[charlequin]

It must be stressed that the Doublefine adventure has been the biggest funding drive seen on Kickstarter by a huge margin and the current inXile drive looks to become the 2nd largest, so gaming has become one of the main sources of funding sources requested on the system and this trend will only continue for the time being. If things continue at this rate, gaming will become Kickstarters main focus, so if a gaming project goes wrong, the system goes wrong.

Eight of the ten biggest projects on Kickstarter aren't gaming-related (about half of them are industrial design, with the others split between other fields) and at least three of those also closed within the last four months. It's simply not accurate to say that games have become a proportionately unbalanced portion of Kickstarter's business; instead, they're just currently the most high-profile example of Kickstarter's general growth into larger and higher-funded projects.

My point is, how sustainable is the system, and how far can it go? If developers start using Kickstarter as an alternative route for funding more often, where is the limit when consumer confidence is involved?

The best-case scenario is that publishers really are significantly misallocating capital due to structural concerns and Kickstarter (along with other forms of alternative finance) produce a durable shift in the gaming industry towards funding more small-scale, niche titles with potentially enthusiastic audiences. The worst-case scenario is that publishers are actually doing a pretty good job deciding on projects right now, Kickstarter doesn't revolutionize anything, but it's still there for those particularly notable projects run by industry veterans with white-whale projects sitting around in a folder somewhere to get their game going. I don't see any scenario where things are worse off than before the trend kicks in at all.

My contention was that there are still instances, and I doubt that they are so extremely rare, where a project will appear to have a very feasible plan of completion at the onset and still end up going well over budget.

This is really on you though. Any Kickstarter project of any significance that hits the skids will get attention in whatever corner of the blogosphere covers its field; see the Ashes graphic novel situation.

If this is a serious risk, then the evidence should already be there. Dig up the funded KS projects that ultimately didn't deliver due to poor project management. If you can't find them in 2+ years of the site's operation, it suggests that it's not a serious concern.

[Orayn]

KickStarter is a business designed to help creative people reach a larger audience for funding their thing...whatever it is. KickStarter makes money on all successfully-backed projects, which includes other stuff than games. They are not an indie game crowdfunding service taken hostage by pro developers wanting to make old style games that the industry won't back. Tens of thousands of individuals have done what the industry does not want to. What is the problem, again?

I think it's just another assumption that Kickstarter will "go mainstream" and be used by Activision for Call of Duty: Give Us More Money.

[dionysus]

Kickstarter is the ultimate buyer beware. You must know the developers have no real accountability to you before you give them money. There is no legal recourse if they squander the money. There are no milestone payments, they get all the money up front. They own all the created assets, not you.

But then again all this is very clear through kickstarter. It is not sold as an investment.

It would be absurd to fund Bungie making a Halo spiritual successor through kickstarter, if they wanted to do that they could get financing through regular channels. But with a game like Wasteland 2 there is no other alternative, if you want the game you either kickstart it or hope other people kickstart it, or resign yourself to Wasteland 2 and similar games never getting made.

I have a lot of sympathy for Stop It's arguments though. He is correct on all points, there is no accountability, a large scale kickstarter failure will damage the credibility of kickstarter, etc. But that doesn't change the fact that right now kickstarter is the only way for certain types of games that have niche fanbases to get made. Stop It's arguments were why I didn't give any money to project C.A.R.S. which I think has a borderline criminal funding model. The difference is that they sold it as an investment and not just a donation, yet the investors have absolutely no rights. The pulled out some hypothetical pile of horseshit payout graphs but they don't give you any transparency into their financials. "Investors" are supposed to get a percentage of the profits, yet investors can't see how they run the books. They could easily book 200% or more completion bonuses to every employee to ensure no money every gets paid out even if the project is wildly successful. Or even more likely, subordinating the "investors" claims on profits to some publisher or other entity once they run out of "investor" money. When it comes to real money, paying out profits, and investing; relying on human altruism to ensure you don't get screwed never works.

To sum it up, I am a big fan of kickstarter but I also understand that there is no accountability or transparency into the financial side of the kickstarter projects.

