> You are not paying to get a product, you are investing into something that could or could not work out. Yes, but Kickstarter's angle is that it will work out

> You are not paying to get a product, you are investing into something that could or could not work out. Yes, but Kickstarter's angle is that it will work out. That's the underlying assumption. People don't usually give away their money for nothing, they need some idea that they'll get something in return. I think Kickstarter is actually more harmful to the cognitive processes involved in creating these illusions, since the future product is usually fairly well-defined from the beginning... so the illusions designed to attract your money happens in the beginning, and then the developer just needs to manage the backers' expectations until the product is released. At which point everyone will be busy comparing the actual product with their expectations, and hopefully enjoying the game too, and no one is getting their money back. I'm not saying RoR2 wasn't worth your money. That 2-for-1 deal was a good way to balance taking your money before giving you anything (I think that deal was pre-release). Early Access releases are another good balance I think (I feel the same way about Slay the Spire as you do RoR2 -- best $20 game I've ever bought and 1 year before release). But you alone didn't decide they deserve your money, they gave you the option to recognize that feeling, by sending some cash their way. If you imagine the same thing happening in a face-to-face exchange, it's pretty weird, and that makes me feel uneasy about this whole trend. If it wouldn't happen face-to-face, but it happens when we're all forming opinions about it separately, it seems like something else is going on besides just selling video games.