I would have thought that exploding kittens were aimed more at the "hate cats" crowd.

    7. Re:What's not to like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And don't forget the boob dragons! :D

    8. Re: What's not to like by Whorhay · · Score: 2

      I don't care if big names use Kick Starter or not. An existing celebrity doesn't hurt anything by using KS, all it really does is bring more traffic to KS. It makes KS a little richer no doubt as they get to scrape their cream off the top. But it brings lots of people to KS some percentage of which will end up browsing and looking through other KS projects. The only thing I can think of that it hurts is some obscure projects chances at earning the title of biggest KS every, and honestly who cares about that?

    9. Re: What's not to like by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I actually dislike when known and established creators use Kickstarter.

      Kickstarter is not a zero sum gain. Exploding Kittens getting $8 million does not mean that any of that $8m would have gone to any other Kickstarter campaign. I contribute to Kickstarter stuff off and on, my contributions are not limited by finances but by interest in the project.

      Why do they need it?

      They need it for the same reason as anyone else - to be sure there's a market before they spend money on production. That's the awesome thing about Kickstarter, is that it takes the risk out of going beyond a prototype stage. Even a well known and creative guy like Matt could easily produce a card game that went no-where at all and no-one would buy - a terrible waste not only of his time but the resources used to print the cards and produce packaging.

      With Kickstarter you eliminate a ton of waste because you are producing what people want instead of what they might want... it's the ultimate definition of win/win.

      I think people who don't understand Kickstarter should go back to the Muppet movie and watch Kermit's speech on dreams (jump to 45 seconds in) and listen carefully to Rainbow Connection... Kickstarter allows any of us to be muppets on the bus to an uncertain but interesting future. I for one don't care who is driving.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    10. Re: What's not to like by jandrese · · Score: 1

      I think he is as surprised as everyone at how many copies were sold. Their original estimate was for maybe a few hundred or a thousand if they were lucky. It's just a dumb little card game. But it resonated with the internet and sold nearly a quarter million copies.

      In the risks and pitfalls section he mentions that there shouldn't be a problem unless they sell too many copies. I'm thinking whatever plans they had to produce and ship these originally are now toast. I wouldn't be surprised if these don't ship until 2016 now, especially since the original plan was basically "They're just some cards, how hard can it be?"

      However, Mr. Inman also has some of the blame here by turning the kickstarter into a party (literally in some cases) where people were doing crazy things for internet "achievements" and generating a lot of buzz. If he didn't want it to be so big he could have managed it a lot worse like most Kickstarters.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    11. Re:What's not to like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exploding cats? But will they blend? https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1187581581/kittens-in-a-blender-the-card-game/description

    12. Re:What's not to like by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be awesome if big game companies switched all the big game hunters to play their game instead of killing fellow mortals.

      You kill "fellow mortals" every time you eat a salad, you murderer.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:What's not to like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This really demonstrates that the key to a successful kick starter is popularity, not quality.

    14. Re:What's not to like by blue+trane · · Score: 0

      False equivalence. I try to minimize harm, and dream and scheme of/for a day when I don't have to eat.

      But plants have different survival strategies than big game animals, hence the false equivalence. Most of the plants I eat produce fruit that birds eat, spreading the seeds to far-off lands. I'm happiest when I'm out somewhere where I can toss the seeds of the fruit I eat into some dirt where it might take hold; or maybe it lies dormant for eons...

      Comparing eating a plant to eating meat ignores the body of thought that Jains have devoted to the issue of ahimsa, in the course of over 5000 years.

      All eating is harmful, but eating plants, especially when the plant itself survives (i.e. don't eat root vegetables because the plant has to be killed), is less harmful than eating a cow or another animal that actively tries to get away when you kill it.

      Jains also thought about microscopic creatures long before the microscope; so you should strain water, and not eat after sunset because your food is more likely to have organisms on it that sunlight hasn't killed. Yes it's regrettable that bacteria die by the sunlight; one day we will develop less violent techniques of preserving food, and synthetic meat that doesn't require animal-derived substrate to grow within, and/or we'll figure out how to get energy directly from the sun (as our friends and fellow mortals the plants do; they can teach us).