[Woo-Fu]

You've got it all figured out. These are all just snake oil saleamen.

No, they're players in a industry where "on budget, on time" is rarer than leprechauns riding unicorns.

[ghibli99]

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. The Double Fine and inXile projects... if they suck, expect to see a major negative shift in public opinion about this funding model. Because at that point it will become even more personal than it already is.

[MightyHedgehog]

I think it's just another assumption that Kickstarter will "go mainstream" and be used by Activision for Call of Duty: Give Us More Money.

I don't know...given how much they'd probably open themselves up to and how much they might stand to lose because of that, I don't think you'll ever see a publicly-traded corporation do a KickStarter. I don't know why anyone would think they would. Activision has access to more money and credit than a KickStarter could ever hope to offer them. They don't need KS.

[charlequin]

My (naive) view of publishers is that they have machinery in place to help shepherd software through these hazards and negotiate past the gatekeepers.

I agree, and there are definitely things people are giving up by stepping away from publisher support. While we talk a lot about what publishers do wrong (and I think we should), once you have a game that a publisher is on board with the relationship can be very positive. Stuff like XBLA/PSN release is a good example. That's part of why I think this idea is really only taking off now: there's actually a sufficient base of gatekeeper-free (or -low) platforms to support projects like this.

Basically, I do think that almost anything that could succeed in a normal publisher model is a poor choice for this. A console game, an entry in a genre with some level of recent retail support... this kind of stuff runs into logistical challenges without a strong partner on board. What's best suited to a model like this is projects with a strong creative vision and a strong pre-built fanbase, pitching something that couldn't easily be made without sacrifices in a normal funding environment -- in other words, die-hard niche markets.

Also, I'm jvm, not jcm. There is a jcm on GAF, as I recall.

Sorry! If it helps, I remembered which person you were, just not which three-letter screenname was yours. ;)

[androvsky]

Kickstarter is the ultimate buyer beware. You must know the developers have no real accountability to you before you give them money. There is no legal recourse if they squander the money. There are no milestone payments, they get all the money up front. They own all the created assets, not you. But then again all this is very clear through kickstarter. It is not sold as an investment. It would be absurd to fund Bungie making a Halo spiritual successor through kickstarter, if they wanted to do that they could get financing through regular channels. But with a game like Wasteland 2 there is no other alternative, if you want the game you either kickstart it or hope other people kickstart it, or resign yourself to Wasteland 2 and similar games never getting made. I have a lot of sympathy for Stop It's arguments though. He is correct on all points, there is no accountability, a large scale kickstarter failure will damage the credibility of kickstarter, etc. But that doesn't change the fact that right now kickstarter is the only way for certain types of games that have niche fanbases to get made. Stop It's arguments were why I didn't give any money to project C.A.R.S. which I think has a borderline criminal funding model. The difference is that they sold it as an investment and not just a donation, yet the investors have absolutely no rights. The pulled out some hypothetical pile of horseshit payout graphs but they don't give you any transparency into their financials. "Investors" are supposed to get a percentage of the profits, yet investors can't see how they run the books. They could easily book 200% or more completion bonuses to every employee to ensure no money every gets paid out even if the project is wildly successful. Or even more likely, subordinating the "investors" claims on profits to some publisher or other entity once they run out of "investor" money. When it comes to real money, paying out profits, and investing; relying on human altruism to ensure you don't get screwed never works. To sum it up, I am a big fan of kickstarter but I also understand that there is no accountability or transparency into the financial side of the kickstarter projects.

Why do people keep saying there's no legal recourse? I thought Kickstarter makes it very clear to anyone starting a project that they're legally liable if they don't deliver what they promise. And honestly, collecting money from a Kickstarter project and not delivering what's promised sounds like the easiest class-action lawsuit ever.

[mclem]

No, they're players in a industry where "on budget, on time" is rarer than leprechauns riding unicorns.

In my experience, the projects I worked on which ran over time were all due to publisher meddling.

