I would definitely agree here, to an extent.

It's hard to make any form of contractual obligations in regards to this.. because projects do, from time to time, fail. If we change KS to the point where basically, if there is any chance your project could fail, then you shouldn't even do a KS because you'll get your pants sued off.. it will, in turn, eliminate the very thing KS was created for: Indies who cannot get traditional backing.

KS's nature is a double edged sword.
On one hand, it allows the legitimate projects in the hands of small-time groups to actually get the funding they need to create an awesome product. Like some of these:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/257331192/tephra-the-steampunk-rpg
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1660163976/the-dragons-storm-trilogy
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2067825909/attacks-of-opportunity
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1726132015/aleph-remember-what-made-games-great

All of those are from 'nobodies' with little to no industry experience. Of those only Aleph isn't finished, and Jesse has been working heavily on that and his other video game project.

However, on the other hand, yes.. KS's nature does open it up to scammers and con artists. It can easily be the modern form of selling someone the Eiffel Tower for scrap metal. Weave a believable story and people will buy it.

What needs to be found, is means to protect against the con artists but does not create a system where the creator basically has their life ruined if the project fails.

Currently KS can work because.. as has been pointed out, most backers are using expendable money on it, usually between $10 and $100- if their 'investment' doesn't pan out, they're not really out much- and most of us are willing to accept that risk.

Too many more projects that are either scams, or amateurs that have a cool idea but no clue what they're doing.. and all the true indie KS will be completely buried by the big names jumping on the crowdfunding bandwagon.

The point is to have projects like:
- new game from Tim Schafer
- new Leisure Suit Larry with Al Lowe
- new game(s) from Jane Jensen
- new game and reunification of Two Guys from Andromeda
- a sequel to Tex Murphy
- a sequel to Broken Sword
- return of Carmageddon
- a sequel/spiritual successor to Giana Sisters
+ lotsa interesting projects including but not limited to Homestuck, Quest for Infamy, Jack Houston, etc. etc.

(If you count in failed kickstarters, you could add stuff like Wings remake, and so on.)


It is not.


You need to see "profit" from a greater point of view. Money is so... lame.
Personally, I have already gotten return to my investment. I have seen return of Al Lowe, Two Guys, etc. and rebirth of a genre which was not doing so well a couple of years ago.

Also, many of the games/series that I used to play are returning as remakes/sequels thanks to kickstarter.

Even if I would lose all my money that I poured into KS (some 300 dollars, maybe?), I would feel it was worth it.
Of course, as I already received Gabriel Knight ebooks from Jane Jensen, Carmageddon GOG vouchers from Carmageddon project, I already start to get some return for my investment, even thought the real games are still months from completion.

Kickstarter has many problems, like the fake 10k backer in Jack Houston, and restriction to US projects, and many others. But the fact is, not many of these games would be in production today, if it wasn't for Kickstarter.

Only time will tell whether Kickstarter games are en par qualitywise with "normal" games, but so far, I'm very happy to be waiting for these games which I backed. It's like the old days of gaming again, you have actually something to look forward to, instead of having to look back to... er... gog's. :-)

The evidence is on the internet. Just google the names of the people behind Ouya (Julie Uhrman, Yves Behar, Muffi Ghadiali). The result of the "google search" as the kids these days are calling it, will reveal all. Try it!!! Then google "do a barrel roll"

www.google.com

I'm not saying they are leaders in the industry, just that it's incorrect to call them amateurs.

"I don't understand it and therefore it sucks"

Seems to be the mantra on the internet nowadays.

We can only hope. We can only hope.

My point was that you basically just said "you're wrong."
You should have said:
"They're not complete amateurs, for example X has (experience)"

Like I said. I don't give a fuck about their experience level. It just irks me when people say "you're wrong." without anything further. >.>

It's not made of "sustainable Alder".

