As a progressive younger person who has been swimming in internet culture for 15 years now, I find my attitude, wants, needs, and desires are almost completely left out of pop culture. The news rarely people with my point of view on it. The games I like to play are rarely made and instead it's CoD 143. The music I like isn't on the radio most of the time. I feel like there are a lot of people like me who like niche things they've found on the internet yet get no respect in the more 'mainstream' world (NOTE: I'm not using that world with a negative connotation). I like random stuff. Things like KickStarter give people like me a say. It lets me 'invest' in a project that would not get picked up by the normal distribution channels. It's almost a political statement. If I have the ability to throw Tim Schafer $20 so he can make a game without the normal pressures of the modern gaming industry (make it appeal to as many people as possible which inevitably leas to dumbing things down) then I'm going to give it a shot. It's literally the only way I see to get involved. It's putting my money where my mouth is.
So. Totally. This. As someone who is probably (only slightly) older than you, I couldn't help but read your post with an exponentially increasing sense of recognition. The Internet has been my ultimate refuge from the banal mediocrity that is popular "culture", and I really think things like Kickstarter are a wonderful, big part of that. "Disintermediation", while a cumbersome word, describes perfectly things like Kickstarter and forums (which were the recent focus of Discourse) where people can form communities that care about non-mainstream topics. 20 years ago, probably half the things on Kickstarter wouldn't have been possible, and if you wanted to discuss a non-popular topic in-depth, you had to travel to enclaves of like-minded people, or were out of luck.
This post really resonated with me. As you implied, it's really not an anti-mainstream thing. I completely understand why publishers want to sell CoD 143. There are also people like me who would rather play Star Citizen. With crowdfunding we finally have a way to simultaneously express our desire for those products and to give them a shot at becoming a reality.
Nothing to do with the age. You have a personality that represents maybe 1% or 2% of the global population.
Historically cities were the place were a significant critic mass of people interested on a specific topic could meet, as it could put millions of people in the same place, you will have 0.01x10e6 = x*1000 ->thousands of people sharing, learning upon each other, growing, and truly understanding you and you them.
From those potential thousand people you will probably only get to meet hundreds, if you do have the opportunity. If you don't you will feel isolated and misunderstood all your life.
Now with Internet you have thousands of millions of people in the same place. There are barriers of communication, but they slowly go away(kickstarter success depends on video communication which makes for a more personal communication). This will only improve in the future.
I'm in this same boat. However, I give very little to kickstarter. I think I've helped fund 2 or 3 things at the lowest teir (like tim schafer's). For most things I am interested in I let other people fund them while I wait for them to hit retail with absolutely nothing lost.
Thank you so much for saying this. One of the main reason I contribute to projects on Kickstarter is that I KNOW the big studios/publishers/whatever are consolidating. They're racing to produce the things with the biggest mass appeal. Sometimes, I just want to see niche things survive. '
It's the same reason I go to the small businesses in my neighborhood sometimes. I can get similar products elsewhere for cheaper, but their existence in my neighborhood makes my neighborhood experience better. I think of it like an awesome tax.
Do you participate at other sites, like IndieGoGo? I ask because I have a project that I think would get traction but KS has strange rules around some types of projects and mine is excluded.
I've taken to kickstarting (et al) about $20 per month even if there's nothing I really want. Think of it as a tithe to a weird little religion. Lots of people more sane than I give a great deal more to churches and charities to make their communities better.
Why? Because I want to live in a world where people do the kinds of projects that kickstarter funds. It's better that way.
Same here; there was recently a pay it forward thing going around social networks where you offer a gift of any value to 5 friends who sign up if they agree to do the same. All my gifts are sourced from the rewards of Kickstarter projects since that plays into the altruistic/community theme.
There's also a guy who's written a script to randomly buy him presents from Amazon, which ties in a little with the per month budget for an investment in something random theme. It probably won't be long before someone does the same for KS.