[dionysus]

Why do people keep saying there's no legal recourse? I thought Kickstarter makes it very clear to anyone starting a project that they're legally liable if they don't deliver what they promise. And honestly, collecting money from a Kickstarter project and not delivering what's promised sounds like the easiest class-action lawsuit ever.

Sure, you could spend more money to sue them but unless the developer absconded with the money and put it in a bank account the courts can get to, you aren't getting your money back. And the legal bills would be more than the full value of the kickstarter project... Or you could get the unfinished assets to the game perhaps, but how likely is that 7,000 random internet donors are going to be able to do anything with unfinished assets.

So that is what we mean that there is no legal accountability.

[BrLvgThrChmstry]

I will not contribute to one of these as I would demand a share of profits as an "investor." But others can!

Same reason I'd never fund any of these projects. And just like the OP, I do share a lot of the same concerns, as well as some others found in this thread.

[Aselith]

No, they're players in a industry where "on budget, on time" is rarer than leprechauns riding unicorns.

True enough but those are realities that you have to factor in when you make your investment in the game. You've got to say, "Ok, I'm putting this money in because I want this game. It could fail but do I want to try and help get it made or do I not want it to be made at all?" For some games that's the reality, it's all or nothing. For some, it's just a matter or whether you want a finished project or a rushed one because the developers are already past due and over budget.

That's what I consider when I decide to put my money toward an alphafund or a kickstarter. If it's something interesting and that I want to get made, I put my money towards it. If I'm iffy on the project, I'll just wait and see what happens with it. It's usually a small amount like $10 or $15 which are not going to break the bank so if I lose it, it's not a huge deal for me. My thing is I'm playing the odds and most of these are going to come out so a few flops aren't going to dissuade me because I'm not committing in the $10,000 tier. As long as the majority make it to me, I'll be happy.

If everyone of them fizzles out? Yeah, we got a problem.

[androvsky]

Sure, you could spend more money to sue them but unless the developer absconded with the money and put it in a bank account the courts can get to, you aren't getting your money back. And the legal bills would be more than the full value of the kickstarter project... Or you could get the unfinished assets to the game perhaps, but how likely is that 7,000 random internet donors are going to be able to do anything with unfinished assets. So that is what we mean that there is no legal accountability.

I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like you're trying to say they're judgement proof. It's different from there being no legal accountability. While in cases with Kickstarter projects where the defendant wasted the funds with nothing to show for it the people funding it might not get much from a successful lawsuit, the defendant would be ruined in the court's grab at whatever assets they can find. Sure, the people funding it would be out $15 - $30 (or whatever they pledged, hopefully an amount they can stand to lose), which would be a mild deterrent to funding future Kickstarter projects, but it's a huge incentive to the people running the project to not fuck it up lest they (or their company) be ruined.

Not saying projects will never fail, I've heard of two so far, but in both cases they were very quick to refund. I also don't think people should spend more than they can easily lose on a Kickstarter project, because there is a chance they won't see anything with that money. I just don't think it's much of a chance.

[Kelegacy]

I don't buy into the Kickstarter thing and won't support it. However, we'll see how even one of these pans out. I really don't want this to be the norm going forward. Right now it seems like an easy way to take advantage of people, in this case fans. The fans think they are investing in something, but I'm afraid many are going to feel like ignorant fools in the long run in at least a few of these ventures.

However, if people do wind up throwing their money away in failed Kickstarters, I won't feel bad for them in the least. They will get what they deserve.

I am very curious to see how some of these work out, but I will be standing by the sidelines while you all do the cash throwing. :)

[Chris Remo]

I don't buy into the Kickstarter thing and won't support it. However, we'll see how even one of these pans out. I really don't want this to be the norm going forward. Right now it seems like an easy way to take advantage of people, in this case fans. The fans think they are investing in something, but I'm afraid many are going to feel like ignorant fools in the long run in at least a few of these ventures. However, if people do wind up throwing their money away in failed Kickstarters, I won't feel bad for them in the least. They will get what they deserve. I am very curious to see how some of these work out, but I will be standing by the sidelines while you all do the cash throwing. :)

I don't know why you think people believe they're investing. There is no claim anywhere that these pledges are investments, and Kickstarter expressly prohibits investing. Rewards are very clearly laid out, and none of them ever promise a return on investment. Obviously there are projects that haven't delivered, but there are many more that have across many different categories of project (I've personally played a number of board games that were funded entirely through Kickstarter, and they weren't projects I even backed).

