UlasanAnime.com – The author reflects on their decision to back the Otaku no Video Blu-ray Kickstarter, acknowledging its sub-optimal quality on VHS in the current era.
Beyond the general discourse surrounding Kickstarter as a versatile fundraising platform, serving purposes from simple pre-orders and publicity to empowering independent creators, the author finds little else to discuss regarding Otaku no Video itself. While acknowledging it as a sale, a post from Anime Diet evokes a strong sense of irony.
The irony stems from the fact that it is the year 2015, and a Kickstarter to license an old classic, which has already been remastered into a Blu-ray for international distribution, feels rather trite. Any dedicated otaku, regardless of their era of engagement, knows how to import home video. This initiative appears to cater more to a localized consumption model for US-centric prosumers who may have moved on from collecting physical media. It’s aimed at those who watched Otaku no Video in their youth and younger generations who haven’t had the opportunity to acquire it in the status-symbol manner of purchasing home video products.
Furthermore, this discussion transcends the typical definition of an otaku. The author questions which otaku are still fixated on this early 90s classic, explaining why their own copy remains on VHS. It’s easier to obtain it from an illegal download site or a friend’s FTP than to locate it in storage. This sentiment highlights the shift into a post-physical media era.
Referencing the Anime Diet article, the author notes that Robert Woodhead priced the goals with the assumption that most backers would opt for the basic tier. This suggests that the funding for this Kickstarter isn’t groundbreaking on a per-capita basis. The author interprets this outcome as a reflection of both the enduring appeal of Otaku no Video and the willingness of people to invest in it, considering $55 to be a modest sum in the grand scheme of things.
PS. The author took time to articulate their thoughts on the Bubblegum Crisis (BGC) Kickstarter and its problematic approach to product development. Writing about this experience helped clarify two key issues: the expectation of paying for a well-defined product and the pitfalls of democratically defining requirements or applying such a method in inappropriate contexts.
For those unfamiliar with the BGC Kickstarter’s approach, the author advises reading all backer updates for a comprehensive understanding. In essence, it was a meticulous and transparent Kickstarter, except for the crucial aspect of how backers determined the product’s specifications. The author disclaims that many of their observations are not unique to this particular Kickstarter. While acknowledging Woodhead’s commendable effort in running the BGC Kickstarter, the author points out that the reasoning, which seemed sound at the time, ultimately presented issues that are likely to reappear in other Kickstarters and similar projects employing the same logic.
The primary drawback of backing a project that solicits input from backers is the risk of ending up with a product you don’t truly desire. The trade-off is the potential to receive something precisely to your specifications, but often, it’s a compromise. For a straightforward item like an iPhone adapter, this is less of an issue, as alternative vendors or Kickstarters offering different versions can fulfill specific needs. However, the situation becomes more complex with licensed anime.
The inherent nature of copyright monopolies means that only one definitive edition or version of a title, like BGC, will be released until a potential reboot. While BGC might be an exception due to multiple reboots by Woodhead, typical intellectual properties receive only a few opportunities for release in the US, especially if they predate the DVD era. In such cases, consumers have limited choices. If a distributor like FUNimation errs in their DVD release, there’s no recourse through that licensed format. If a Kickstarter project falters in licensing or produces a flawed disc, the consequences are significant.
In this light, incorporating backer feedback is acceptable, and can even be an improvement, allowing for influence over the final product. However, if the outcome is unsatisfactory, backers are essentially stuck with it, as these avenues of influence are typically exclusive to them. While not backing is an option, it might mean missing out on a “collector’s” edition. BGC is still available at retail, albeit at a slightly higher price point with fewer bonus items. The author backed at the poster and basic level. This might be acceptable if one disregards the crowdfunding aspects as the ultimate “other choice.” However, at the time of the BGC Kickstarter, this retail availability was not guaranteed.
The first disadvantage of incorporating backer feedback, as done by Woodhead, is the lack of clarity regarding the final product during the process, beyond the basic inclusion of the anime on disc. This is the author’s sole justification for contributing to such a Kickstarter, and their limit for future involvement, such as in the Otaku no Video Kickstarter. It’s difficult to justify paying a premium for add-ons when their appeal is uncertain. While the Otaku no Video Kickstarter might feature more premium options due to the established process of BGC’s production, reducing uncertainty, the author believes this is a minor factor compared to the price tag. They question if people are truly purchasing Otaku no Video for items like challenge coins, which they deem as useless, albeit shiny, trinkets.
The second drawback of soliciting backer feedback in this manner is that each item choice put to a vote results in a series of compromises. If three people vote on three product options, and two out of three favor a particular choice for each option, the democratic outcome might include elements that none of the three individuals fully desired. However, the author notes that Woodhead made conservative choices for the elections, preventing any drastic outcomes, which aligns with their previous point about known quality.
You might also be interested in : Season Ending Wanderings
Ultimately, the author concludes that they have no choice in the matter and suggests that if they like the choices made by the community, it might not be a problem. This leads to a humorous reflection on the recurring joke about RightStuf’s promotional image voting, where the “Megami” option is consistently chosen, prompting the question of whether this reflects an American misconception of democracy.
