5 ms·

Kickstarter Should Do More to Protect Backers

17 points by Impossible 13y ago

Impossible 13y ago
Follow up: The board game mentioned in the headline has been picked up by Cryptozoic Entertainment. http://www.cryptozoic.com/articles/cryptozoic-saves-doom-came-atlantic-city-board-game http://www.cryptozoic.com/articles/cryptozoic-saves-doom-cam... Brings up the interesting question of how to handle KS projects that don't raise enough money to ship.
camus 13y ago
how many funded projects actually deliver something? i'd like to know the data...
- tlrobinson 13y ago
  Anecdotally, most. I've backed about 50 projects and none have failed to deliver, though plenty have been delayed.
- forgottenpaswrd 13y ago
  I funded way more than 50. All delivered, most of them at least 3 months delayed. I'm pretty certain now that I can predict the delay outcome just watching the video. I started writing down my predictions over 1 month ago. We will see how it goes...
- peroo 13y ago
  I think it's a bit early to say since Kickstarter only really took off about a year ago and many projects have longer schedules. That said, if the biggest failure Kickstarter has had so far is a 100k board game, then I'd call it a roaring success. I'm fairly certain that we're talking >99% delivery rate, even if they might not all deliver exactly what the backers expected.
brg 13y ago
The problem, as I see it, is that despite the company's best efforts, many backers simply don't understand the risks involved in backing a project. I think Kickstarter has done more than enough, but my prediction is that failures of this kind will not be tolerated by regulators. The US is very business friendly; considering limited liability and bankruptcy law. However on any front touching consumer protection the law often reaches too far, and punishes failure egregiously.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
lessnonymous 13y ago
It annoys me that this is going to gain traction. The only thing that should happen is that to fund something you have to click some really plainly worded opt-ins. But I'm betting regulators will get involved and remove this funding option for those who can't afford lawyers who specialize in crowd funding. Or can't then afford the discovery that will need to be done before they can request (crowd) funding. [ I understand that I may lose all my money and that I have no recourse ] [ I can afford to lose this money and not get anything in return ] [ I understand that this is speculation and that only X% of projects deliver ]
pfisch 13y ago
Seriously, how could you fail to make a board game with over 100k? He must've just had no idea at all about how to efficiently allocate the funds.... I mean I am on a team that raised like 170k to make a god damn video game and he can't make a board game with over 100. That makes no sense at all...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Impossible 13y ago
  Board games can often be more costly than video games because you have to manufacture (and ship) physical goods. I backed a purely pen and paper Kickstarter (Mobile Frame Zero) that had had some issues with shipping after they had printed all of the books, for example. Video games do tend to require larger teams and longer development times though, so it's a trade off.
  - pfisch 13y ago
    That is true but they should benefit greatly from scale, and this one has over 1000 backers to work with. Also their lowest tier is $50, and that is only for a paper and cardboard set.
- egypturnash 13y ago
  A cross country move. Setting up a game company: quite possibly using chunks of KS money to license other games before this one was actually produced. Setting up a film production company. Possibly with game KS money, the timing is right. Basically from what I've read the dude who ran the Doom That Came To Atlantic City KS is a failed serial entrepreneur, possibly a scam artist. There's a long thread on BGG about the details.
forgottenpaswrd 13y ago
No, they should not. What makes places like California vibrant is the entrepreneurial spirit, and that means risking capital on new ventures that could or not work. In Europe(or Asia) is more like, If I put money you guarantee me that I am getting my money back, if not I will own you for the rest of your live. You have to prove that you have experience being successful in order to success, but if you were you would not need them in the first place. So nothing risky or new is made on Europe, if it is,it is bought by American companies like Skype. No risk, so no google, no Amazon, no facebook, no Microsoft, even having probably more educated people. Kickstarter guaranteeing projects would mean no risk projects, and huge bureaucracy cost. Today it is my work as a backer to evaluate projects, this is my responsibility, I don't want my big brother to do it for me.
- drrotmos 13y ago
  Skype may be American now, but it's origins are clearly European. "Skype was founded in 2003 by Janus Friis from Denmark and Niklas Zennström from Sweden. The Skype software was developed by the Estonians Ahti Heinla, Priit Kasesalu, and Jaan Tallinn, together with Friis and Zennström were also behind the peer-to-peer file sharing software Kazaa. In August 2003, the first public beta version was released." Until it was acquired by eBay, it was a Luxembourgish company. I don't know how a company could be more European in origin.
  - kristiandupont 13y ago
    I think he meant "European companies like Skype are bought by American companies".
DHowett 13y ago
From the article: > If you're unhappy with the "reward," or if the project never gets created, well, tough. Take it up with the project creator. However, from the Kickstarter terms of service quoted directly below: > Kickstarter does not offer refunds. A Project Creator is not required to grant a Backer's request for a refund unless the Project Creator is unable or unwilling to fulfill the reward. I believe that the project "never getting[sic] created" would certainly be cause to deem the Project Creator as "unable ... to fulfill the reward."
robryan 13y ago
Was chatting to some people about this today. One distinction I would make is the difference between getting the finished product as a reward or getting another incentive as a reward. If I start up a kickstarter for a video game and I fail to deliver the video game I think that is fine. If I also fail to deliver something like tshirt rewards though that is plain mismanagement.
w_t_payne 13y ago
Remember that KickStarter is really about giving donations to cool projects ... not about investing in something, or buying a product. This is a really important niche, and they should NOT be bullied into abandoning it. If you want to buy a product with little-to-no risk, then go to Amazon.com. If you want to connect with individuals trying to do cool stuff, help them with their project, and maybe get something in return, then Kickstarter is for you. Certainly, Fraudsters and abusive individuals will always be drawn to tools like Kickstarter - and the team there need to be vigilant to keep blatant abusers away from the system.... A few will always get through. That is a risk that we all take ... but it is a risk that is well worth it for the service that Kickstarter provides to "fringe" projects that are simply too high-risk to attract conventional funding.
- DanBC 13y ago
  I strongly agree that Kickstarter's mission is great, and they should stick to that. Perhaps they need some clearer warnings. Even with recent projects I see people complaining that they haven't got the items they've "bought". I haven't seen much data to show how many Kickstarter projects there have been, broken down by successfully funded (or not) and delivered (or not) and out-right scams (or not).
bencollier49 13y ago
As far as I can tell, what makes this one different is that the "Project Creator" took up a boardgame which already had a following, roped in the artists and creators behind it, and then used their names and artwork to get the project funded. Of course, they had no control over his actions. Ordinarily I'd look at the past output of the project creators to decide whether to fund a Kickstarter. Which is why funding Ryan North's choosable-path-adventure project was such a no-brainer. So this particular instance is unusual, the guy behind it traded on the reputations of other people.
jheriko 13y ago
wait, what? idiocy is its own problem... investing money is gambling, don't let the fact that we pin our entire economy on this fool you, its still basically a bad idea that only pans out because of luck.