[LiK]

Kickstarter is like PBS. You pledge, get goodies and hopefully get a product out of it. Why are people so worried?

[Munin]

I am enthusiastic about the whole Kickstarter development and happy to defend it but yes, it just takes one huge disappointment or worse, one complete failure to deliver for the whole thing to come crashing out of the sky.

[SappYoda]

This Kickstarter trend is really fragile. It will only take one failure to kill it.

[hey_it's_that_dog]

Kickstarter is like PBS. You pledge, get goodies and hopefully get a product out of it. Why are people so worried?

I feel like maybe the people who don't like the idea of Kickstarter (which is totally fine) feel some compulsion to publicly rationalize their position. All the fears about the future and based on completely speculative scenarios or assumptions that the contributors themselves aren't capable of assessing the (usually small) financial risks they are taking.

[hey_it's_that_dog]

This Kickstarter trend is really fragile. It will only take one failure to kill it.

I am enthusiastic about the whole Kickstarter development and happy to defend it but yes, it just takes one huge disappointment or worse, one complete failure to deliver for the whole thing to come crashing out of the sky.

Comments like this belie a woeful misunderstanding of the enterprise, I think. Are you thinking purely in terms of games? Kickstarter has been around. Surely there have been failures already.

The great thing about Kickstarter is that it's a bottom-up system. People who want a particular thing are given the opportunity to contribute to that thing's creation. The failure of other projects should have little bearing on a rational analysis of whether to contribute to any given project, especially if the ratio of successes to failures is high. People are capable of acting rationally when they put in the effort, and donating money to a KS project is likely one of those situations.

The failure of a particular project does not at all mean that people (generally) will adopt a global negative attitude about all of KS. There will always be someone who sees a project fail and attributes that failure to the system rather than to the project, but we can hope that most people are thinking about things project by project.

To put it another way, this system, like any system that endures, can withstand some failures. The burden of proof is on the naysayer to explain why it should be seen as exceedingly fragile.

edit: sorry for double post

[Minsc]

This Kickstarter trend is really fragile. It will only take one failure to kill it.

Do you frequently post incorrect comments in threads you don't know anything about?

Edit: Or maybe it's just a joke, I do fall for these traps from time to time!

[Chris Remo]

This Kickstarter trend is really fragile. It will only take one failure to kill it.

Well, that's empirically untrue. Are you under the impression that there were no Kickstarter projects pitched, proposed, succeeded, or failed prior to Double Fine's launch?

[casabolg]

I don't think I can express how happy I am that this sort of funding is doing so well. I've looking up all this stuff about FTL and other unknowns doing fantastically well and while also listening to Tears in Heaven by Eric Clapton (which is a terrible mash up) so I'm feeling overly emotional right now.

The future looks good, guys. The future looks good.

My only worry is people deliberately trying to destroy a funding for a game sometime in the future. Funding a heavy amount and taking it out under them when it gets close to the end date, though I don't know if that's possible under Kickstarter's system or not.

[dionysus]

Here is my criteria/thought process for kickstarting projects.

1. Most importantly, is Kickstarter the only realistic way for a project of this type to get funded. See Wasteland 2. Though this isn't a strict purity test, as you can always find examples, like Spiderweb's games for old school RPGs. You don't want to be funding the stuff the publishers rejected not because of the size of the market but because of organization capability of the developer. Don't fund the stuff the publishers had a great reason for rejecting.

2. Do the names behind it have a track record, OR, is their an alpha of the game that proves the developers can actually deliver? See Wasteland or FTL. This would weed out people whose ambitions are higher than their capabilities.

