"Exploding Kittens" Blows Up Kickstarter Records

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."

Comments

Russian patent !!

[invictusvoyd]

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.

Re:Russian patent !!

[OzPeter]

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.

Re:Russian patent !!

[Opportunist]

This is why we can't have nice things!

Incredible

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Incredible

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

What's not to like

[cosmin_c]

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.

Re:What's not to like

[houstonbofh]

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...

Re:What's not to like

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: What's not to like

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:wtf

[Solandri]

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!

Re:wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Wikipedia page

[wiredlogic]

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.

Also, rewarding past action.

[SuperKendall]

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.