3 ms·

I've given money to a few KS campaigns, and while there are a few I don't regret there are certainly some I look back at as being a sucker at the time. I donate

I've given money to a few KS campaigns, and while there are a few I don't regret there are certainly some I look back at as being a sucker at the time. I donated to Double Fine based on the knowledge that they have had a hell of a rough history with investors and publishers. The chance to get a game out through donations was offset by the fact that no investor would touch their game. Investing in their game was under the pretence of we either fund it and make it, or the game never gets made. I also invested some money into the Shadowrun remake, a new studio run by some industry vets who as I far as I know are making their first game. In this case I feel like I got suckered - A new company, a classic IP, industry vets - It would seem like a great bet by an investor. But it seems to me that they got to have their cake and eat it too - They get to have people invest their money into funding their development, but if they become the next EA/Activision (and who is to say they won’t), they don't owe anyone jack all in returns. It's a suckers bet. They want to risk the money of other people, but not share the spoils at the end of the day. I was talking to a friend the other night about this and we came up with a metric to measure KS campaigns by. It's a simple question of "Would this interest an investor?". If the answer is no but I think it's an interesting project I'll throw some money towards them. If the answer is yes, they should be offering the rewards of an investor, not just pan-handling for money and shifting the risk to fans.

alexqgb 14y ago
Your approach depends on a very simplistic idea about investors. In reality, the fall on a spectrum. Some demand low returns but insist on a high level of confidence about the outcome. Others are investors in name only; what they really do is glorified gambling. They are almost sure to lose, but the (slim) possibility of an outsize reward goads them on. The thing to appreciate is that Kickstarter can help creators validate an investment-worthy idea in the marketplace, shifting it from the high risk / high reward category to the lower risk / lower reward category. That means more money from eventual sales can go into product and market development, instead of an inveator's bank account. In many cases, the need to pay an inordinate return kills good ideas in the cradle. By giving creators a way to lower the cost of the capital they depend on KS opens a range of possibilities that would remain closed if high-stakes gamblers were the only bankers in town. If you and your friends don't want to help these project either, that's fine. But why take the extra step of mindlessly smearing the people who run them? Personally, I see Kickstarter's ability to atomize risk as a good thing, especially when it can drive down the cost of capital while checking its more extortionate tendencies. I've never met a "panhandler" who can do that.

alexqgb 14y ago

Your approach depends on a very simplistic idea about investors. In reality, the fall on a spectrum. Some demand low returns but insist on a high level of confidence about the outcome. Others are investors in name only; what they really do is glorified gambling. They are almost sure to lose, but the (slim) possibility of an outsize reward goads them on. The thing to appreciate is that Kickstarter can help creators validate an investment-worthy idea in the marketplace, shifting it from the high risk / high reward category to the lower risk / lower reward category. That means more money from eventual sales can go into product and market development, instead of an inveator's bank account. In many cases, the need to pay an inordinate return kills good ideas in the cradle. By giving creators a way to lower the cost of the capital they depend on KS opens a range of possibilities that would remain closed if high-stakes gamblers were the only bankers in town. If you and your friends don't want to help these project either, that's fine. But why take the extra step of mindlessly smearing the people who run them? Personally, I see Kickstarter's ability to atomize risk as a good thing, especially when it can drive down the cost of capital while checking its more extortionate tendencies. I've never met a "panhandler" who can do that.