3. Do I want something above and beyond what is promised in my reward tier or project description? If so, I am funding my personal dream and bound to be disappointed. IE Don't fund wasteland 2 if you want an action RPG. You see this a bit in the Wasteland 2 forums already.

4. Did I donate more than I can afford if the game turns out to be mediocre? IE, if you are only funding the game because you expect the second coming of Jesus, don't fund it to that level. Assume an average game and fund it appropriately.

For me this rubrick ended up in my funding Wasteland 2 at $75 and Idle Thumbs at $50.

[LiK]

Do you frequently post incorrect comments in threads you don't know anything about? Edit: Or maybe it's just a joke, I do fall for these traps from time to time!

I don't see a wink, gotta be serious

[michaelius]

I think it's just another assumption that Kickstarter will "go mainstream" and be used by Activision for Call of Duty: Give Us More Money.

And what is so apocalyptic in this scenario?

It would either get funded or not get funded.

If people want to drop $100 on Activision new game year in advance instead of on release date i don't see anything wrong with it.

In fact if it drags 5% of cod userbase into kickstarter it could exponentially increase Schaffer effect for other projects.

[casabolg]

And what is so apocalyptic in this scenario? It would either get funded or not get funded. If people want to drop $100 on Activision new game year in advance instead of on release date i don't see anything wrong with it. In fact if it drags 5% of cod userbase into kickstarter it could exponentially increase Schaffer effect for other projects.

Very true. A game like Call of Duty may be a bad choice as you are dealing with an exceedingly young fanbase who probably don't have the permission to spend that kind of money on it overall.
Can't wait to see a news report about a kid who charged their mom's card for $10,000 to help fund Call of Duty: Plants vs. SAS

[Meier]

I am leery of it personally but at least the games have been priced well. I personally skipped the DoubleFine one since it was so well funded and I honestly don't care at all about the documentary stuff, but the Wasteland one is at least tempting since the $15 price is supposedly lower than they will offer the game initially. The concept of essentially fully paying for a pre-order 1.5 years in advance though is not very exciting.

In DF's case, at least the development time is intended to be relatively palatable. I'd say that's my largest misgiving about the trend as long as the price remains right for the games/entry level contribution.

[CrunchyFrog]

I think the outcome of these first few projects will have a far larger effect on the success of the crowd-funding model, but afterwards far less. DFA and WL2 though will be the standards by which this model will be judged, and if these falter at so early a stage I could easily see the Kickstarter revolution falling apart. There's a lot that has to go into doing this correctly, but I think the people behind both projects have the know-how to do so. I think it's got an advantage too over the traditional dev-pub relationship as the the backers are far more emotionally invested in the project and willing to take a more quality product over a quicker/profitable one.

What I think would be cool is if Valve could make a "kickstarter for games" tab/add-on for steam if this whole thing works out. Would get far more exposure to the gaming public. Actually, have Valve/Gabe weighed in on the Kickstarter movement yet?

[casabolg]

Actually, have Valve/Gabe weighed in on the Kickstarter movement yet?

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2009/07/val...opment-future/

"Told you so."
-Gabe Newell, seconds for having thirds of the mashed potatoes

[CrunchyFrog]

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2009/07/val...opment-future/ "Told you so." -Gabe Newell, seconds for having thirds of the mashed potatoes

Should have figured he'd be years ahead of the rest of the industry.

[Gully State]

Actually, have Valve/Gabe weighed in on the Kickstarter movement yet?

Gaben predicted this Kickstarter movement last year...As to Steam integration, who knows?

[casabolg]

Someone get Jordan Mechner's email so we can beg for a spiritual successor to The Last Express on Kickstarter.

[CrunchyFrog]

Gaben predicted this Kickstarter movement last year...As to Steam integration, who knows?

Thinking on it more, Steam Workshop isn't so far removed from this concept. They'll probably retrofit it to include full games somewhere down the line.

[Orayn]

Gaben predicted this Kickstarter movement last year...As to Steam integration, who knows?

"I remember when Gabe announced Steam integration for Kickstarter. It was as though a thousand GAFers' wallets cried out, then were silent."