17 points by Impossible 13y ago

Follow up: The board game mentioned in the headline has been picked up by Cryptozoic Entertainment. http://www.cryptozoic.com/articles/cryptozoic-saves-doom-came-atlantic-city-board-game http://www.cryptozoic.com/articles/cryptozoic-saves-doom-cam... Brings up the interesting question of how to handle KS projects that don't raise enough money to ship.

camus 13y ago

how many funded projects actually deliver something? i'd like to know the data...

tlrobinson 13y ago
Anecdotally, most. I've backed about 50 projects and none have failed to deliver, though plenty have been delayed.
forgottenpaswrd 13y ago
I funded way more than 50. All delivered, most of them at least 3 months delayed. I'm pretty certain now that I can predict the delay outcome just watching the video. I started writing down my predictions over 1 month ago. We will see how it goes...
peroo 13y ago
I think it's a bit early to say since Kickstarter only really took off about a year ago and many projects have longer schedules. That said, if the biggest failure Kickstarter has had so far is a 100k board game, then I'd call it a roaring success. I'm fairly certain that we're talking >99% delivery rate, even if they might not all deliver exactly what the backers expected.

brg 13y ago

The problem, as I see it, is that despite the company's best efforts, many backers simply don't understand the risks involved in backing a project. I think Kickstarter has done more than enough, but my prediction is that failures of this kind will not be tolerated by regulators. The US is very business friendly; considering limited liability and bankruptcy law. However on any front touching consumer protection the law often reaches too far, and punishes failure egregiously.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

lessnonymous 13y ago

It annoys me that this is going to gain traction. The only thing that should happen is that to fund something you have to click some really plainly worded opt-ins. But I'm betting regulators will get involved and remove this funding option for those who can't afford lawyers who specialize in crowd funding. Or can't then afford the discovery that will need to be done before they can request (crowd) funding. [ I understand that I may lose all my money and that I have no recourse ] [ I can afford to lose this money and not get anything in return ] [ I understand that this is speculation and that only X% of projects deliver ]

pfisch 13y ago

Seriously, how could you fail to make a board game with over 100k? He must've just had no idea at all about how to efficiently allocate the funds.... I mean I am on a team that raised like 170k to make a god damn video game and he can't make a board game with over 100. That makes no sense at all...