    15. Re:What's not to like by Skarjak · · Score: 2

      Meh. I'm not sure i'd use the word creative to describe the Oatmeal. His comics kind of all follow the same formula.

    16. Re:What's not to like by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Comparing eating a plant to eating meat ignores the body of thought that Jains have devoted to the issue of ahimsa, in the course of over 5000 years.

      Yep. And I'm going to continue ignoring that body of thought, because I'm only interested in physics.

      but eating plants, especially when the plant itself survives (i.e. don't eat root vegetables because the plant has to be killed), is less harmful than eating a cow or another animal that actively tries to get away when you kill it.

      Less harmful to the cow, certainly.

      Yes it's regrettable that bacteria die by the sunlight;

      No, it certainly is not. It's a damned good thing.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re: What's not to like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His background is in SEO. He knows exactly what he's doing.

    18. Re:What's not to like by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Funny, I just watched a lecture on quantum physics that uses the Jain analogy of the blind men and the elephant in treating wave-particle duality. So physicists have learned from Jainism's theory of knowledge. Maybe you can too. May nonviolence grow on you.

    19. Re:What's not to like by tgv · · Score: 1

      > each manifestation of [creativity] should be embraced and supported as much as possible

      Hold it right there. Did you support https://www.kickstarter.com/pr...? Why not? It's much more creative than this game. https://www.kickstarter.com/pr...? https://www.kickstarter.com/pr...? https://www.kickstarter.com/pr...? And that's just an easy search for classical music.

      I'm betting you didn't. Then why this dumb game? Because you'd like to play it. There's got to be something in it for you. That's the reason. Don't be coy about it.

    20. Re:What's not to like by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      Does it really matter how he got popular? Would you be so wary if it was the undead ghost of Charls Schultz instead of Mathew Imman? The guys a great cartoonist. People respond to his work. Its been like that since people started drawing funny men with giant tophats on pennyfarthings shortly after the invention of the printing press.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    21. Re: What's not to like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of the creator wasting his own money, now he just wastes yours.

      I've never funded a kickstarter project, and I never will.

    22. Re: What's not to like by crossmr · · Score: 1

      Kickstarter isn't supposed to be for "Testing the waters".

      It's supposed to be for people who don't have the ability to get the financial backing to try and get it to to make their project. It's not meant for people who are well off, or established companies just to run pre-orders.

    23. Re:What's not to like by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      >His comics kind of all follow the same formula.

      And despite what you've been told, that's exactly what people want. People want you to be creative once and create something new, then they want you to stop because familiarity is what people buy.

    24. Re:What's not to like by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 2

      >This really demonstrates that the key to a successful ~~kick starter~~ anything is popularity, not quality.

      It doesn't matter how good you are, nobody will know about you, and you won't sell anything if you're a nobody.

      Next, before this got too much funding it was an excellent idea to invest in. Cards Against Humanity is a multimillion dollar selling game. Smart-assed card games are a very popular genre.

    25. Re:What's not to like by Skarjak · · Score: 1

      I guess you're right. My mind doesn't really work like that though. When an artist creates too much of the same thing I just get bored and move on.

    26. Re: What's not to like by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Honestly your loss, as I have got some great stuff from Kickstarter and supported people I really like.

      I have been a small part of making some things possible that would not otherwise have existed.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    27. Re:What's not to like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was a good idea from some very creative and popular guys

      It's a game where each player draws a card until someone randomly draws the exploding cat. That's barely a notch above "draw straws". I can't say these folks are very creative, but they are obviously very popular.

      Either way, please do not mistake this for innovation. This is yet another way for someone to get a lot of people to pay a little money for some total crap that looks pretty.

