Mnemon: ... All in all I think Kickstarter has - so far - done more good than bad. The bad apples will always happen and are - always - a risk. Whether you crowd-fund something or act as a more traditional investor.
That's true. For the other categories except games the success rate is probably extremely high. The problem is that the bad apple rate is low but there is nothing to stop it from getting higher. So far most creators maybe just were honest and hard working and clever enough guys to deliver what they promised. They deserve admiration. But at which point will people start promising anything just to get the money? After all this is business and somebody has to pay the mortgage.
I think a different KS where backers have more rights and their rights are somehow written down (at least the right to step back under certain circumstances) would be even better and do more good than the current KS. That's why KS should be improved.
For example here another idea: Instead of paying out the money all in one go to the publisher you pay it in steps and everytime backers can decide to withdraw if the projects course has changed too much. Of course they would lose what has been paid so far but at least the loss would be smaller and an incentive for the creators to stay on course.
Another idea would be to treat projects above a certain scale als pre-orders where you actually have to deliver what you promised. This would require that the game is already in a fairly advanced stadium but it can be done. Also this model would be disciplining the team to really deliver what they planned initially and not what they secretly wanted.
If you read the message of the guys here you see that they never really worked on an offline mode. They say that they first concentrated on the online part and then realized that an offline part is impossible for them. They only realize it close to the end because they always wanted to do the offline part and always had some hope for it (this is doubtful actually, it could be as well they never really wanted to do it). Whatever the reason they cannot keep the promise they made and additionally nothing bad happens for them. Other people seeing this could be tempted to try the same way.
Another possibility would be to let backers decide about such changes of course.
Another possibility would be to let backers participate in the financial success.
Another possibility would be for KS to clearly say that creators can do whatever they want with the money and the KS page is just a suggestion and in truth backing is a donation and everybody who expects anything should be careful and never expect a refund. Just to be as upfront and honest as possible. This would probably describe the current situation best although surprisingly many project indeed deliver what was promised.
As it is, the problem is that nobody really knows how accountable you can hold KS or the creators if anything goes wrong. Here something went wrong but what rights would the backers have because of this? How much financial compensation should they get? Under which circumstances should the creator be obliged to refund without fuss? All these things are unclear and KS is no help there either.