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Impossible 13y ago
Board games can often be more costly than video games because you have to manufacture (and ship) physical goods. I backed a purely pen and paper Kickstarter (Mobile Frame Zero) that had had some issues with shipping after they had printed all of the books, for example. Video games do tend to require larger teams and longer development times though, so it's a trade off.
- pfisch 13y ago
  That is true but they should benefit greatly from scale, and this one has over 1000 backers to work with. Also their lowest tier is $50, and that is only for a paper and cardboard set.
egypturnash 13y ago
A cross country move. Setting up a game company: quite possibly using chunks of KS money to license other games before this one was actually produced. Setting up a film production company. Possibly with game KS money, the timing is right. Basically from what I've read the dude who ran the Doom That Came To Atlantic City KS is a failed serial entrepreneur, possibly a scam artist. There's a long thread on BGG about the details.

forgottenpaswrd 13y ago

No, they should not. What makes places like California vibrant is the entrepreneurial spirit, and that means risking capital on new ventures that could or not work. In Europe(or Asia) is more like, If I put money you guarantee me that I am getting my money back, if not I will own you for the rest of your live. You have to prove that you have experience being successful in order to success, but if you were you would not need them in the first place. So nothing risky or new is made on Europe, if it is,it is bought by American companies like Skype. No risk, so no google, no Amazon, no facebook, no Microsoft, even having probably more educated people. Kickstarter guaranteeing projects would mean no risk projects, and huge bureaucracy cost. Today it is my work as a backer to evaluate projects, this is my responsibility, I don't want my big brother to do it for me.

drrotmos 13y ago
Skype may be American now, but it's origins are clearly European. "Skype was founded in 2003 by Janus Friis from Denmark and Niklas Zennström from Sweden. The Skype software was developed by the Estonians Ahti Heinla, Priit Kasesalu, and Jaan Tallinn, together with Friis and Zennström were also behind the peer-to-peer file sharing software Kazaa. In August 2003, the first public beta version was released." Until it was acquired by eBay, it was a Luxembourgish company. I don't know how a company could be more European in origin.
- kristiandupont 13y ago
  I think he meant "European companies like Skype are bought by American companies".

DHowett 13y ago

From the article: > If you're unhappy with the "reward," or if the project never gets created, well, tough. Take it up with the project creator. However, from the Kickstarter terms of service quoted directly below: > Kickstarter does not offer refunds. A Project Creator is not required to grant a Backer's request for a refund unless the Project Creator is unable or unwilling to fulfill the reward. I believe that the project "never getting[sic] created" would certainly be cause to deem the Project Creator as "unable ... to fulfill the reward."

robryan 13y ago

Was chatting to some people about this today. One distinction I would make is the difference between getting the finished product as a reward or getting another incentive as a reward. If I start up a kickstarter for a video game and I fail to deliver the video game I think that is fine. If I also fail to deliver something like tshirt rewards though that is plain mismanagement.

w_t_payne 13y ago

Remember that KickStarter is really about giving donations to cool projects ... not about investing in something, or buying a product. This is a really important niche, and they should NOT be bullied into abandoning it. If you want to buy a product with little-to-no risk, then go to Amazon.com. If you want to connect with individuals trying to do cool stuff, help them with their project, and maybe get something in return, then Kickstarter is for you. Certainly, Fraudsters and abusive individuals will always be drawn to tools like Kickstarter - and the team there need to be vigilant to keep blatant abusers away from the system.... A few will always get through. That is a risk that we all take ... but it is a risk that is well worth it for the service that Kickstarter provides to "fringe" projects that are simply too high-risk to attract conventional funding.

DanBC 13y ago
I strongly agree that Kickstarter's mission is great, and they should stick to that. Perhaps they need some clearer warnings. Even with recent projects I see people complaining that they haven't got the items they've "bought". I haven't seen much data to show how many Kickstarter projects there have been, broken down by successfully funded (or not) and delivered (or not) and out-right scams (or not).

bencollier49 13y ago

As far as I can tell, what makes this one different is that the "Project Creator" took up a boardgame which already had a following, roped in the artists and creators behind it, and then used their names and artwork to get the project funded. Of course, they had no control over his actions. Ordinarily I'd look at the past output of the project creators to decide whether to fund a Kickstarter. Which is why funding Ryan North's choosable-path-adventure project was such a no-brainer. So this particular instance is unusual, the guy behind it traded on the reputations of other people.

jheriko 13y ago

wait, what? idiocy is its own problem... investing money is gambling, don't let the fact that we pin our entire economy on this fool you, its still basically a bad idea that only pans out because of luck.