It's an investment or patronage, depending on how much you want to pledge and on your expectations, IMO. Either it's profitable or not, i.e. you get a satisfying product vs. a project fails or doesn't live up to its promises. It's up to a backer to decide if s/he trusts the project and how much s/he is willing to lose.

Generally, I don't back projects started by people who haven't created a thing. They should be able to provide something tangible like previous achievements and explain why they aren't able to finish this one on their own. In the case of SW, they don't even have large costs except personnel. I guess HW projects are more sensitive (distribution, etc.).

It's sad to see promising projects to fail due to bad management but frankly, I didn't think an iPad stand was that innovative and worth backing.

NO

Y.O.U. A.R.E. W.R.O.N.G.

There's a limit. It's $10,000. What you consider sane is not a viable criterion. Kickstarter allows people with a lot of money to pledge that money towards projects they believe in. I would never pledge $250, but for a lot of people that's apparently a reasonable and even not very high amount.

An I think it's a good thing that the high levels don't offer more compensation. The less compensation is offered, the less people lose if the project fails. If the $10,000 tier offers you a dinner with the creator, then you could possibly have that dinner even if the project fails. If the project offers a signed print for $1,000 then you can get it even if the project fails. It's good that these are things of low monetary value.

Perhaps Kickstarter should adopt Kiva's model, where we donate to kickstarter, and they LOAN the creator the money with terms where successful delivery of all promised kickstarter pledge bonuses would negate the need for repayment.

A few points of interest tends to motivate people nicely.

It's other people's money (or more likely, their parents' monwy.) If they want to flush the money down the toilet, it's their business.

BTW, donating to Kickstarter project is NOT an investment. When you give money to a project, you will NEVER see a return or profit on your "donation". You are NOT an investor, shareholder or creditor. You do NOT get to partake in the profit (if there is any.) You do NOT get any dividend. Even if the project later earns a lot of money, you will get NOTHING (other than a product of the project.) You are really just giving money away.

I personally think that is just a rotten deal. Why would I want to give money to make some stranger rich and successful when I get nothing in return? That is why I personally will NEVER give any money to Kickstarter. If I wanted to donate money, I'd rather give it to a homeless children charity or something, rather to some egoistic self-important fella with an ego so big that he named a product after himself. (i.e., "Ouya".)

You offer no validation for your argument indicating that I am wrong. If you cannot provide evidence for validation that I am wrong, then it is merely based on your own personal opinion that I am, in fact, incorrect. If you can provide any form of validation to your argument, please provide it, so that I can refute.

Until such time as evidence is brought forward that I am, in fact, incorrect, I must assume that I am actually correct in this matter.

Additionally, your method of 'intensifying' your statement is a rather bewildering one. Making each letter it's own (incorrect) sentence seems highly irrational, when faced with such options as bolding, italicizing, underlining or, even all three[.

He's just messing with you, man.

As for the original argument, the CEO is a person who served in executive positions and business development, some of them in game sales, and that's a decent qualification for gaming. The designer has done tons of high profile design work. And so on. So sure, they might not have worked on a console, and that may be a problem. Ouya certainly isn't a guaranteed success. But these are still people with a lot of experience, which is why calling them amateurs is silly.
Because you're a fan? Because you want what they want to happen? Lots of reasons for it.

Being a fan is a major reason. People are willing to pay $200 or more to see someone sing. Don't you think that's preposterous? Many of the people who pay big money to projects do it because they're fans of the creators. To them giving away money is natural, especially since they're getting collectible stuff for that money.

And collectible stuff is also a reason. You might not understand someone who pays $3000 for a World of Warcraft sword, or a prototype graphics card, or a coin or stamp, but people do it all the time.

The short of it is, how people use their money is up to them. Just because you justify your spending in some way doesn't mean that it's the only way, or the right way, to look at things.

Money isn't a goal, it's a means to take care of yourself and enjoy yourself. I enjoy giving some support to projects that I would like to see happen, and I enjoy getting things out of it. I like seeing my name in the thanks of a book or getting a thank you postcard from a creator.