[Strummerjones]

I don't know...given how much they'd probably open themselves up to and how much they might stand to lose because of that, I don't think you'll ever see a publicly-traded corporation do a KickStarter. I don't know why anyone would think they would. Activision has access to more money and credit than a KickStarter could ever hope to offer them. They don't need KS.

Exactly. This will never happen in a million billion years, and it boggles the mind that people seriously even think it could happen. Aside from the gigantic list of reasons why any established publisher would never even dream of doing this ("hey, here's our entire corporate strategy laid bare for our competitors!"), why would a consumer donate to a game that was guaranteed to come out anyway?

[SovanJedi]

If someone could rally together all the old Quintet staff again I would Kickstart the fuck out of a spiritual successor to Terranigma.

[JoshuaJSlone]

Kickstarter is amazing because it takes the power away from the publishers. Fuck the publishers.

The publisher would have passed anyway. You miss the point.

The publishers have the power to not let something happen. This can circumvent that. Isn't that taking away some of their power?

[Orayn]

The publishers have the power to not let something happen. This can circumvent that. Isn't that taking away some of their power?

The publishers probably don't care right now. If you look at it from their perspective, even the biggest Kickstarter game is a blip on the radar when you can a single shovelware/licensed tie-in game for the Wii that would turn a bigger profit for you.

If someone could rally together all the old Quintet staff again I would Kickstart the fuck out of a spiritual successor to Terranigma.

As much as I'd love to see it happen, I doubt Kickstarter will become a big thing for many Japanese studios. So many of them are really, really set in their ways. Now, using Kickstarter to boost the budgets of doujin games would be pretty friggin' cool, especially if it meant localized releases on Steam.

[blind51de]

Also, in theory Kickstarter is an extremely easy tool for defrauding casual donators and laundering money. I wouldn't feel safe about donating to anyone without a clear and comprehensive design/business plan.

[padlock]

Also, in theory Kickstarter is an extremely easy tool for defrauding casual donators and laundering money. I wouldn't feel safe about donating to anyone without a clear and comprehensive design/business plan.

Dude, for most of us, you're talking about $15. The cost of a couple of pints.

If one of the projects I funded ended up as a failure, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Nor would it prevent me from funding future projects I was interested in. The risk/benefits ration seems rather low to me.

[Orayn]

Also, in theory Kickstarter is an extremely easy tool for defrauding casual donators and laundering money. I wouldn't feel safe about donating to anyone without a clear and comprehensive design/business plan.

We've been over this - Yes, you should still be careful, but Kickstarter doesn't absolve project starters of all liability if they get funded but fail to deliver. It'd probably cost a lot relative to the amount of money raised, but the backers of a fraudulent project could get together and sue.

[charlequin]

Right now it seems like an easy way to take advantage of people, in this case fans.

It's not, as even the bare minimum effort of reading the thread you are posting in would demonstrate.

Also, in theory Kickstarter is an extremely easy tool for defrauding casual donators and laundering money. I wouldn't feel safe about donating to anyone without a clear and comprehensive design/business plan.

Why go through all that trouble? You could just set up a website promising people copies of a game for $50 and then not give them a game and keep the money!!! Man the internet is dangerous!!

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Why go through all that trouble?

The guy that just put up a KS campaign for $1.1M for a dream game didn't have much trouble.

But yes. Point taken.

[Zeliard]

The guy that just put up a KS campaign for $1.1M for a dream game didn't have much trouble.

He seems to have trouble raising the money.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

I am mystified by the obstinate stupidity that crops up in every Kickstarter discussion, where people just wholesale invent worst-case scenarios that have almost no bearing on anything. What is it about this model that makes some of you jerk your knee so hard?

If Tim Schafer is the world's biggest asshole (or worst goodhearted project manager) and leaves with all our monies, most of us will be out fifteen dollars. A small but non-trivial "risk" we are already aware of. Also, his reputation is ruined, he may face legal action, and the world continues to turn, minus my fifteen dollars. I'll survive, somehow.