    28. Re:What's not to like by Anon+Hope+4sweg · · Score: 1

      Eh I don't know any of the people in this. I know what the Oatmeal is and I really dislike his comics. That being said I really like the concept of the game and the art isn't bad.

  5. Goatse roulette by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now debuting: if you draw the goatse card, you will have to post this post on slashdot.

  6. Even more Incredible by Racemaniac · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Even more incredible is how the summary is written to make it sound a lot worse than it is.
    looking at the kickstarter page, the game reminds me a bit of aye evil overlord, passing the buck around, trying to get other people to explode. Sounds like fun. It's nothing like "take turns drawing cards until someone draws an exploding kitten and loses the game.". You can make anything sound bad by taking a single sentence out of context. There are cards to prevent exploding, to pass exploding cards to other players, etc...

    Sounds like fun :).

    I'm really starting to wonder why i'm still on this site. Even more than it used to be, it's just a stream of clickbait and articles containing half truths just to make it sound controversial...

    1. Re:Even more Incredible by Wootery · · Score: 1

      On SoylentNews there's more of a no-clickbait-or-advertising-bullshit culture. Are you a member?

    2. Re: Even more Incredible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once you have a viable mobile site, sure.

  7. Am I the only one who think these people are sick? by vague+regret · · Score: 1

    Why kitten? Why not human babies? What could be funnier that exploding babies? Those people need a special medical treatment. Isolation would be the first step in right direction.

  8. wtf by kuzb · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The oatmeal creator is a true genius to be able to extract that much money out of this many idiots with such a terrible game. I have a whole new high level of respect for him, and an all new low respect for the human race overall. I'm not against the idea of "exploding kittens" - I don't find it shocking or offensive, but there's barely a game worth playing here. Only a complete idiot would fund a game this bad.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    1. Re:wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Protip, the summary is an atrocious summation of the game, like always.

      The game is FAR more than "just pulling cards until you explode".

    2. Re:wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know. UNO was such a bad game. I'm glad they didn't sell over 125 million packs of cards plus all the different versions and variations, or get copied with slight differences and marketed under different names.

      Such a terrible terrible game.

    3. Re:wtf by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, a fellow rationalist. Wanna know a little secret? There's this whole big secret world out there not governed by strict and unbreakable laws like science. It's based on ephemeral qualities like popularity, beauty, fashion, trendiness, gossip, hearsay, social status, and celebrity. It leads to irrational things like printed cardboard skyrocketing in value because they include the magic word "Pokemon" (and actual laws being passed to prevent anyone other than the "owner" of that word from printing it on other cardboard), or shoes selling for $150 more because they're named after a famous basketball player, or a product selling out because a certain popular TV show host says she likes it, or a semi-popular cartoonist getting lots of people to pay in advance for a game they've never heard of before which doesn't sound all that fun to play. I hear this stuff can even influence whether or not you can land a job, or get a date, if you can believe that!

    4. Re:wtf by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      The worst part about UNO is that they simply took a variant of the "crazy eights" game, which was well known at the time, and made specialized cards.
      Compared to UNO, all games, including "exploding kittens", look like the pinnacle of creativity.

    5. Re:wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a rationalist of some experience myself, I can readily point out that the practical act of funding this game is not irrational at all. They are not buying or funding the game itself. These people see the creators, the art, and their reputation as having the ability to create entertainment experiences that they have enjoyed immensely in the past, and thus have a good chance at doing it again here.

      To respond to the parent's statement:

      Only a complete idiot would fund a game this bad.

      That is correct. It is also wrong. Only a complete idiot would fund such a simple, easily replicated game. These people are not funding that game, they are funding the experience they expect to get from the people making the game which have quite a pedigree in creating experiences.

      In short, just because something prima facie irrational does not mean that there are not other factors that make it rational.

    6. Re:wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a complete idiot would fund a game this bad.

      Which perfectly matches the kickstarter crowd.