I might agree however I've been burned twice already by Kickstarter projects. It's make me very gun shy.
However, I just got my Pebble watch and I'm very pleased. Might restart my interests.
I would be more willing if Kickstarter management was even slightly involved with failed KS projects. Their "It's not our fault" attitude makes me angry.
I think that's the wrong attitude - you shouldn't think of Kickstarter as shopping. I've funded sixty projects on KS, so far, and I don't keep track of which ones have succeeded. Okay, yeah, the Pebble was kinda expensive for a random lark. But usually I just kick in $5 to $25 dollars - less than I'd spend going out to dinner. And maybe, some months later, I get a surprise package with something cool in it. I feel good about that.
I think the critical mass conversion towards crowd-funding comes when you have some protection in place for failed projects. Once that happens, and "average" Joes start to accept the "I'll put money into whatever I want to see" potential, we can cut out a lot of toxic habits and leeches in society by replacing the "put money into product to make more money" with "put money into product because I want product".
I just did the maths and all, and it turns I've been spending approximately $30 a month on Kickstarter projectsfrom since I joined (to fund Andy Baio's Kind of Bloop) without even noticing it myself...
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.
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.
I think kickstarting with the expectation that you receive something is the wrong idea. I think it works especially well for funding people to create media or fund performances. It's a way for us to help fund/create the world we want to live in.
Personally I would donate to a kickstarter project (or any similar platform) that seemed like projects I would like to build myself, but didn't have the time or skill to do so.
It seems too often that people forget that financial gain is not the end all be all motivation to work on something. It's like asking somebody why they're sitting on the couch watching TV, for free. Or why you're driving that car for free. It's because you enjoy doing it.
It's not a strange person who would want to create something without getting paid for it, even if others benefit. It's not even a strange person who would pay money out of pocket to create something that everyone else got to benefit from for free. So it's not a strange person who donates money toward an idea they're interested in, expecting nothing in return.
I used to work in the game industry. Recently one of my former co-workers was laid off, and he is using this time to finish a game he has been developing on the side over the last few years.
Kickstarter is the easiest and most socially acceptable for him to put his game out there and ask people to contribute to his development effort. After a couple of days, he already has almost $2k pledged of his $15k goal, and I am willing to bet he would not be anywhere near there without Kickstarter's platform.
If you would like to support Tom and his retro tactical rpg with a fully destructible environment, check it out here: http://kck.st/VVPEio
Surely in many cases the incentive is to get a pre-order of some item, possibly at a reduced price that you might not have had a chance to purchase at all otherwise?
If you factor in both risk and time to receive product, the discounts that (sometimes, not always) happen in practice aren't nearly worth it, IMO.
Eg. say someone is offering some new gadget for $100 as a Kickstarter reward, and they then raise the price to $150 when it is an actual product (this doesn't seem to even happen much, the product price for products that do successfully make it to market is more often the same as the Kickstarter price). You save $50 but in the meantime your money is tied up for months with nothing to show for it, and it is entirely possible you will never get an item. I'd rather just pay the $150 myself and get the product 2 day shipping when it is actually a product.
This doesn't mean Kickstarter is useless to me as there are some cases (more the art stuff than the gadget stuff) where I think supporting the project is more important than receiving the end product, but I certainly don't understand why so many people backed OUYA, for example. I'm glad they did because I will buy one when they are available via retail, but I didn't back it.
Sure there's a risk, which can arguably (and subjectively) be weighed against the pros, such as receiving a discount, or the possibility that if you don't help fund it there might never be a final product to buy at a higher price.
As to your money being tied up for months - obviously it depends on the amount, and on the buyer, but I'm sure quite a few funders can tie up $100 for a few months without caring. If I'm going to spend $100 on something that's available in 6 months I don't really care if it comes out of my bank account now or then.
Yeah you're right, I guess I was thinking in the context of things I have supported on Kickstarter in the past. I'd definitely share your view for some things.
