Can't really agree with the thesis or the interpretation of the data here. First, as the top 10 chart in the article shows, the gaming money in Kickstarter is mainly in miniatures not in board or card games. The only exception on that list is a gimmick card game illustrated by a popular webcomic author that for whatever reason went viral. Second, a large proportion of the games that get funded are traditional publishers using Kickstarter as an alternate preorder and marketing system, usually with absolutely tiny goals. These are games that would have been published anyway. A third decent sized chunk are reprints for old games, which while nice to have are hardly a sign of a renaissance. What's left tends to not have much impact, or even be any good.
The number of major games that only or even mainly exist thanks to Kickstarter must be tiny. Yes, there's a lot of noise around crowdfunding in the board game space. But I don't think it's actually "driving a renaissance" in any meaningful way.
(The footnote talks of P500. It's much easier to argue that it has had a real impact over the 20(?) years it's existed. But it's really not crowdfunding in the way people think of it).
The number of major games that only or even mainly exist thanks to Kickstarter must be tiny. Yes, there's a lot of noise around crowdfunding in the board game space. But I don't think it's actually "driving a renaissance" in any meaningful way.
(The footnote talks of P500. It's much easier to argue that it has had a real impact over the 20(?) years it's existed. But it's really not crowdfunding in the way people think of it).