    7. Re:wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's based on ephemeral qualities like popularity, beauty, fashion, trendiness, gossip, hearsay, social status, and celebrity.
      Indeed. Although the process itself is not irrational, only the result is. After all, the appeal of some of those qualities is empirically verifiable and explainable. The reason behind the rise of pokemon instead of some other game is more chaotic than irrational, and the reason behind the popularity of pokemon-class games is rational: pokemon has no intrinsic value, all time spent on it is basically thrown away (so that the proles stay harmless, or so it's my interpretation).

    8. Re:wtf by kuzb · · Score: 1

      No, I read the whole kickstarter page. It's a terrible game.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    9. Re:wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rebuttle: Potato Salad

  9. Re:Am I the only one who think these people are si by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    What could be funnier that exploding babies?

    We have that game already: http://youtu.be/RH1u2kzd0Zg

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  10. Kittens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So ... I guess the Internet loves cats? Alert the Press!

  11. New band name by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2

    Weaponized Backhair

    Looks like a potentially good/funny game. But $9 million in funding? Why? Print, advertise, profit.

    1. Re: New band name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they have the "profit" part nailed already.

  12. Name? by PineGreen · · Score: 0

    As an owner of two cats, I just find the name really off-putting.

    1. Re:Name? by Whorhay · · Score: 2

      As an owner of two cats, I love the name. Besides the whole game is about preventing the explosion of a kitten on your watch.

  13. Wikipedia page by wiredlogic · · Score: 4, Informative

    So a still fictional game get's to have its own Wikipedia page but the Nim programming language, in development and publicly available for years, only got to have a page a few days ago and is still under threat of deletion from rabid mods. WP truly has a fucked up sense of priority.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:Wikipedia page by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      It's pretty obvious nobody uses Nim then - perhaps the language should take the hint :)

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    2. Re:Wikipedia page by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      So a still fictional game get's to have its own Wikipedia page but the Nim programming language, in development and publicly available for years, only got to have a page a few days ago and is still under threat of deletion from rabid mods. WP truly has a fucked up sense of priority.

      That is because this game doesn't have similar similar competing project with dedicated editors deleting references to competing projects, which is the primary cause of all deletion of IT projects on Wikipedia.

    3. Re:Wikipedia page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does "still under threat of deletion from rabid mods" mean?
      I see nothing in the history of that page indicating any kind of threat.

    4. Re:Wikipedia page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, rats do.

    5. Re:Wikipedia page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Raise $8 million and we'll talk.

      -- Jimmy Wales (pp)

    6. Re:Wikipedia page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "WP truly has a fucked up sense of priority."

      You do understand that WP = you?
      If you didn't create a properly sourced article about the Nim programming language until a few days ago, then shame on YOU.
      Get off your lazy arse and stop complaining about things you can do something about.

    7. Re:Wikipedia page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty obvious nobody uses Nim then - perhaps the language should take the hint :)

      start a nim kickstarter campaign?

    8. Re:Wikipedia page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know a band that has been around for two years, released an album that was (for a few hours after launch) in the top iTunes sellers, tours internationally, and has been reviewed by several magazines but has no Wikipedia page due to "non-notability". Meanwhile, if you do something that appeals to the nerds that run Wikipedia, it doesn't matter how insignificant it is.

    9. Re:Wikipedia page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and then have it deleted by mods or people who have nothing better to do than spend twelve hours a day on Wikipedia because they don't consider it worthwhile to have. We shouldn't need to have an equal number of autistic assholes on each side of every issue just to keep things reasonable.

    10. Re:Wikipedia page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Wikipedia rules here are pretty simple. If there is significant coverage of the topic in reliable, secondary sources, then the page will be kept. If not, it will be deleted. It doesn't matter how good or bad the programming language is (or even if it actually exists).

  14. Exploding kittens blow up kickstarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    230000+ people paid $40 each to get a set of cards. With that money they could make an online game. But its just cards. And kittens. And goats. And laser pointers. And catnip. And Nomnomnom. And explosions. Don't forget the explosions. All of this goes to show that among nerds, the bent and twisted idea of kittens going boom in a card game is a joyous thing. Take that ICanHasCheezeburger!

