1
Playing Card Plethora / Re: Orbiter 2.0 Playing Card Display - LIVE on Kickstarter!
« on: February 20, 2015, 05:49:43 PM »You need to toss that guy some free Orbiters. The idea was pretty brilliant.Yes, it certainly was!
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
Playing Card Plethora / Re: Orbiter 2.0 Playing Card Display - LIVE on Kickstarter!
« on: February 20, 2015, 04:50:57 PM »
So, I have some great news! First off, people are awesomely smart! I didn't come up with this concept, but I wanted to share it with you all!
One of my backers asked a question, that led to a VERY exciting discovery!
The Orbiter 2.0 can actually display 18 decks with just 2 Orbiters. Or, 30 decks with just 3. Or, 42 decks, with just 4... You get the point.
See, the holes go all the way through the acrylic frame, which is 6mm thick. The nipples that hold the decks into place is just 3mm thick. That leaves exactly enough room for another nipple to go on the top/bottom.
This means that you can mount 2 Orbiters to the wall and then put 6 deck holders in between them, instantly creating an 18 deck display! Or, get 3 Orbiters, and put 12 decks (6 in between each one) and have 30 decks displayed! Obviously this only works for wall mounting, but that evens up the playing field for the larger collectors pretty substantially!
One of my backers asked a question, that led to a VERY exciting discovery!
The Orbiter 2.0 can actually display 18 decks with just 2 Orbiters. Or, 30 decks with just 3. Or, 42 decks, with just 4... You get the point.
See, the holes go all the way through the acrylic frame, which is 6mm thick. The nipples that hold the decks into place is just 3mm thick. That leaves exactly enough room for another nipple to go on the top/bottom.
This means that you can mount 2 Orbiters to the wall and then put 6 deck holders in between them, instantly creating an 18 deck display! Or, get 3 Orbiters, and put 12 decks (6 in between each one) and have 30 decks displayed! Obviously this only works for wall mounting, but that evens up the playing field for the larger collectors pretty substantially!
3
Playing Card Plethora / Re: Orbiter 2.0 Playing Card Display - LIVE on Kickstarter!
« on: February 17, 2015, 11:03:56 PM »
Hey Fes! I'd never run for politics, I have way too much respect for my country. 
So you have bad eyesight, huh? Well, trust me when I say that the Orbiter is a VERY attractive woman, who loves to cook and clean. Don't check the project again though. Just go ahead and pledge.
So, I'll try to address all your questions.
The clear case locks/snaps together using grooves that are offset from each other. It's not so much a rail groove, but similar concept. The vertical portion of the holder's groove is slightly larger, allowing for the horizontal piece's groove to slide in and lock.
The clear acrylic piece has more give then the frame. I wouldn't consider it "bendy" necessarily, but it's got give for sure.
The nipples don't have springs in them, but the way we designed the Orbiter will allow for easy taking out and installing decks. (that's were the flex comes into play on the frame and clear displays.
The clear boxes should hold most decks no problem. There's a little bit of extra room in the cases, so I don't think there should be any issues at all. As long as your decks aren't made of cardboard. lol!
The Frame is roughly 13" wide.
"Have the cages been tested against your drunk cousin who can't keep from touching things on display with his buffalo wing fingers?" No, but I did eat an entire 22 oz steak once.
"If my girl accidentally pops off half a deck cage, doing whatever she does, will she think she's broken it?" It depends. Is she blonde? Also, do you want her to thinks it's broken? It depends on how you want to spin it. So, yes and no.
So you're looking for a bag of nipples? *snicker, snicker* That's a good idea. I know we're going to keep the clear acrylic cases on hand for sale after the project, we'll probably order some additional nipples too.
As for the leaf springs, that was actually my hardest decision in the redesign. I really liked the leaf spring frame.
Sadly, a few people wanted to have the sides visible, as well as concerns about the decks fitting to snugly, and leaving marks on the decks. Cutting it answered the mail for those folks, as well as reduced costs. It was like cutting off an arm.
I love your decks too. Can I have some?
Hopefully, this will help answer some of your questions. Also, don't forget, it's an attractive woman who loves to cook and clean... Definitely not a deck holder.
So you have bad eyesight, huh? Well, trust me when I say that the Orbiter is a VERY attractive woman, who loves to cook and clean. Don't check the project again though. Just go ahead and pledge.
So, I'll try to address all your questions.
The clear case locks/snaps together using grooves that are offset from each other. It's not so much a rail groove, but similar concept. The vertical portion of the holder's groove is slightly larger, allowing for the horizontal piece's groove to slide in and lock.
The clear acrylic piece has more give then the frame. I wouldn't consider it "bendy" necessarily, but it's got give for sure.
The nipples don't have springs in them, but the way we designed the Orbiter will allow for easy taking out and installing decks. (that's were the flex comes into play on the frame and clear displays.