You may not want to donate any money to any project without a ROI, and that's entirely your prerogative, but I literally do not understand any of the handwringing about the idea itself. If bottom-up funding corrects itself into oblivion--even though thousands of projects already exist as proof of viability--then so be it. What does that change about anything?

[MightyHedgehog]

I am mystified by the obstinate stupidity that crops up in every Kickstarter discussion, where people just wholesale invent worst-case scenarios that have almost no bearing on anything. What is it about this model that makes some of you jerk your knee so hard? If Tim Schafer is the world's biggest asshole (or worst goodhearted project manager) and leaves with all our monies, most of us will be out fifteen dollars. A small but non-trivial "risk" we are already aware of. Also, his reputation is ruined, he may face legal action, and the world continues to turn, minus my fifteen dollars. I'll survive, somehow. You may not want to donate any money to any project without a ROI, and that's entirely your prerogative, but I literally do not understand any of the handwringing about the idea itself. If bottom-up funding corrects itself into oblivion--even though thousands of projects already exist as proof of viability--then so be it. What does that change about anything?

No, dude, you just don't understand. They're just looking out for us stupid people who would be on the streets without their keen insight. Seriously, I think some people are a bit frightened to leave the comforts and familiarity of corporate teats.

[Zeliard]

No, dude, you just don't understand. They're just looking out for us stupid people who would be on the streets without their keen insight. Seriously, I think some people are a bit frightened to leave the comforts and familiarity of corporate teats.

Too true. This thread is strange and sad. People feigning worry over nothing. Absolutely nothing.

[PetriP-TNT]

Damn they removed this one:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...token=869e739e

"Hi, my name is Eric Moneypenny. I would like to raise money to buy Kickstarter. WorthOfWeb.com estimates Kickstarter's worth at 18.6 million dollars. Therefore, I estimate that I will need at least 19,000,000 to make this happen."

This was pretty great parody. Even the prizes were spot on. $100 and he would have signed your Kickstarter project, $5000 and he would have helped you make your indie movie, $10000 was PIZZA PARTY with Eric Moneypenny...

[Pachael]

I love the crowdsourcing model, but also recognise that it's a model where there is a high risk (to reputation mostly) for a high reward (to reputation and probably money in the bank).

It's not uncommon that these things might come out due to the mismatching in expectations between different parties, particularly when money is involved.

I feel that the funding period(s), which is the window when contributions are open, is the most ideal time for backers and potential backers to drill the project owners or managers on their capability to deliver the product that they are asking for funding. The Kickstarter model of leaving your pledge withdrawable at anytime within the contribution period is great, as backers or potential backers can put in or pull out money at any time if they are comfortable (or not) with the project.

The real difficulty comes when the funding closes and the project starts as now the backers are stuck with whatever the project decides to do, whether to the advancement of the product (e.g. more features) or to the denouncement (e.g. change of features, or features that are contrary to backer's expectations of the project, or if the project runs out of cash because a subcontractor didn't deliver, or if the project manager becomes salty). When the latter happens, calls of buyer's remorse or refunds are literal daggers to the project as in this model it's broadcast around the Internet.

On the flip side, because the project is out in the open (mostly), the model rewards projects that both have the idea well formed as well as proper project management.

In fact, successful projects can enhance the project manager or owner's reputation (see the various successful kickstarted movies or design projects), and this gets noticed by publishers or other well-doers who would pick them up on their next project. In times of (project) failure, well, nobody wins unfortunately, not the backers who have either no product or a bad product, and not the project manager who'd be reminded of this failure every subsequent time he/she asks for money. The silver lining out of this is that the model weeds out the weaker efforts/people where the project is managed badly, but not so much the ideas, where poor ideas can be turned around by better managers (or publishers) in the future.

I do think that in time the entire model will self-balance due to this and backers or potential backers (and the project owners) will understand better of the risks in funding (as opposed to the ideals of getting a great product), so the only bubble I see here is one of expecting too much in too little time.

tl;dr The Kickstarter and crowdsourcing model itself will be fine in the long term, but we'll probably still see projects that fail or products that don't live up to the hype. The lesson is one of expectation management.