Kinda strawman arguments there guys. So I'm not going to bother, suffice to say that what I posted is my opinion, its neither wrong nor right. I'm not all that pushed if anyone agrees or not.

That doesn't make it a scam. A scam is where you are deceived. What you're saying is: "there's a risk that this is a scam, therefore it's a scam". That doesn't compute. Quite a few Kickstarter products have already produced results, which proves that they aren't scams. Kickstarter itself is obviously not a scam. It's possible that some projects are scams, but you've got to judge on a case by case basis. No sense in just labeling it all as a scam when it clearly isn't.

Regarding virtual items, I'm not sure what that has to do with it. Do you buy at GOG? Then you're buying data. Most of the Kickstarter projects offer a lot of stuff that you can feel in your hands more than what you buy at GOG. There's no reason a signed poster would be less valuable than a first edition stamp.

Then it isn't. Many products (and especially games) are delivered after the estimated date. Most people don't have a problem with that. The thing is, the backer is taking a risk, but most of these projects are done by people who intend to finish what they're doing. You will eventually get the product, possibly you'll be able to provide some input about it, which is more than would normally happen.

Research grants seem worse to me. Someone is giving money to someone else with no guarantee of anything coming out of it. At least with Kickstarter you're working towards a concrete result.

If you read my post, maybe I didnt make it clear enough, i mean its a scam if it doesnt come to fruition, what happens to the money of failed KS projects.

As regards the virtual items, again, maybe I wasnt clear enough, I mean I can understand paying the value of a game (eg 50 bucks), but 1000 bucks is 950 bucks more than the value of a game and all they get are extra virtual items, like some in game pet or soundtrack. (I was talking about Path of Exile at the time btw, not KS).

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

it is only a scam if the developers from the outset is meant to fail, that they are getting paid for something they know will fail. If the project for some reason or other during production fail to deliver, and this is not due to (for a lack of a better word) criminal negligence, then it is not a scam. You can not retro fit this description on projects after the matter of facts.

For some strange reason I now want to watch The Producers again....

I was thinking exactly the same thing after reading the paragraph. xD

KS may or may not be a pre-order system. That doesn't change the fact, however, that Kickstarter and many of the projects present themselves as such a system.and that the majority of backers donate to projects with the belief that they are pre-ordering.

Kickstarter will inevitably become a bona fide pre-ordering system for projects still in development, rendering devs liable to produce either a project or refund the money. With all of the high-profile project failures of late, the alternative would be that Kickstarter is broadly seen for what it is. When that day comes, I can assure you that this will be the day it falls flat on its face, because there is little interest in providing 'patronage' among the community. The majority of gamers want to play games, not contribute to art.

There are usually conditions attached even to research grants. Sponsors will often require you to submit regular reports on how the grant is being used and will seek formal assurances that the money is being used appropriately.

Tell me about it... Usually though, they don't ask for the grant to be returned, they accept that Research didn't bear fruit, or decide to cut the grant before it finishes. Again though, they give money, hoping for something in return, but knowing fully well that they may not get it.
Whether a researcher that doesn't deliver gets another grant though is another matter.

Indeed, hence my point above. It wouldn't be so bad if people were under the genuine impression that they were effectively providing a grant, but Kickstarter owes its success to the ignorance of the masses.

You wait. That's pretty much it. Kickstarter has been huge in the board game industry, and almost none of those projects have actually made their delivery dates...some have missed by up to a year. People certainly aren't happy about that (understandably so), but there isn't much they can do beyond complaining.

Kickstarter mentions on their faqs that the backers are enocouraged to get in touch with the devs, devs are encouraged to keep updating backers adequately to keep the status of development "in the clear". That makes for an atmosphere of good will. In case all goes wrong, Kickstarter encourages devs to return the money to everyone whose reward they don't fulfill, but money being returned to backers is highly unlikely in all cases, rewards fulfilled or not. Finally, Kickstarter likes to hint that the devs are liable for their projects and could be sued if they take the money and fail to deliver.

I'm using the word "dev" generically for anyone who's developing any Kickstarter project, not only games.
In one interesting case, four boys asked for 10 thousand dollars to code and deploy a social network focused in privacy and security over summer (it was called Diaspora). The project was an internet hit and raised 200 thousand dollars, dubbed as the "facebook killer". What was supposed to take 3 months was delayed several times (ended up taking a year or two to complete) and when released, it had critical security flaws. Development continued with several problems well after they ran out of money. Adding tragedy to the story, one of the boys was found dead at home, and there development stopped for good. At some point they released the source-code for the community.

This always amazes me, but I suppose such high-value tiers mean some people actually do serious patronage of the projects; they're not so interested in the rewards as they are in seeing the project through. It's where the beauty of crowdfunding shines... if I wanted to raise money for anything, no one but the most passionate believers, perhaps only family and friends, would commit a thousand dollars or more.

Crowdfunding is precisely patronage with a lot of patrons that are willing to give the majority of the creative control to the creator.

There is no real functional difference other than who's pockets (or how many thereof) the money may come out of. It's awesome that creative works can be funded via patronage, I've argued for a long time that this is one possible alternative to copyright. The way it currently works, hell no it won't be a complete replacement, but to get all the way there will take a massive cultural shift (I'd argue working toward a defined cultural shift, even if creators may not be 100% for it, like this is better than letting the whole thing "drift" as it will, because we're seeing the brutal blacks and whites of said drift right now and it won't end up being good for anybody in the end, I suspect).

It's all "me too!" now. Let's see if videogame preorders (like it or not, that's what they are) are still sold on KS in 5 years.

Maybe you should read this. I think that makes it abundantly clear that Kickstarter isn't advertising itself as such, and would not like project creators to do it. However, that perception will likely remain, and it's close to the truth in some cases. Giana Sisters was one such case, although I have to say I didn't get that impression at all from the Kickstarter and was surprised they got to the market that quickly.

That would kill Kickstarter as a crowdfunding platform, so I don't see it happening.

A crowdfunding platform? Yes, it would be good if that happens.

Perhaps true, but the majority of gamers on Kickstarter want to contribute to the art. That is, they want games they're interested in happening to be made, and are willing to risk their money for the chance of that happening.