The clear boxes should hold most decks no problem. There's a little bit of extra room in the cases, so I don't think there should be any issues at all. As long as your decks aren't made of cardboard. lol!
The Frame is roughly 13" wide.
"Have the cages been tested against your drunk cousin who can't keep from touching things on display with his buffalo wing fingers?" No, but I did eat an entire 22 oz steak once.
"If my girl accidentally pops off half a deck cage, doing whatever she does, will she think she's broken it?" It depends. Is she blonde? Also, do you want her to thinks it's broken? It depends on how you want to spin it. So, yes and no.
So you're looking for a bag of nipples? *snicker, snicker* That's a good idea. I know we're going to keep the clear acrylic cases on hand for sale after the project, we'll probably order some additional nipples too.
As for the leaf springs, that was actually my hardest decision in the redesign. I really liked the leaf spring frame.
Sadly, a few people wanted to have the sides visible, as well as concerns about the decks fitting to snugly, and leaving marks on the decks. Cutting it answered the mail for those folks, as well as reduced costs. It was like cutting off an arm.
I love your decks too. Can I have some?
Hopefully, this will help answer some of your questions. Also, don't forget, it's an attractive woman who loves to cook and clean... Definitely not a deck holder.
4
Playing Card Plethora / Re: Orbiter 2.0 Playing Card Display - LIVE on Kickstarter!
« on: February 17, 2015, 01:41:48 PM »
Hi everyone!
Let me address the "is it cheaper?" question. The answer is yes and no.
So with version v2 we decided to take a different approach then on v1- and yes, to ensure there are no smoke and mirrors going on, the price per deck displayed is more. However, the actual unit cost is less as is the funding goal, which was our main focus.
When we did v1, there were substantial costs associated with it and it's production- hence why the funding goal was so high as was the unit price. On v1, we were focused on the large collectors. The folks who had a plethora of decks, and they wanted to display as many of them as they could. Our general feedback was that it was too large, too expensive, too high of a funding goal, and some people didn't like the actual display cases used as it blocked the sides. But, overall it was a good concept.
On v2, we decided to try to incorporate that feedback. The main focus was to get the funding goal down, which we did substantially. The only way to do this was change the design around, which worked out to also help address some of the other concerns. We shortened the frame to hold 4-6 opposed to 10-15, which makes it more usable to a lot of folks. We changed the "nipple", which truthfully didn't change the price that much, but simplified the design. And, most importantly, changed the deck holder to be clear at every angle, allowing for a true every angle view-able area.
We wanted to make v2 more accessible to everyone, not just the hardcore collector with 100+ decks. With the new design, you can still display your decks, but you might just have to be more selective with what your displaying. It's also important to remember that one could also add as many clear sleeves they want to their order and switch them out as desired. They could purchase the 3 Orbiter option, and simply rotate decks out as they see fit.
The bottom line is, we were trying to make them cheaper per unit, make the funding goal substantially cheaper, and listen to the feedback and incorporate it. Some of our bigger backers from the first go around are going to be understandably upset, as it will ultimately cost them more to display the equal amount from the v1 display (FES). I wouldn't necessarily expect them to make the same level of pledge though, and fully understand if they didn't. But, perhaps they pick up a few, and go the rotation route.
Hopefully, this post will clear up a few points, and at the very least let folks know the approach this go around.
As for my opinion, I see pros and cons to both. Obviously, depending on your point of view, it's easy to argue either way. If you take the per deck display route, it's more costly... no doubt. You're paying less, but you're also getting less. But isn't that the way everything is?
I think v2 is a better design all around compared to v1. V2 is cleaner, takes up less space, and ultimately more affordable for the person who wants to display a handful of decks, versus they're entire collection.
Let me address the "is it cheaper?" question. The answer is yes and no.
So with version v2 we decided to take a different approach then on v1- and yes, to ensure there are no smoke and mirrors going on, the price per deck displayed is more. However, the actual unit cost is less as is the funding goal, which was our main focus.
When we did v1, there were substantial costs associated with it and it's production- hence why the funding goal was so high as was the unit price. On v1, we were focused on the large collectors. The folks who had a plethora of decks, and they wanted to display as many of them as they could. Our general feedback was that it was too large, too expensive, too high of a funding goal, and some people didn't like the actual display cases used as it blocked the sides. But, overall it was a good concept.
On v2, we decided to try to incorporate that feedback. The main focus was to get the funding goal down, which we did substantially. The only way to do this was change the design around, which worked out to also help address some of the other concerns. We shortened the frame to hold 4-6 opposed to 10-15, which makes it more usable to a lot of folks. We changed the "nipple", which truthfully didn't change the price that much, but simplified the design. And, most importantly, changed the deck holder to be clear at every angle, allowing for a true every angle view-able area.
