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."

11 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    2. 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.

  2. 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. 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 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!

    2. 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.

  4. 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!

  5. 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