3 ms·

All this story is somewhat confusing. In fact, I was pondering about jumping in... Until I found the bit about Python support, what made me grab my wallet. But

by lrem 14y ago

All this story is somewhat confusing. In fact, I was pondering about jumping in... Until I found the bit about Python support, what made me grab my wallet. But then, the model here is quite tricky. If not enough people pledge, then I won't get what I want. Then, external funding comes. But somehow it's still crucial that I throw in my couple bucks, just because otherwise the project may not be what I wanted. But if I finally pledge, what do I get in return? Again, it's somewhat confusing. I'm buying a license. But the thing maybe will get open sourced. What is a license to an open source software? What are my incentives to pay for it? Equally, what are the incentives of unknown other people to pay for it? If I can't establish that, I have no idea what are the chances of me getting what I wanted in the first place... Thanks, I'll pass, despite all the enthusiasm I had at an impulse. I just won't put $0.01 into anything that is not clear.

twiceaday 14y ago
I agree. This goes against one of the key principles of Kickstarter: if a project you are funding doesn't get funded you get your money back. It is a difficult problem though. On one hand you don't want to fund half a project but on the other if they wildly exceed their funding goal it would be nice of them to spend the extra money on new features.
- hysan 14y ago
  Kickstarter should implement feature/subproject goals to fix these problems. To illustrate: Say the main project needs $200k to get funded. This becomes the main target goal. If this is reached, the core is funded and those backers pay up. Then you have the feature/subproject goals. These are separate counters for those who will only back a project if the feature/subproject will be implemented. So say you need $50k on top of the core goal to support Mac OSX and another $50k to support Linux. Supporters for Mac OSX & Linux support can choose to fund the platform they want directly. That way if the main project hits 200k but Mac OSX and Linux each get $25k each (which in the current setup would probably mean only support for one of them, whichever is listed first), then those separate $25k pots are just dropped as if the project were not funded. That way supporters aren't forced to pay up and get nothing of value in return. In the case that the core support spills over, say it hits $225k, then the project owner can choose which extra feature to pick up and they will get that donation money (if they pick Mac OSX, they get those donations but the Linux supporters don't have to pay up, and vice-versa).
  - cdcarter 14y ago
    I think very few kickstarter projects (which are primarily works of art) have any utility for this. It seems like quite the feature creep for what really just looks like a project using the model poorly (though effectively).
    - hysan 14y ago
      Then how about restricting it to being a feature for design and technology projects? Per their own guidelines and vision, they have very few requirements for these types of projects. Additionally, these "we will support X" type extra goals are seen in a lot of technology projects (software and video games primarily for the "support X operating system" goals) and actually make sense to list as "bonus" goals. So for these types of projects, I think the model isn't being used poorly. Instead, the model is insufficient to properly fund these types of projects.

by lrem 14y ago

twiceaday 14y ago

I agree. This goes against one of the key principles of Kickstarter: if a project you are funding doesn't get funded you get your money back. It is a difficult problem though. On one hand you don't want to fund half a project but on the other if they wildly exceed their funding goal it would be nice of them to spend the extra money on new features.

hysan 14y ago
Kickstarter should implement feature/subproject goals to fix these problems. To illustrate: Say the main project needs $200k to get funded. This becomes the main target goal. If this is reached, the core is funded and those backers pay up. Then you have the feature/subproject goals. These are separate counters for those who will only back a project if the feature/subproject will be implemented. So say you need $50k on top of the core goal to support Mac OSX and another $50k to support Linux. Supporters for Mac OSX & Linux support can choose to fund the platform they want directly. That way if the main project hits 200k but Mac OSX and Linux each get $25k each (which in the current setup would probably mean only support for one of them, whichever is listed first), then those separate $25k pots are just dropped as if the project were not funded. That way supporters aren't forced to pay up and get nothing of value in return. In the case that the core support spills over, say it hits $225k, then the project owner can choose which extra feature to pick up and they will get that donation money (if they pick Mac OSX, they get those donations but the Linux supporters don't have to pay up, and vice-versa).
- cdcarter 14y ago
  I think very few kickstarter projects (which are primarily works of art) have any utility for this. It seems like quite the feature creep for what really just looks like a project using the model poorly (though effectively).
  - hysan 14y ago
    Then how about restricting it to being a feature for design and technology projects? Per their own guidelines and vision, they have very few requirements for these types of projects. Additionally, these "we will support X" type extra goals are seen in a lot of technology projects (software and video games primarily for the "support X operating system" goals) and actually make sense to list as "bonus" goals. So for these types of projects, I think the model isn't being used poorly. Instead, the model is insufficient to properly fund these types of projects.