We wanted to make v2 more accessible to everyone, not just the hardcore collector with 100+ decks. With the new design, you can still display your decks, but you might just have to be more selective with what your displaying. It's also important to remember that one could also add as many clear sleeves they want to their order and switch them out as desired. They could purchase the 3 Orbiter option, and simply rotate decks out as they see fit.
The bottom line is, we were trying to make them cheaper per unit, make the funding goal substantially cheaper, and listen to the feedback and incorporate it. Some of our bigger backers from the first go around are going to be understandably upset, as it will ultimately cost them more to display the equal amount from the v1 display (FES). I wouldn't necessarily expect them to make the same level of pledge though, and fully understand if they didn't. But, perhaps they pick up a few, and go the rotation route.
Hopefully, this post will clear up a few points, and at the very least let folks know the approach this go around.
As for my opinion, I see pros and cons to both. Obviously, depending on your point of view, it's easy to argue either way. If you take the per deck display route, it's more costly... no doubt. You're paying less, but you're also getting less. But isn't that the way everything is?
I think v2 is a better design all around compared to v1. V2 is cleaner, takes up less space, and ultimately more affordable for the person who wants to display a handful of decks, versus they're entire collection.
5
Playing Card Plethora / Re: Bicycle Feudal ( Ninja and Samurai ) - Now LIVE on KS
« on: November 22, 2014, 10:39:03 PM »I like these. I love the whole asian culture and asian genes playing cards.
I had a look at the tiers. I noticed they had half a brick for $75 with one slot. I don't get that, cos they have a tier with half a brick for $71 with unlimited slots. What's happened here?!
KS doesn't allow you to change a tier once its set. Most likely he realized at $75 for 6 decks was more expensive per deck than the lower tiers. He probably added the $71 tier, and locked the $75
I think you are right and no matter what he does he can not get that backer to change to the better tier. It's like a tier wart that won't do away...
It's a secret tier where you get super limited decks with metallic embossed tucks, and gold gilded cards, wrapped in unicorn skin and sealed with hardened manticore blood, along with 2 samurai swords, a set of throwing stars and a full samurai armour set from the 1800s. All delivered to you to your doorstep by a hot ninja chick.
Don't forget the six pack of beer!
6
Playing Card Plethora / Re: Bicycle Feudal ( Ninja and Samurai ) - Now LIVE on KS
« on: November 22, 2014, 03:56:30 PM »I like these. I love the whole asian culture and asian genes playing cards.
I had a look at the tiers. I noticed they had half a brick for $75 with one slot. I don't get that, cos they have a tier with half a brick for $71 with unlimited slots. What's happened here?!
KS doesn't allow you to change a tier once its set. Most likely he realized at $75 for 6 decks was more expensive per deck than the lower tiers. He probably added the $71 tier, and locked the $75
I think you are right and no matter what he does he can not get that backer to change to the better tier. It's like a tier wart that won't do away...
7
Playing Card Plethora / Re: Bicycle Feudal ( Ninja and Samurai ) - Now LIVE on KS
« on: November 19, 2014, 10:38:07 PM »I would bet money the designer is left-handed...
HAHAHA! Right you are!
8
Playing Card Plethora / Re: *** Orbiter Playing Card Display - LIVE ON KS
« on: October 28, 2014, 11:33:51 AM »
My pleasure! 
9
Playing Card Plethora / Re: *** Orbiter Playing Card Display - LIVE ON KS
« on: October 27, 2014, 02:55:40 PM »
Hey Bigger Dee- The $11 shipping does cover the addition of the 5 additional windows, so you're good. So far, there's very little people who haven't added the shipping into their pledge, and we're trying to stay on top of anyone who hasn't by sending them a message letting them know to add it. Everyone so far has been really cool and understanding about it, so hopefully, that continues.
10
Playing Card Plethora / Re: *** Orbiter Playing Card Display - launching TONIGHT 9PM EST
« on: October 25, 2014, 02:11:29 PM »
Hi there everyone- This is Scott King from Crooked Kings. I've never posted on here, but I do watch and occasionally post on UC, so I figured it was time to say "hi-ya" to everyone on here, plus I wanted to set everyone straight on the "Boyer Shipping Conspiracy", as I've jokingly nicknamed it.
First and foremost, I appreciate EVERYONE'S opinions- whether they're pro or con, as long as they're accurate and constructive- So please keep that in mind.
First I'll address the kickstarter "requirement" on shipping.
Kickstarter does not require shipping to be added into the price of the item. They do suggest it, but it's not a requirement at all. If it were, then KS staff would never have approved the project to go live. There's actually quite a few projects that do the shipping separately, and it's not that uncommon, especially on larger items that have a higher shipping fee. The Coolest Cooler comes to mind- they made over 13 million in raised funds, with a shipping fee of $15 dollars for 1 cooler.
