5 ms·

Whatever you think of the console itself, that's an impressive amount of fundraising. I think Ouya has shown one thing for sure and that's making your Kickstart

Whatever you think of the console itself, that's an impressive amount of fundraising. I think Ouya has shown one thing for sure and that's making your Kickstarter a pre-order of sorts definitely encourages people to donate in larger sums. Of the 36K backers, only ~2000 have donated less than the $95 that gets you a console.

lordpenguin 14y ago
Yes, you are right. Even backing at the $99 level gets you the $99 console! THAT is value.
hkmurakami 14y ago
I personally think that this is the greatest value that kickstarter has brought us. We now have the option to forego the traditional cycle of [product development -> promotion -> sales] and instead pursue a [promotion -> sales -> development] path, which reduces the risk of irrecoverable sunk costs significantly. In a way, it shifts "risk" from the producer to the consumer.
- chucknelson 14y ago
  It's also one of the worst things about kickstarter. The risk is moved to us, the consumer, and if it falls through, kickstarter isn't doing anything about it. We've basically funded some employee salaries, etc. with nothing to show for it. I do think kickstarter is great, though.
  - hkmurakami 14y ago
    Definitely agree that said risk is the big question mark about the whole platform. Do you think that perhaps a few future scandals at Kickstarter would spur a "staged release" of funds to the project? (somewhat like how Greece receives its bailout funds in successive packages upon hitting milestones, rather than in one lump sum)
  - FreeKill 14y ago
    Very true. I do think in some circumstances it's valid for the consumer to take on the risk. There are a lot of fan projects out there where, from a profit perspective, it just doesn't make sense for a large backer to take a risk bringing it to market. However, if fan interest is high enough and potential customers are willing to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak, it's an interesting option. I'd personally love to see Kickstarter take it a step further and offer incentives where the backers can become more like Angel investors, but I'm sure there are a lot of difficulties involved in that...
    - Terretta 14y ago
      Kickstarter is perfect for products that fall into the "disposable income" budget. They're perfecting the definition of "disposable", with products that fall into a range of "If this turns out, I'll be in on it, if it doesn't, I'm out x-hundred bucks, so what?".
  - rhinosix 14y ago
    One of the flaws Kickstarter projects is they have very limited testing phases. Projects start with an almost-ready prototype which just needs a few touches before it goes into production. But in those final stages, like with anything, there are unforeseen obstacles and problems that come up. Backers have been given a release date, they've paid their money, and product development is very public. After a product has "finished" development it needs lengthy and rigorous testing, rethinking and redevelopment. Large numbers of users are very quick at finding bugs the devs never noticed. Sometimes products just aren't ready to be released - they need more time and money put into them. Private companies have the advantage of being able to push back release dates, or cancelling the project without ever announcing it to the public. A lot of Kickstarter comments are from people who paid X dollars, the release date has passed, and they want their product NOW. Or they've received their product, but it has some kind of flaw. If I was going to back a project I wouldn't do it with the intention of pre-ordering a working product. I would pay as much as I was willing to lose on a project I believe in - I see myself more as a supporter and beta-tester to get the product to where it needs to be. Maybe Kickstarter projects could elect to add a testing phase? A dev could ask for initial funding to produce a limited number of beta products, which would be sent out to selected testers who use the product, submit issues, and give feedback. After the bugs are worked out the product goes into full production. It could involve the community more in the development process, shift the expectation of receiving a perfectly working product, and improve the quality of the product.
  - mkaltenecker 14y ago
    What’s wrong with that if you know beforehand? Not everything will be on Kickstarter. This is not a systematic push to move responsibility to the customers. It’s just a fun distraction.
makmanalp 14y ago
Isn't that technically illegal since it's considered selling?

lordpenguin 14y ago

Yes, you are right. Even backing at the $99 level gets you the $99 console! THAT is value.

hkmurakami 14y ago

I personally think that this is the greatest value that kickstarter has brought us. We now have the option to forego the traditional cycle of [product development -> promotion -> sales] and instead pursue a [promotion -> sales -> development] path, which reduces the risk of irrecoverable sunk costs significantly. In a way, it shifts "risk" from the producer to the consumer.

chucknelson 14y ago
It's also one of the worst things about kickstarter. The risk is moved to us, the consumer, and if it falls through, kickstarter isn't doing anything about it. We've basically funded some employee salaries, etc. with nothing to show for it. I do think kickstarter is great, though.
- hkmurakami 14y ago
  Definitely agree that said risk is the big question mark about the whole platform. Do you think that perhaps a few future scandals at Kickstarter would spur a "staged release" of funds to the project? (somewhat like how Greece receives its bailout funds in successive packages upon hitting milestones, rather than in one lump sum)
- FreeKill 14y ago
  Very true. I do think in some circumstances it's valid for the consumer to take on the risk. There are a lot of fan projects out there where, from a profit perspective, it just doesn't make sense for a large backer to take a risk bringing it to market. However, if fan interest is high enough and potential customers are willing to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak, it's an interesting option. I'd personally love to see Kickstarter take it a step further and offer incentives where the backers can become more like Angel investors, but I'm sure there are a lot of difficulties involved in that...
  - Terretta 14y ago
    Kickstarter is perfect for products that fall into the "disposable income" budget. They're perfecting the definition of "disposable", with products that fall into a range of "If this turns out, I'll be in on it, if it doesn't, I'm out x-hundred bucks, so what?".
- rhinosix 14y ago
  One of the flaws Kickstarter projects is they have very limited testing phases. Projects start with an almost-ready prototype which just needs a few touches before it goes into production. But in those final stages, like with anything, there are unforeseen obstacles and problems that come up. Backers have been given a release date, they've paid their money, and product development is very public. After a product has "finished" development it needs lengthy and rigorous testing, rethinking and redevelopment. Large numbers of users are very quick at finding bugs the devs never noticed. Sometimes products just aren't ready to be released - they need more time and money put into them. Private companies have the advantage of being able to push back release dates, or cancelling the project without ever announcing it to the public. A lot of Kickstarter comments are from people who paid X dollars, the release date has passed, and they want their product NOW. Or they've received their product, but it has some kind of flaw. If I was going to back a project I wouldn't do it with the intention of pre-ordering a working product. I would pay as much as I was willing to lose on a project I believe in - I see myself more as a supporter and beta-tester to get the product to where it needs to be. Maybe Kickstarter projects could elect to add a testing phase? A dev could ask for initial funding to produce a limited number of beta products, which would be sent out to selected testers who use the product, submit issues, and give feedback. After the bugs are worked out the product goes into full production. It could involve the community more in the development process, shift the expectation of receiving a perfectly working product, and improve the quality of the product.
- mkaltenecker 14y ago
  What’s wrong with that if you know beforehand? Not everything will be on Kickstarter. This is not a systematic push to move responsibility to the customers. It’s just a fun distraction.

makmanalp 14y ago

Isn't that technically illegal since it's considered selling?