  15. Bigger than Star Citizen by Joshua+Fan · · Score: 1

    Star Citizen raised a mere $2.1 million. Does that mean this game will have terrestrial, space, and subatomic warfare, and run in CryEngine 5? Can it kill both Call of Duty and Battlefield?

    1. Re:Bigger than Star Citizen by jandrese · · Score: 2

      No: Even better: It will actually deliver what was promised.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:Bigger than Star Citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The kickstarter was merely one way for Star Citizen to get funding. Total dosh raised currently stands at $73,452,040 and continues to rise.

  16. Also, rewarding past action. by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That is a great response, I wanted to add one more point to your observations.

    Although I did not fund this Kickstarter, I would have if I had found it in time. The reason I would fund it is as you say " funding the experience I expect to get from the people making the game which have quite a pedigree in creating experiences.".

    But more than that, even if I don't enjoy this particular experience I wold not care because I also consider whatever money I would put in as funding past enjoyment that was free on my part.

    I funded an Order Of the Stick Kickstarter for this exact reason. I would either get something great or at the very least deliver a reward to someone who made something I loved.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  17. Re:Am I the only one who think these people are si by Shados · · Score: 2

    Kittens are much cuter than human babies ever will be.

  18. Re:Am I the only one who think these people are si by Skynyrd · · Score: 1

    Yes. Well, there's probably some other people who aren't familiar with The Oatmeal who are equally offended.
    Take a look at his website; it's obvious that the guy is a an animal lover, with a twisted sense of humor.

  19. Re:Am I the only one who think these people are si by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    What could be funnier that exploding babies?

    What's pink and red and white and goes splat? Oh wait, shit, you didn't mean that as a riddle, did you?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  20. Hey, it's Inman from the Oatmeal by billstewart · · Score: 1

    It probably took him a while to draw all the cards (though they're mostly cartoon-level drawings, which is a little easier), and they actually did spend a bit of time play-testing and tinkering with it to get a playable-more-than-once game. But dude, it's a card game about Exploding Kittens, and that's consistent with the humor he's well-known for, so he's not going to freak out his core audience, and they'll presumably attract half the people who've played Cards Against Humanity as well.

    And yeah, it presumably took them a lot longer to figure out how to get this produced and printed in volume and fulfilled than to design the game.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  21. Exploding Teslas would make for a more fun game NT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First person to sit in an exploding Tesla wins!

  22. Could anybody explain? by StripedCow · · Score: 1

    I don't understand the "defusing" of a kitten by a laser pointer...

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    1. Re:Could anybody explain? by Atticka · · Score: 1

      I don't understand the "defusing" of a kitten by a laser pointer...

      You distract the kitten with the laser pointer before it explodes! Duh....

      --
      No sig here...
  23. Is it true though? by Nickpheas · · Score: 0

    https://www.kickstarter.com/di... shows two projects getting more funding - the Pebble smartwatch (which I at least heard of) and some kind of icebox, which I didn't.

  24. Losing Criteria is Backwards by Tihstae · · Score: 1

    An exploding kitten should win. And the winning illustrations have already been done. http://www.amazon.com/101-Uses-Dead-Simon-Bond/dp/0517545160

  25. Reminds me of... by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

    The premise reminds me of Unexploded Cow from Cheapass Games. There's a free print-it-yourself version and a $25 deluxe version.

    Europe. Summer. 1997. You and your friends have discovered two problems with a common solution: mad cows in England and unexploded bombs in France.

    You've decided to bring these two powderkegs together just to see what happens. And you wouldn't say "no" to a little money on the side.

    So round up your herd, march them through France, and set them loose behind the Cordon Rouge. If you're lucky you'll come home rich before Greenpeace figures out what you're up to.

    Either way, there's something magical about blowing up cows.

    --
    Chelloveck
    I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.