Next, I'll address the reasoning behind it.
We wanted to be VERY transparent with the price of the item versus the price for shipping. These bad boys carry a decently hefty shipping price at just over 3' long, and we wanted backers to know exactly were their money was going. Had we included all the pricing together, there would be no way to distinguish the unit cost versus the shipping cost. We wanted the backers to make a truly educated decision on what level and how many to get. If a backer was on the fence with trying to decide between 1 versus 2 frames, we wanted them to see the cost saving not only on the unit price, but the shipping price as well. In this scenario, if you went with 2 Orbiters instead of 1, it would save you $1 on the units, but the shipping saves you $5, for a total of $6. This savings increases as you up the volume of displays you get. Additionally, it should be known that there is not a lot of margin on this project for us at all, but truthfully, we aren't expecting to make a lot on this project. This is more or less a labor of love.
We are actually card collectors ourselves, and really wanted to see something hit the community that would be a REALLY cool item for collectors to not only protect their investments with, but allow others to share in their passion without molesting their precious decks. That's why we created the Orbiter. In reality, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue the price point on these. All of the Orbiters are plastic injected ABS (same stuff legos are made of), and they required engineering, tooling, diemolds, plastic injection, finishing, and freight. All of these things require a hefty investment to come to fruition, and anyone familiar with the process can tell you it aint' cheap to produce. We really focused on keeping the pricing down for the backers, which is why the funded goal is on the higher end. We're really excited and hope it makes it... We've got a lot of sweet decks that need protecting and homes too!
Lastly, and most importantly, we separated the price out so that it would protect the backers if they purchase more in the future. By separating out the unit price, backers know roughly what they should be paying for the Orbiter. We've already had a handful of vendors contact us about carrying the Orbitor, and if in 4 months someone wants to purchase some, they need to be educated on the price so that they're not getting ripped off. Of course there's going to be some additional fees and markup, but we wanted people to be aware for future purchasing.
Well, that's about it. Hopefully, that clears the "Boyer Shipping Conspiracy" up. I'm always open to answering questions, so please don't hesitate to ask. I only ask that you keep it classy San Diego.
First and foremost, I appreciate EVERYONE'S opinions- whether they're pro or con, as long as they're accurate and constructive- So please keep that in mind.
First I'll address the kickstarter "requirement" on shipping.
Kickstarter does not require shipping to be added into the price of the item. They do suggest it, but it's not a requirement at all. If it were, then KS staff would never have approved the project to go live. There's actually quite a few projects that do the shipping separately, and it's not that uncommon, especially on larger items that have a higher shipping fee. The Coolest Cooler comes to mind- they made over 13 million in raised funds, with a shipping fee of $15 dollars for 1 cooler.
Next, I'll address the reasoning behind it.
We wanted to be VERY transparent with the price of the item versus the price for shipping. These bad boys carry a decently hefty shipping price at just over 3' long, and we wanted backers to know exactly were their money was going. Had we included all the pricing together, there would be no way to distinguish the unit cost versus the shipping cost. We wanted the backers to make a truly educated decision on what level and how many to get. If a backer was on the fence with trying to decide between 1 versus 2 frames, we wanted them to see the cost saving not only on the unit price, but the shipping price as well. In this scenario, if you went with 2 Orbiters instead of 1, it would save you $1 on the units, but the shipping saves you $5, for a total of $6. This savings increases as you up the volume of displays you get. Additionally, it should be known that there is not a lot of margin on this project for us at all, but truthfully, we aren't expecting to make a lot on this project. This is more or less a labor of love.
We are actually card collectors ourselves, and really wanted to see something hit the community that would be a REALLY cool item for collectors to not only protect their investments with, but allow others to share in their passion without molesting their precious decks. That's why we created the Orbiter. In reality, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue the price point on these. All of the Orbiters are plastic injected ABS (same stuff legos are made of), and they required engineering, tooling, diemolds, plastic injection, finishing, and freight. All of these things require a hefty investment to come to fruition, and anyone familiar with the process can tell you it aint' cheap to produce.
We really focused on keeping the pricing down for the backers, which is why the funded goal is on the higher end. We're really excited and hope it makes it... We've got a lot of sweet decks that need protecting and homes too! Lastly, and most importantly, we separated the price out so that it would protect the backers if they purchase more in the future. By separating out the unit price, backers know roughly what they should be paying for the Orbiter. We've already had a handful of vendors contact us about carrying the Orbitor, and if in 4 months someone wants to purchase some, they need to be educated on the price so that they're not getting ripped off. Of course there's going to be some additional fees and markup, but we wanted people to be aware for future purchasing.
Well, that's about it. Hopefully, that clears the "Boyer Shipping Conspiracy" up. I'm always open to answering questions, so please don't hesitate to ask. I only ask that you keep it classy San Diego.
Pages: [1]