Or you believe in what they're doing enough you want to make sure it happens (or in the case of stretch goals, that the goals happen).
Hell I just saw a KS I'm probably going to throw money in for where the main product is going to be free, the incentives are mostly stickers plus a few webinars/videos around ebook topics
I just checked out that Kickstarter video. Where does it say it'll be free? In fact, I don't see how it could be, at least in the long term.
They are building a web app. It will require ongoing costs to host, support and enhance. I don't think their $10,000 goal (of which they have raised over 50% more than that) could possibly cover these costs.
What you're doing when you fund an idea like the above, is funding a startup. They will own the technology and can do with it whatever they want. That distinction may or may not matter, but it's important.
Nobody in their right mind would pay $10 for a couple stickers. You are not getting the value from the little token gifts. You are getting value in feeling good about helping someone achieve their dream...and potentially building something you intend to use.
You will not benefit economically from giving your economic assistance in helping get their idea off the ground. For tons of people giving money on Kickstart, that is just fine. The lesson is not everyone is wholly economically motivated. That's pretty cool.
It's strange, since to me that seems like the most reasonable use of KS, not the least as the "not a store" attitude might suggest. The only sort of things I might consider are products that are not revolutionary and have a straightforward path to manufacturing. Things like that salt-gun for shooting bugs. Not stuff like "video games that are going to change the face of education" or whatnot.
First Kickstart I ever backed (back in 2009) was to help a friend take her play to the Edinburgh Fringe Festival. Purely friendship, and pride in her accomplishment.
As someone who ran a successful Kickstarter campaign, I think it's amazing. For an inventor / creator it solves two key issues: raising necessary funding to make ideas come to live, and a "go to market" strategy to validate it. Especially for hardware ideas. I've also backed projects due to the pure excitement that someone is out there interested in making something that I want or need and don't have the time to do it myself.
I can't really get into Kickstarter. It's one sided for people like me that don't live in the US or UK (I'm in Australia).
I'm not even sure if I would run a Kickstarter campaign (I have a few things that are would-be candidates). Still the fact that I'm not able to irks me to the point of not wanting to participate.
It's an economy where I can put money in, but it's not possible to take money out.
The article resonates with me. Most of the kickstarter projects have a product as their deliverable, and I thought of that as the norm.
Recently, I came across a page for a large-scale hobby project[1]. As I'm a fan of that niche, and no-one has ever done it before, I wanted to see it succeed - really much. Even though I know full out that I will only ever get to watch other people play with it, it still gives me the immense satisfaction of seeing it done. It's a similar concept to the article, I think.
Seriously? "Zuran Orb vis-à-vis Claws of Gix"? You either need a 0 cost artifact for a combo, in which case they are the same, or they serve quite different purposes, in which case, why are you comparing them?
I've had reservations about Kickstarter [0], but I've backed maybe $800 worth of projects and the experience has been positive [1].
However, I do maintain that Kickstarter needs to do a lot more to make it clear what pledging entails, specifically that it doesn't equate to buying or even pre-ordering.
Exactly. KickStarter is great if you have the right expectations: every donation is a gift (and a gamble), not a purchase. If you're not willing to risk losing money on a failed project, then don't donate.
It's a tricky line for KickStarter to walk: they need to set the right expectations with users to stay credible and prevent backlash, yet they risk scaring people too much and reducing donations, which is their bread and butter.
Honestly I'm just blown away at how decent this article is. I feel like most NYT articles I read on internet-ish companies come totally miss the point but this hit Kickstarter perfectly. After rounds of negative press for Kickstarter, it is nice to see a big old media company write something that at least kind of "gets" Kickstarter.
imho Yes , but not for "work-in-progress" products (in case of hardware stuff).If there is no working prototype then no.
If it is a software i would look at the person record and how many successfull product that guy has finished and delivered and there is no reason why the "kickstartee" cannot provide a working prototype either ( with limited functionalities , ... )
