Wow talk about a disappointing run! The idea is amusing of course, but I still kinda feel sorry for her considering only a single person showed any interest.

The Wasteland 2 devs (InXile) have done quite a lot of games (Choplifter HD and Hunted being notable)
Although most are ipod games so that may kill hope

"I want to empower women"

Yeah I'm sure she does.

And thus people learn the difference between a pre-order (ie a shop) and an investment.

I've little to add to what has been said save that to add my view that KS is a fantastic concept and idea and that with its popularity it brings to the table the ability for niche markets and concepts to make it from concept to a working product in the market itself. It can do everything from providing the finances to take something into mass production or even to provide funding to allow research and development to finish a product for the market itself.

It does come with risks, the big risk that you will, like any investor, lose your investment totally into a failed project. This is always a risk no matter what method of finance a company chooses - failure is a reality (and heck things can fail even if no one does anything wrong - sometimes the market shifts or a world even might suddenly prevent a project from meeting its original goals with its projected budget).

KS has the bonus that most of the people pledging will be pledging small amounts and that the amount they invest is often their free money. It's not looking for a return on investment outside of a product and thus for most people if a KS fails then yes they've lost money. But they've only lost their disposable income and further they won't suffer long term because they were not expecting a financial income from that investment.

KS itself also knows that they will only succeed if they can protect both investors and companies looking to gain investment and I'm quite aware that they are and do change their policies and practice as well as build in additional advisory stages in order to best protect all clients. They are, in the end, middlemen and the company they have will only work if they continue to match both sides together and have successful ventures as a resulting outcome.

just imagine, if they held their kickstarter this year instead of last year, they might have raised 10x that amount. (and possibly still had the same result).

It is not even an investment. It is a donation and that is it. If it works out for them then hopefully you get what they offered in return. Kickstarter is fine as long as people realize that.

How does giving money to a Kickstarter prove that someone is "financially ignorant?" Show your work.

Just to add - KS isn't even about computer games. In fact games are only one of a very large number of projects with the majority being actual physical products. I also don't see how gaming can be beyond a need for investment funding. Heck games are very much like movies with a short profit slot, long pre-release development time and a high upfront investment and time before you get anything. An investment model like this fits gaming very well - heck even without KS gaming already has many alpha and beta funding projects (just check out alpha funding on Desura).

We all knew that a failure would happen eventually, right? Really, it isn't surprising or anything, we just have to be careful at which KS projects we pledge to and be aware that it's a risk. Why did this post get downrepped? For expressing a different opinion? Oh, c'mon, give me a fucking break.

According to Kickstarter's page, it says it is not a donation (which is what charity is). "Kickstarter does not allow charity, cause, or "fund my life" projects." So Kickstarter is most definitely an investment. What is so wrong with getting investment from investors and not financially ignorant gamers?

The other big problem with Kickstarter is that the best video games come from out of nowhere. (Richard Garriot at Comic-Con talked down Kickstarter since he knew crowds would never fund Ultima IV, Ultima VII, or Ultima Online as he had to fight his own developers to work on those games.)

Why do we need Kickstarter when there are better models available from the classic shareware model to Minecraft's 'pay a little for the alpha' to see if the market wants to buy it?

I've been a fan of Kickstarter but I kind of agree with you here. I think most people suspected this situation would happen sometimes. I certainly did. I don't look at Kickstarter as a store though either.

What I'm hoping to get as a return on investment is some damn respect. Pitch some games I'm actually interested in. Don't put draconian DRM in the games and don't get your panties in a bunch about the small shit. I'd like to see them just do away with copyright but that's probably not going to happen.

It's kind of whiny when I think about it. Developer: "Can you believe these publishers actually make demands when they finance us? I mean, who do they think they are? Sometimes they want our copyright! And the retailers? Don't get me started. I can't believe they would have the nerve to take some risk to try to make some profit by providing shelf space to sell our games. Screw that, we'll just go to the public to pay for everything up front and we'll offer the game in return after a year, like a pre-order, except we're not really obligated to make the game even though it's already paid for. Plus we get to keep all of the copyright so we can yell at the public and restrict it for our benefit after we make the game using other people's money. It's all about ME!!!"

IMO, crowd-funding and copyright don't mix very well.

I will say that I think it's the PC game industry's own fault for this Kickstarter craze right now. If nothing else, maybe they'll have to change some of their behavior for the better because of Kickstarter.

Ouya to soon follow.

I've received several already. I still remember the joy I had reading my first issue of Carbon Grey, it was beautiful and I had helped make it real in a small way. I couldn't put a price on that, not even for 10 times as much.

I could never pay a symphony to write and record a new masterpiece by myself, but I can help crowdfund it.

Crowdfunding is merely patronage with many patrons instead of one extraordinarily wealthy patron. The idea has existed for many years but it's only been recently that law and the internet made it possible.

Unfortunately this result should have been expected by anyone who had actually taken a good look at their kickstarter. While this may sound harsh, anyone looking to produce a physical product and asking for funding without having a working prototype should be laughed out of the room. While this guy claimed he had a prototype, it sounds more like he had nothing more than a mockup, and he then went looking for funding before he even knew what he'd be manufacturing, to say nothing of how much it would cost. Ultimately while producing a working prototype may take a while with lots of problems and redesigns, doing so is the cheap part of bringing a project to market. The actual production runs once the prototype is complete is where the real costs are, which is why someone needs to have their working prototype and know what the costs of a production run will be before they go asking for funding. Unfortunately this kickstarter was run by and funded by people who had little understanding of the design and manufacturing process, and the result was all too predictable.

This doesn't mean that kickstarter in general is problematic or unworkable, but rather shows that people really need to go into it with their eyes wide open and with at least some understanding of what they're funding and what it will take to bring the intended product to market.